Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-11-06 September 11, 2006 Page 1 of 6 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the City Council for the City of St. Joseph met in special session on Monday, September 11, 2006 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. Members Present: Mayor Richard Carlbom, Councilors AI Rassier, Dale Wick, Ross Rieke, Renee Symanietz, City Administrator Judy Weyrens City Representatives Present: City Engineer Tracy Ekola, City Attorney Sue Dege Others Present: Ellen & Bob Wahlstrom, Linda Hutchinson, Jim & MaryAnn Graeve, Harvey & Nancy Notch, Steve Frank Approve AQenda: Symanietz made a motion to approve the agenda as presented; seconded by Rassier and passed unanimously. Police Officer Oath of Office: Chief Jansky approached the councilors to introduce the newest police officer, Justin Tiffany. He stated that both Officers Klein and Meyer, Field Training Officers, have been working with Tiffany and he seems to be doing well so far. Weyrens administered the Police Officer Oath of Office to Tiffany. Liquor License. La Plavette: Weyrens stated that although there was no information presented to the Council for review, the Liquor License application for the La Playette has been submitted and deemed to be complete. The new license holder is Mark Zimmer. Zimmer approached the Council and stated that he anticipates opening the bar on September 20th or as soon as the vendors deliver the necessary products. Wick clarified that previous liquor violations do not carry forward to the new owner. Rassier made a motion to approve the liquor license for the La Playette. The motion was seconded by Symanietz and passed unanimously. BudQet Discussion: Weyrens presented the Council with the proposed preliminary budget including the proposed tax levy. The proposed budget for 2007 includes a tax levy in the amount of $ 1,588,060 of which $ 988,569 is the General Fund levy. After certification of the preliminary budget the City will receive the growth rate determining the exact budget impact. The Council has the opportunity to review the budget at the Truth in Taxation hearing; however, the budget cannot be increased. Wick made a motion to approve resolution 2006-029 adopting the 2007 budget as presented. The motion was seconded by Symanietz and passed unanimously. Capital Improvement Plan: Weyrens reminded the Council that a special meeting has been established for reviewing the proposed five year Capital Improvement Plan. If time allows the water and sewer rates will also be discussed and reviewed. Y:z Cent Sales Tax: Wick questioned when the Y:z cent sales tax would be up for discussion purposes. Weyrens stated that the City has received approximately $99,000 through June 2006. Before funds can be expended the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between the area Cities must be executed. Weyrens stated that St. Cloud has drafted the JPA for review and comment. Part Time Police Staff: Jansky approached the Council to request additional administrative staff. The Police Secretary has been busy with transcriptions and statements and has fallen about 1 Y:z months behind in entering ICR's. Weyrens stated that the Police Secretary has been working overtime to try an catch up with data entry. From a financial stand point it is more efficient to hire a part time on call person than pay time and one half for overtime. Jansky estimated that an additional 20 hours per month is required. Rassier questioned whether or not there is enough room for an additional person. Jansky stated that the front area has been designed for two staff members. Further, the part time staff member would most September 11, 2006 Page 2 of 6 likely work evenings or weekends. Carlbom questioned if only one person can enter the information in to the RMS system. Jansky responded that for accuracy reasons, only one person enters the information into the computer. If information is not entered correctly it cannot be searched easily. Wick questioned the amount of training that would be needed. Jansky stated that it would take about 4 hours. He also questioned if the City is allowed to hire a temporary or part-time individual to do the data entry. Weyrens explained that the City is allowed to hire additional help, as work is not being taken away from the full- time employee. Based on the question raised by Carlbom, Rieke questioned if the officer inputs any of the information into the system. Jansky stated that they do not enter the information rather it must be re- keyed to ensure uniformity. Carlbom stated that if that person would begin to work more than twenty hours per month, he would like the Council to review that again. Rieke made a motion to authorize an On Call Data Entry Clerk for the Police Department to work approximately 20 hours per month. The motion was seconded by Symanietz and passed unanimously. Sian Moratorium: Sue Dege, Attorney, spoke to the Council about the need to change the City's Sign Ordinance. She also suggested that until that Ordinance is updated, the City should put a moratorium on new signs. This would mean that no new signs could be constructed until that moratorium is lifted. According to Dege, the reason for this is the increasing number of nuisance lawsuits against municipalities for violation of the 1 st Amendment Rights. Content issues are the cause for this argument. She also stated that Hopkins has been the last City sued over sign regulations. Dege stated that the current Sign Ordinance would allow someone to make a 1st Amendment claim against the City. Recently, the League of Minnesota Cities issued a memorandum to Cities requesting review of their current sign ordinance. Dege stated that they have prepared a draft Ordinance that has been forwarded to the League for comment as they are the insurance carrier for the City. Weyrens stated that the Planning Commission previously discussed this issue and has recommend that the Council place a moratorium on new signs until December 31, 2006. Wick questioned the impact of the moratorium for businesses. Weyrens stated that property owners who have already submitted an application for a permit will be allowed to secure a permit. In addition, if an owner is wishing to reface an existing space, that does not require a building permit, that could be done as well. Rassier made a motion to follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve the Interim Ordinance, which places a moratorium on all new signs until December 31, 2006. The motion was seconded by Wick and passed unanimously. Public Hearina - 2006 8th Avenue Improvements: Carlbom opened the public hearing and stated that the purpose of the hearing is to consider the final assessments for the 2006 - 8th Street Improvements. AT this time Carlbom turned the floor over to the City Engineer Tracy Ekola. Ekola stated the proposed improvement includes the following features: reconstruction of 8th Avenue NE from Minnesota Street to CR 75; streets width is 34' wide from the face of the curb to the face of the curb with a 66' right-ot-way; street improvements will include curb and gutter; water and sewer utility services will be extended. The assessments were determined by the following: · New Street Curb & Gutter 100% Assessed o Interior Lot Front Footage o Corner Lot 100% of the short side & 50% of the long side o Stearns County will pay for the center 24' of street improvement. · New Sanitary Sewer Unit Measure 100% Assessed · New Water Main Unit Measure 100% Assessed · Storm Sewer 100% City Ekola stated that the residents are assessed 100% ot the costs as this is a new improvement rather than a reconstruction project, which would be assessed at 40% of the cost. She also added that there are September 11,2006 Page 3 of 6 some lots that were large enough to be split into smaller residential lots. Those lots would receive a Charge in Lieu of Assessment. She explained that the City would carry that cost until the property were developed or split. These charges accrue an annual adjustment charge of 3.5%. Based on the bids received, the total project cost is $210,573. The allocation of funds is as follows: Item Assessed County Funds City Funds Total Cost Street, Curb, Gutter $43,464.51 $34,542.00 $0.00 $78,006.51 Sanitarv Sewer $50,356.71 $0.00 $0.00 $50,356.71 Water Main $72,750.10 $0.00 $0.00 $72,750.10 Storm Sewer $0.00 $0.00 $9,459.85 $9,459.85 Total $166,571.32 $34,542.00 $9,459.85 $210,573.17 Street, Curb, Gutter Sanitary Sewer Water Main Ekola also added that the bids came in lower than the preliminary figures. As a result, the final assessment rates were lower than the preliminary rates. The preliminary rates were based on previous project costs. The comparison is as follows: Preliminarv $50.45/LF $4,155.87/Unit $6,306.06/Unit Final $45.23/LF $4,577.88/Unit $5,596. 16/Unit After reviewing the costs associated with the project, Ekola explained how the residents would be able to pay for the assessments. She stated that they have two options. 1. Pay the entire amount within 30 days of the assessment hearing with no accrued interest. 2. Pay the assessments over time with the annual tax statements. If this option is chosen, the amount of the assessment will accrue interest at the rate of 6% and will be spread out over a 15- year period. The first payment would be payable in 2007 and the property owner can pay the balance at any given time. Ekola also made the residents aware of the fact that there will be additional costs incurred that cannot be assessed. Those costs include the WAC/SAC fees as well as the fees associated with installing the private service lines to the homes. Ekola presented the following project schedule: · Begin Construction September 18, 2006 · Substantial completion October 30, 2006 · Final completion June 15, 2007 Ekola also advised the residents that they would receive project newsletters throughout the project The contractor will be allowed to work between the hours of 7 AM and 7PM with no work on Sundays or Holidays. Ekola then stated that there will adequate access for emergency vehicles and Public/Emergency Services will be advised of the project status. She also added that any trees or landscaping in existing or permanent easement areas would not be replaced. In conclusion, Ekola stated that residents should schedule private connections to City water/sewer services after the substantial completion date, but before August 15, 2007. Symanietz questioned whether or not there are other streets in the City without City services. Weyrens and Ekola both stated that there is one street near the manufactured home community park that is an island area. They also stated that 1st Avenue behind Resurrection Lutheran Church is not on City services at this time; however that area is still in the township. Weyrens advised the Council and the residents that the individual assessment worksheets were broken down into four different sections: 1. Assessment rates September 11, 2006 Page 4 of 6 2. Individual assessments 3. Connection fees 4. Charges in lieu of assessments The hearing was opened for public comments. Mary Ann Graeve, 619 E Minnesota Street, approached the Councilors in opposition to the 8th Avenue NE Improvements. She stated that all four of the residents affected by the improvements have formulated a letter contesting the improvements. Dege advised Graeve that if the intent of the letter is to object to the assessments, then all of the property owners must sign it. Graeve then presented the Council with a copy of the letter with all signatures on it. She then read the letter as presented. Nancy Notch, 416 Elh Avenue NE, approached the Council with several concerns. She stated that 8th Avenue is not platted and it is her understanding that property records indicate that she and her husband own the property where the road is improved. Therefore, she questioned how the City has the authority to complete improvements if the Road ROW does not exist. Dege advised the Council that the project could move forward based on a MN Statute, which states that once a road has been used as a road for six years, it can be dedicated for public use. According to Dege, this happens quite often. Weyrens added that a similar situation occurred with the Roske property and CR 75. According to Dege, if the road had been vacated, then they would still own that property; however since it had not been vacated, it can be improved through a prescriptive easement. Ellen Wahlstrom, 409 Elh Avenue NE, also approached the Councilors in opposition to the improvements. She stated that she is unhappy with the widening of 8th Avenue as well as the addition of curb and gutter. According to Wahlstrom, these improvements may create damage to root systems of the mature trees that are currently on their properties and there is no assurance that those won't be damaged during construction. Wahlstrom stated that she talked with the City Engineer and several Council Members and was told that the reason for curb and gutter was to control water running to the storm sewer. Dege advised Wahlstrom that the purpose of the hearing was to look only at the costs associated with the project. Wahlstrom then began to read portions of the 1975 annexation agreement between the City of St. Joseph and the St. Joseph Township. She also stated that she spoke with the County Assessor as well as an attorney and was told that based on that document, the City and Residents should be paying for the project at an 80/20 split. Rieke questioned whether or not historical documentation would have any impact on this project. Weyrens advised the Council that the annexation agreement had been amended since that time and the newest amendment was in 2006 and that amendment repealed any past agreements. She then read section 11: Severability and Repealer. Dege stated that this is the first City improvement to 8th Avenue and based on the City assessment policy, residents are assessed 100% of the costs for a new City Street. If the street were being reconstructed, it would be a 60/40 split. She also reminded the residents that the County is paying for a good portion of the street costs. Wahlstrom argued that this is not a new street to the City. Bob Wahlstrom, 409 Elh Avenue NE, approached the Council in opposition to the proposed improvements. Wahlstrom stated that he opposed both the widening of 8th Avenue and the installation of curb and gutter. Jim Graeve, 619 Minnesota Street E, approached the Councilors stating that there is no need for the widening of 8th Avenue nor the curb and gutter. He added that the residents recently sat outside during the hours of 7 AM and 7PM to count the number of cars using that street to determine what the street is used for. He reported that they counted 319 cars and that the bulk of them were going in and out of the Business Center. Graeve then stated that the road is only 2/10 of a mile lon~ and he was amazed to see a total cost of $210,000. He urged the Council to deny the improvement of 8 h Avenue NE from Minnesota Street to CR 75. September 11, 2006 Page 5 of6 Wick questioned Graeve as to his position on the Planning Commission. He stated that the Planning Commission discusses these ordinances relating to street width and curb and gutter requirements and recommends Council approval. He questioned why others should be required to follow the Ordinance, but he should not. Carlbom urged Graeve to begin discussion regarding the minimum street width and the need for curb and gutter with the Planning Commission during their Ordinances discussions. Ellen Wahlstrom, 409 [fh Avenue NE, approached the Councilors again stating that she has seen other streets in town that were recently constructed that do not have curb and gutter. Steve Frank, 606 Birch Street VV, approached the Council with some procedural questions. He questioned how the City could begin the project as soon as anticipated, as he was under the understanding that the residents have 30 days to appeal the assessment in district court. Dege stated that yes they have 30 days to appeal to the district court and yes the City can begin the project before that; however the City would take on that risk. The public hearing was closed and opened for Council discussion. Carlbom had several issues relating to the ownership of 8th Avenue NE. If the Notches do indeed own that property, he questioned how the City could improve and take that property from them. Dege stated that the property was taken from them when the road was initially installed. She suggested that the City address this issue with the County before taking over the title to 8th Avenue NE. He also questioned the liability for this road, as it is not yet a City road; however the City is doing the improvements. Weyrens clarified that the road is still owned by the County and the City is merely installing services. When services are installed the road is disturbed and must be replaced. The City must replace the road to County specifications. Ekola stated that the County has agreed to pay for the center 24 feet of the road or approximately $ 34,000. Based on Carlbom's concern as to whether or not there are any conflicts with the County, Ekola added that the County Engineer is fully aware and supportive of the project. She stated that he has reviewed all costs and constructions plans associated with the project as well. Ekola then stated that because this is still a County Road, the City must get a permit to work in the County right-of-way. Carlbom concluded by stating that he is hesitant to move forward with the project with questions outstanding in relation to the 1975 annexation agreement as presented by the residents. Weyrens and Dege assured Carlbom that all previous agreements have been repealed with the 2006 amendment and that there are not rights left from the 1975 agreement. Rassier added that he is a firm believer in the fact that streets need curb and gutter and should be brought up to City standards. Weyrens advised the Council of the financial risk to the City if the residents were to appeal this project to district court and it would fail. With a small project cost the financial risk to the City is less than $ 5,000 per year. Although the public portion of the hearing was closed, Mary Ann Graeve questioned how the City could move forward with the issues outstanding relating to the Notch property as well as the 1975 annexation agreement. Rassier made a motion to approve resolution 2006-_. accepting the final assessments for the 2006 8th Avenue NE Improvements as presented. The motion was seconded by Rieke and passed unanimously. 2006 - 8th Avenue Improvements - Award Bids: Ekola stated that bids were opened on August 29, 2006 for the 2006 - 8th Avenue Improvements. The following six bids were received: September 11, 2006 Page 6 of 6 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. C & L Excavating Randy Kramer R. L. Larson Breitbach Construction Sundblad Hennen $ 145,328.59 150,045.79 152,146.90 160,851.34 185,798.20 249,774.25 Engineers Estimate $ 154,097.45 Ekola stated that she has reviewed the bids and recommended the Council award the bid to the lowest responsible bidder, C & L Excavating. Symanietz made a motion authorizing execution of Resolution 2006-026 awarding the bid for the 2006 - 8th Avenue NE Improvements to C & L Excavating in the amount of $ 145,328.59. The motion was seconded by Rassier and passed unanimously. Rieke made a motion to execute resolution 2006-027 establishing In Lieu of Charges for future utility connections of large parcels in the project area. The motion was seconded by Rassier and passed unanimously. Noise Violation - 25 Ash Street W: Weyrens stated that the St. Joseph Police Department responded to a noise complaint on September 1, 2006 at 25 Ash Street West. The property is owned by Cory Ehlert and the noise violation on September 1, 2006 was the first violation for the property. Ehlert did not request an evidentiary hearing, therefore, it is an admission of guilt. The Council must take two actions at this meeting, 1) acknowledge that a noise violation did occur on said evening and 2) consider the disposition for the violation. Rassier made a motion acknowledging that a noise violation occurred at 25 Ash Street West on September 1, 2006. The motion was seconded by Rieke and passed unanimously. Cory Ehlert approached the Council on his own behalf. Ehlert apologized on behalf of his tenants and himself. He stated that the behavior of the individuals at the party has not acceptable. Ehlert clarified that the individual that had a confrontation with the Police Department was not a resident of 25 Ash Street West. He also agreed with the Police report that one of the tenants did not act appropriately. Since the incident, all four tenants have met with the Police Chief to discuss what happened. Ehlert stated that he also met with them to inform them of the rules and expectations and the benefits to living off-campus. Benjamin Harper, resident at 25 Ash Street W, was asked to approach the Council. Rassier stated that although he did some things that were inappropriate at one point in his life, he was most disturbed by the negative behavior reported in the Police Report. Rassier also advised the tenants that other students complained of the noise, rather than neighboring residents. Rassier made a motion to impose a fine of $250 with $100 stayed. If a second event occurs within 60 days at 25 Ash Street West, the additional $100 fine will be applied. The motion was seconded by Rieke and passed unanimously. Adiourn: Wick made a motion to adjourn at 8:30 PM; seconded by Symanietz and passed unanimously. Judy Weyrens Administrator