By Kris Goracke

Reporter

Approximately 40 residents attended the City of Starbuck public hearing held on Monday, August 11.  Many expressed to the council similar concerns about the lack of communication and the poor workmanship on the 2020 Road Project.

Originally scheduled for July, the assessment hearing was postponed to August due to a clerical error in calculations by the engineering firm of Widseth Smith Nolting & Associates. Larry VanHout from Widseth, opened the hearing with a brief presentation summarizing the project’s history and timeline.

According to the presentation, the city held its first public meeting to discuss the road project in December 2017. A second public meeting occurred in December 2019, followed by another in February 2020. Construction of the project was completed in October of 2020. In 2024, the project costs were finalized, and residents impacted by the project are now facing an assessment covering 35% of the project’s cost. This assessment varies among residents based on the services provided—from street and sidewalk improvements to water and sewer upgrades. The assessments vary widely, from $600 to nearly $12,000 per parcel.

The total cost of the road project is $1,959,349.00. Landowners affected by the project are assessed 35% of the total cost, while the remaining 65% is covered by the city’s budget.

After the presentation, VanHout read the submitted appeals. The first appeal was a resident who had purchased an adjoining property after unsuccessfully urging the city to enforce its blight ordinance. The resident explained, “We had to buy this lot because the city wouldn’t address the issues. The abandoned house was an eyesore; the yard was overgrown with weeds, and we were constantly picking up needles and condoms from the property.”

She further questioned, “Our water enters the house on the side street where we live. We do not need or use water or sewer on the other lot. Why are we being charged for something we will not use?”

VanHout responded, “If the lot can be sold in the future, the new owners may want water and sewer.”

Starbuck Mayor Gary Swenson added, “You need to remember the infrastructure is almost 100 years old. The city could have assessed you 50%, but we settled on 35%.”

Council member Chris Taffee moved to deny the appeal, seconded by Swenson, and the motion passed unanimously by council members Dane Christensen and Mary Baukol.  Steve Gorder was absent from the meeting.

The next appeal was from Blaine Pederson, representing The Starbuck Depot Society. Pederson explained that The Depot had requested a water shutoff in 2018 after extensive water damage to the Skoglund Building. Since the society no longer needed water, they had kept it off since that time. He explained that the building was restored as a display area, with no water or sewer needs.

“This project began during COVID and many of us were focused on other things. This led to a lack of communication and understanding. We did not foresee how this project would impact our nonprofit organization, as we had informed the city numerous times that we did not want water or sewer hookup,” stated Pederson.

“We tried to communicate with the city, but there was no response. Then, when the project proceeded with the water utility hookup, water began flooding the Skoglund Building through disabled plumbing fixtures. We pleaded with the construction crew to shut off the water. We used fans to dry out the recently replaced flooring and subflooring. We felt helpless,” he continued.

“The Starbuck Depot Society has been a 501C3 entity for over 30 years. Our modest annual operating budget is carefully managed through self-fundraising and donations. We are a small organization that cannot afford a $6,000 assessment. It would hurt us financially. We feel The Depot is a focal point and center meeting place for our city, and we ask the city to consider our appeal,” he said.

Swenson asked, “Is there a reason you could not sell the property? It’s on the main road and would be an ideal place for a business.”

Christensen recognized the importance of The Depot to the community. He suggested the council consider future fundraising and support to help the nonprofit organization.

Christensen moved to deny the appeal, which Swenson seconded, and the motion passed with all in favor.

VanHout continued addressing the appeals, many of which cited concerns about the lack of communication from the city. One appeal from Michael Dinsmore highlighted the communication issues and the delay between the project’s completion and the assessment hearing. All of these appeals were denied by the council.

Jake Sanders, whose property is at 513 North Main Street, addressed the council as he was being charged for two hookups. “I have one address. The one lot has been abandoned for 50 years and does not need water or sewer, and now I have an assessment of $23,000,” he said.

Sanders, who operates a trailer business on the property, also expressed frustration with the city’s lack of support for new businesses. “Starting a business in town has not been a welcoming experience,” he said.

Swenson responded, “You made a lot of promises to the city.”

“I was told I only had a two-year conditional use permit. At that time, I had already invested money into the business. Why would I invest more if I didn’t have my business in two years?” Sanders asked. “Better communication between the city and business owners is needed.”

The council denied Sanders’ appeal.

Starbuck resident Bruce Rieland addressed the council not to appeal his assessment but to request that the city fix issues with his lawn. Rieland, who has appeared before the council several times over the past years about this concern, once again shared how the project has altered the runoff onto his lawn and left large rocks and weeds where his lawn once was.

“I’ve asked the city several times to address this problem, but nothing happens. Then, I get asked by the police to mow down the weeds—the weeds you planted. I have spent money and time trying to fix my lawn. I’ve moved buckets of rocks from my property because you didn’t do your job,” he claimed.

“Why do I have to fix your screw-up and still pay? Why? Why am I being assessed when you didn’t do your job?” he asked.

“We got grants to help fix the roads. And, although it may not be a perfect job, I think we ended with pretty good results,” Swenson responded.

Rieland continued, “You guys messed up. This isn’t MnDOT’s problem because you signed off on the project. Do I need a lawyer to fight you?”

“Yep,” said Swenson.

“Hey Buckshot, we weren’t involved with the road project; this is MnDOT’s work,” added council member Mary Baukol.

When notified that his time was up, Rieland replied, “I don’t care if my time is up. I want an answer—you are the mayor—give me an answer.”

“This is a weak mayor form of government,” said Swenson, “it’s not up to me; it’s up to the council.” 

In a weak government mayor-council form of government, the mayor’s role is limited compared to a strong mayor system.  For example, the mayor typically does not vote on council matters, except in cases of a tie.  The mayor usually does not make motions or second motions during council meetings.  Instead council members are responsible for making motions. While the mayor may preside over council meetings, and facilitate discussions, their role is more of a ceremonial leader or moderator.  The mayor also has limited executive powers.  In many cases it is the council who appoints key officials like a city clerk or department heads, rather than the mayor.  And last, the mayor generally does not have the authority to direct the administration.

At this point, a Starbuck police officer was called in to remove Rieland.

As Swenson prepared to close the public hearing, those still waiting to speak objected, so the meeting continued.

Although many who spoke at this point were not seeking an appeal, they asked the city to address the poor workmanship done to their lawns. Several residents along Highway 28/29 expressed concerns about soil erosion, big rocks, and weeds due to the road project. “The workers were not respectful of people’s property. You—the city—signed off on this work, and it was not done properly,” said Garth Larson.

“When you want to sell your home, people don’t look underground to see the new pipes—they look at the outside, the yard. And now, our front lawns look like trash,” he added.

Adam Gibson echoed Larson’s sentiments: “During Heritage Days when people were coming to our town, I was embarrassed by how the properties looked. The streets and sidewalks are a nice improvement, but they did a poor job restoring people’s property. The workmanship was poor, and the city should be held accountable because you signed off on the work.”

Next, Aslyn Hasskamp addressed the council with similar concerns. “We have the same issues as many of our neighbors. Where we once had flowers, we now have rocks and weeds. Is that what I’m paying for? Rocks and weeds? We moved here thinking Starbuck would be a great place to live, but it has been disappointing. I expected better leadership from the city.”

Swenson replied, “The previous owners managed to have nice flowers before the road construction—why can’t you?”

Hasskamp answered, “Because we were left with nothing but rocks and weeds after the road project. Our flowers are gone, the weeds are too many, and we are constantly picking rocks out of our lawn.”

“This process is a reflection on you,” she concluded. “Many other cities use surplus tax funds to pay for big projects like this. Why isn’t the city doing the same?”

Swenson responded, “We don’t make those decisions. The tax dollars go to the county; they’re not ours.”

Lastly, Dan Jahn, owner of Peddler Dan’s, asked, “When will the street signs that were in front of my business return? Also, will the curbs be painted yellow like they were before? It’s the small things that seem to get overlooked,” he noted.

A few appeals were granted for deferment of special assessments for senior citizens, disabled, and military personnel. A deferral is not forgiveness of the evaluation or an exemption, exclusion, or reduction of any amount due. It is simply a delay in payment of the assessment. Eventually, the assessment must be paid with compounded interest.

This concluded the public hearing.