Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout[04a] MinutesCfTV OF N7:J()SK.Pn Council Agenda Item 4 a MEETING DATE: February 4, 2010 AGENDA ITEM: Minutes — Requested Action: Approve the Council minutes of January 212, 2010 SUBMITTED BY: Administration BOARD /COMMISSION /COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: BUDGET /FISCAL IMPACT: ATTACHMENTS: Minutes of January 21, 2010 REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION: Approve the minutes of January 21, 2010 January 21, 2010 Page 1 of 9 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the City Council for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session on Thursday, January 21, 2010 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall, opening the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance. Members Present: Mayor Al Rassier, Councilors Dale Wick, Renee Symanietz, Steve Frank, Bob Loso and City Administrator Judy Weyrens City Reoresentatives Present: City Engineer Randy Sabart, City Attorney Tom Jovanovich, Finance Director Lori Bartlett, Public Works Director Terry Thene and Police Chief Pete Jansky Others Present: Bob & Ellen Wahlstrom Public Comments: No one present wished to speak. Approval of the Agenda: Loso made a motion to approve the agenda as presented; seconded by Frank and passed unanimously. Consent Aaenda: Loso made a motion to approve the consent agenda as follows: a. Minutes - Approve the City Council minutes of Janua 7, 2010. b. Bills Payable — Approve check numbers 042392 -042 and EFT numbers 000365- 000370 and 000481- 000483. The motion was seconded by Frank and passed uns ously. Noise Violation, 709 College Avenue S: Weyrens pres a Council with a noise violation that occurred on January 1, 2010 at 709 College Aven a S. tated that she has discussed the alleged violation with the property owner, Ryan Howe, a of uting that a noise violation occurred on January 1, 2010. Therefore he is not requesting a A hearing. Weyrens stated that the noise violation the previous violation occurred at a dill taken measures to evict the tenant invc 1. Acknowledge that a nois . 2. Determine the dispositi Frank made a motion acknowl"I College Avenue South, Apartment re tioned property is a second violation, however, " She further stated that the property owner has the violation. The Council must take two actions: : a noise violation did occur on January 1, 2010 at 709 motion was seconded by Wick and passed unanimously. Property owner Ryan Howe, approached the Council to speak on his own behalf. Howe stated that the tenant involved in the incident received an eviction notice prior to December 31 and was required to vacate the property no later than January 2, 1010. Loso questioned whether or not there is a matrix in place for this type of violation to which Weyrens stated there is no matrix, but the minimum fine is $250. Frank made a motion to impose a fine of $250 for the violation that occurred on January 1, 2010 at 709 College Avenue S. The motion was seconded by Symanietz and passed unanimously. Discussion: Frank questioned whether the Police Department is handling the issues with their department to which Jansky stated they are. The motion passed unanimously. Mediated Settlement Aareement. Graceview Estates: Rassier stated that the Council received a copy of the final settlement agreement for the Graceview Estates Lawsuit. The Lawsuit included two components, the first involving S & H Partnership and the right to construct the multiple family apartments and the second involving the ability to develop the remaining phases of Graceview Estates. January 21, 2010 Page 2 of 9 Loso made a motion to authorize the Mayor and Administrator to execute the settlement agreement between the City of St. Joseph and Pond View Ridge LLP. The motion was seconded by Wick. Discussion: Frank stated that he voted in favor of the Graceview Agreement and only one of the Council members voted against it. There are times; however, when he second guesses his decision. He raised several questions. What are the implications for future development? Does this relate only to single family homes? Jovanovich explained what happened, since the beginning. He stated that when S & H sued the City, Pond View Ridge joined the lawsuit for clarification of future development. The City reached a settlement with S & H and was in the process of moving for dismissal of the lawsuit with Pond View Ridge as there is no dispute. They were then informed of that and thus came up with a settlement agreement. According to Jovanovich, there are some lots out in Graceview that have already been platted, those lots can be sold and developed as is. If the developer would choose to develop any of the remaining outlots, they would then need to ask for approval of the subdivision. Frank questioned whether or not the City could deny that request. Jovanovich replied that the City could deny the request if there was a legitimate reason for the denial. The City could not deny it simply on the basis that they do not want any more single family lots; however, traffic could be used as a reason for denial stating that there is a need for the construction of "Field Street'. Rassier stated that there would need to be a stipulation in the develop t agreement for the construction of Field Street. Jovanovich stated that the City would ha a authority to require more ingress and egress into the subdivision. Frank questioned whether single family refers to gle fa ily homes and whether or not it precludes anymore apartments. Jovanovich s t the City has the right to raise the issue and it could end up in court again. Rassie advise a Council, so that everyone understood, that any future development would need to g th ocess again. Frank questioned on which grounds the City could deny a request or t of want it done a certain way. Jovanovich replied that they would use the sa pun s used with S & H; however, he advised the Council that they could be in liti r n ain i e developer so chooses. There were some questions relafflo the platting process. The Council was advised that all platting must go through royal and must meet all conditions. Those lots that are already platted can be and b o as previously approved. It was asked whether or not streets can be required g the atting process. This agreement states that it would need to be addressed at that time. Frank questioned whether or not there are other things that the City should look for in the future. Jovanovich replied that he thinks that the City has learned a lot during this process and have learned that they need to use caution when platting such a large portion of property. The mistake that was made was that this property was developed ten years ago and had it been developed today, things would have been different. He added that the City is now living with a decision that was made a long time ago. One way of not making that same mistake again is to approve smaller plats. Rassier reported that he attended the Steams Municipal League meeting at which they also discussed this same type of issue as there are a lot of platted areas that remain vacant. The motion passed unanimously. CITY ENGINEER REPORTS 16' "Avenue SE - Improvement Options: City Engineer Randy Sabart reported that previously, the Council discussed the proposed 16 th Avenue SE Improvements and an information meeting was held with the residents in the neighborhood. As directed, a topographic survey and soil boring test was completed to determine different options for the project. In short, the soil borings determined that there are two types of soils: January 21, 2010 Page 3 of 9 Between Baker Street and Minnesota Street: These soils were found to be "better" and are suitable for street construction. Between Baker Street and Dale Street: These soils were found to be "poor" and were characterized as being fair for street construction. Based on an indication from the geotechnical engineer's statement, a reclaim and pave would be a possible option for the improvement. Sabart advised the Council that there are some secondary effects of that type of approach. He stated that the structural section is inadequate to build either a 9 -ton or a light 9 -ton road. If the project includes reclaiming, the project would include adding soil to correct the poor material that exists to day. Sabart stated that adding soils would result in raising the elevation North of Baker Street approximately four inches and south of Baker Street it would result in raising the elevation approximately eight inches. According to Sabart, the change in road elevation will, in turn, change the grade of the driveways connecting to 16t" Avenue. Some of the driveway approaches may become steeper and in areas where there is a side slope, the conditions will become worse. Sabart discussed the four different options that are available for the improvements to le Avenue SE 1. Urban Section (32 feet wide) — This option includes curb and gutter as well as $989,200 storm sewer. 2. Rural Section (28 feet wide) — This option includes no cur and gutter, drainage to $803,400 the north and improvements to the culverts. 3. Reclaim & Pave (22 feet wide) — This option is a recl ' d pave of the existing $627,500 roadway and includes improvements to the culvert d age. 4. Reclaim & Pave (22 feet wide) — This option is a aim an a of the existing $404,200 roadway with no drainage improvements. As one would expect, Wick questioned what Sabart meant when he ref ht" 9-ton roadway. Sabart responded that the minimum design in St. Joseph is a 7 -to owever, minimal pavement can achieve a "light" 9 -ton. If there is anticipated that there wi e h vier ffic, they would recommend a 9 -ton. He added that Interstates and County Roads are er roadways. Frank recalled that, at the meeting with the residents, it was stated that the e d got worse because of agricultural use and spill off from that use. He questioned why it is nded that this road be built as a 94on rather than a 7- ton. Sabart responded that in h' xpe le , it s better to build roads similar to those in the area and a "light" 9 -ton road can accomm some ht commercial traffic. Due to the fact that I Avenue is to remain a local residential street, on not typically look for this to be constructed as a 10 -ton or a "heavy" 9 -ton design. Frank question ether staff looked at either the Comprehensive Plan or the Transportation Plan? Rassier stated that this street is not slated to go through and when all the roads are in, this will stay a residential road. Frank stated that he received an email regarding one of the properties along 16th Avenue. Weyrens explained that there is a property owner whose home is in Pond View Ridge, but they own an empty lot behind their home which abuts 161h Avenue. A majority of that lot is wetland and is valued at approximately $15- 17,000. They are questioning what the improvement would do to their property. Weyrens stated that they would need to determine whether or not it could be sold as a residential lot and they have not yet looked into that issue. Weyrens advised the Council that this is not yet a final project as there are still some concerns about the economics of the project. This project was introduced because there was some concern of the Public Works Director that they would begin picking up the pavement during plowing and thus something needs to be done. She understands that this is bad economic times. Frank questioned whether anything could be done to stop the agricultural traffic on 16th Avenue. Jansky stated that many of them are exempt and there is not much that can be done. Frank questioned the issue of mailboxes along 16th Avenue. Currently, there are mailboxes on both sides of the street. He was advised that the post office has the final authority as to where mailboxes are placed. There were some concerns relating to the assessments as well. Generally, assessments are based on a 100% or 60% split. Wick questioned what will happen if the home value does not increase. Weyrens January 21, 2010 Page 4 of 9 stated that the property owner can challenge the assessment. She added that the staff has been waiting to determine if the Council intends to move forward with the project before finalizing financing options. The staff has had prepared various bonding scenarios, but the scope of the project needs to be determined. Sabart stated that if the City moves forward with the project and solicits bids, the City could conduct the final hearing before awarding the contract. This method limits the risk to the City. Wick stated that when the project was originally discussed, there was a question about a contractor saying that the project could be done for much less, approximately $60,000. Sabart advised the Council that he spoke to the contractor and he did not recall talking to the resident. The bituminous material itself will cost approximately that amount. Sabart added that he had a reputable contractor review the costs to validate their estimates. In the conversations that this resident had with the contractor, there were several details that were not coming into play, perhaps they only looked at the cost of material. Sabart stated that he looked at both the advantages and disadvantages of each option. Wick questioned how a "normal" street in St. Joseph is constructed. According to Sabart, they are generally 36' wide, although there are always exceptions to the rules. Hill Street, for example, was built at 30'. New streets are built at 36' to accommodate residential parking on both sides of the street. Streets that are 32' wide can accommodate parking on one side of the street. Frank questioned whether there will be signs posted for no parking. Sabart replied by stating that there are no signs up there right now. The next step in the process is to hold the Public Improvement ring at which information can be presented to the public and the Council can accept testimony. o asked Sabart, based on the fact that he is an engineer and is most knowledgeable when it come ro he questioned what he would do. Sabart stated that, structurally, any of the four options be iastf owever, based on past experiences, people have expectations that all proble ill away a d that cannot be accomplished with a reclaim & pave. He stated that he believes the u ion is most satisfying and ultimately, a majority of the residents would be most satisfied ' that ell. He added; however, that a lasting road could be accomplished with any of the four optio Loso stated that he sees more problems w1&hdkLe reVjrm options. Sabart stated that with the reclaim, they would not expect to see more drainage pgffieif, bu a drainage would definitely not improve. Weyrens stated that with the 8" increase in elev , t a long -term inconvenience and may be a major dissatisfaction for many residents. Saba Lad that residents who have flatter driveways will not be as dissatisfied. Loso questioned wh swill be filled in if the Council chooses to construct the 32' urban section. Sabart advis ajority of them will be picked up. He also stated that with the urban section, curb and guff Ohe ed as well and that will help direct water to a holding pond. Frank stated that there was some ern about the lower cost options not lasting more than five years. He added that he has seer projects that do not hold up after five years. Rassier advised Frank that there are some places where there are surprises that come up during construction. Rassier stated that the next step is to conduct a hearing to discuss the costs and moving forward. Frank made a motion to conduct the hearing to discuss costs and moving forward. The motion was seconded by Symanietz. Discussion: Wick clarified that they will be calling for the hearing on the improvement and questioned the next step. Sabart stated that the information will be presented and the Council could potentially take action and begin the design process followed by the bid process during which they will get hard costs from the contractors. Rassier stated that the Council should decide which option they would like to pursue. Frank stated that he would be willing to recommend option 4. Amendment: Frank made a motion to conduct the hearing on the improvement to discuss the costs and moving forward with option 4 as stated above. Symanietz withdrew her motion and the motion failed for lack of a second. Wick questioned Weyrens as to at which point the Council will see financing options. Weyrens stated that it can be done at any time. Wick suggested that staff look at property values as well. Weyrens advised the January 21, 2010 Page 5 of 9 Council that staff will bring back more information at the next meeting. She suggested that they hold a special meeting for this hearing. She added that they will have both property value data and assessment options available to them. Frank questioned the main difference between options 3 and 4 to which he was told drainage. Frank made a motion to conduct the hearing on the improvement to discuss the costs and moving forward with option 3 as stated above. The motion was seconded by Symanietz. Ayes: Rassier, Symanietz, Frank Nays: Wick, Loso Motion Carries 3:2:0 Weyrens stated that she will send out a list of possible dates for the hearing. Enemy Grant Update: Sabart stated that, since the last meeting, staff did submit a letter of intent for the application for the Energy Efficiency and Block Grant. The application is due on January 25. As previously stated, the requirements for the grant are that the improvement(s) have a 10 -year simple payback. Since then, it has been found that there is an energy savings; however, the proposed improvements do not have a 10 -year simple payback. Sabart stated that a local match is not required, but would make the application stronger. The estimated cost of the improvements is $ 0,000 and they may require a $10- 15,000 local match component. Loso stated that the instrument is archaic also. Rassier questioned whether it would be most beneficial to do all the necessary im ments. Sabart advised the Council that not all of the items are eligible for the grant program. Fr q ioned what will happen if we do not get the grant to which Thene stated the improvements wil ill be m nd handled in -house by staff. Wick made a motion to approve Resolution 2a Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant with by Symanietz. Discussion: Wick questioned if there is m funds available in the sewer fund. auk., The motion passed unanimously. ing the Application for Energy of $10,000. The motion was seconded to which Weyrens stated that there are PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR R P eport. Rassier advised Thene that staff did a great job with the snow and ice. P ICE CHIEF REPORTS Monthly Report — Jansky presented the December 2009 monthly report to the Council for review. Frank questioned the decrease in the number of 2 -7AM parking tickets. Jansky replied that people are simply responding and following the parking restrictions. Portable Yield Sians: Jansky reported that he received some bids for the portable yield signs and they range from $450 -475 each. He advised the Council that these types of signs would not be able to be left out overnight as they see an awful lot of things within the City being taken, moved or damaged. Frank stated that they are left out overnight near SCSU and the Tech College. Frank suggested that the City purchase one and see how it works as the crosswalk lines are fading. Weyrens stated that this was not originally in the budget, but staff will find room. Jansky suggested that it be placed in one of the following areas: South College Avenue or at the corner of College Avenue and Minnesota Street. If they find another place, Jansky stated he will work with Thene to have it moved. Wick stated that he had originally asked for one to be placed near the Wobegon Trail Center, but was told that would not be allowed on a County Road. Loso made a motion to authorize the purchase of 3 portable yield signs to be placed in various locations chosen by staff. The motion was seconded by Frank. January 21, 2010 Page 6 of 9 Ayes: Wick, Symanietz, Frank, Loso Nays: Rassier Motion Carries 4:1:0 Bus Stop Concerns: Jansky reported that he received a letter from a 4th grader at Kennedy School regarding drivers not stopping at the stop sign near 1s` Avenue NE and Fir Street. He stated that they spent the last few days patrolling those intersections and they have stopped several cars for not stopping. He thanked the student for bringing this to his attention. Snowmobiles /ATVs: With the snow here, the snowmobiles and ATVs are out, Jansky asked that people be courteous to their neighbors and not drive on their yards. They need to follow the same laws as motor vehicles. Jansky reported that he has been working with the local snowmobile club, SnoJos, on a possible south passage from County Road 121. They are hoping to get this taken care of by next year. FINANCE REPORTS Treasurer's Report: Bartlett stated that the reports that are being presented are not the audited reports. As a result, some of the year end balances will change once the accruals are calculated. Bartlett highlighted the following: • The cash and investment balance increased by $587,000 nd the cash amount will not change. This amount increased due to a substantial prepaymen assessments. Those funds will go out in 2010 for a bond payment. • The interest rate(s) of return have decreased, as t a er the past few years. This year it was down to 3.5 °k from 4 %. • Approximately 85% of the General Fund has a nded en compared to the budget. • The General Fund increased its fund balance a did not spend the entire CIP. There were a couple of transfers into the General Fund reim ments. • In the Enterprise Fund, the expenditures the receivables. This is due to the fact that utilities are billed on a bi- monthly basi ovember /December bills were just sent out and are not due until February. Frank questioned whether or not the Cl ving money since the conversion of the water meters. Bartlett responded that we a money. When looking at staff time, it used to take at least one week to read meters and no n e day. Frank then questioned the Dece end venue Report with respect to the sewer fund. There was some discrepancy with the St. Ben' charges and he questioned whether or not they paid the bill for 2009. Bartlett stated that the) a City for the 2007/2008 usage and there is a negative number for the fund balance based on a reversed entry. She stated that the 2009 usage has not been billed yet. Frank also questioned when the St. Ben's sewer issue will be resolved. Weyrens replied that there has been considerable correspondence between the City and the CSB Attorney. It is the intent to continue billing CSB as in the past and provide a thirty day payment period. If the bill is not paid it will be brought to the City Council. Frank questioned whether or not the Public Works Department has been using the new street sweeper to which Thene stated that the City as not authorized the purchase yet, nor has he brought the request forward. The equipment is listed in the Capital Improvement Plan. Loso made a motion to accept the November, December and 4th Quarter 2009 Financial Reports as presented. The motion was seconded by Symanietz and passed unanimously. Transfers: Bartlett stated that the transfers that are being presented are annual transfers that have been made in the past. Some of these annual transfers are need to help cover the costs of certain programs. The residual transfers are needed when an account is closed and there are additional funds available. January 21, 2010 Page 7 of 9 Loso questioned the transfer being made to the EDA to which Bartlett responded that the money is being transferred to the EDA fund to help fund it until a Community Development Director comes on board. Wick made a motion to authorize the 2009 operating and residual transfers as presented. The motion was seconded by Symanietz and passed unanimously. Revolving Loan Fund Guidelines: Bartlett stated that, last month, the City closed on its first loan from the EDA Revolving Loan Fund to Prego Enterprises. In working with the EDA Director, it was determined that the existing Revolving Loan Fund Guidelines needed to be amended. The guidelines need to include a process to follow, in writing, to help with knowing what the expectations are and what the applicant can expect for a process. The premise of the policy is to have a written document to follow. Wick stated that the Revolving Loan Fund has been around since 2004 and this was the first applicant. Throughout the process, it was noted that there needed to be some changes made on how things were actually done. Things are not always done right the first time. On behalf of the EDA, Wick stated that they recommended the City Council amend the guidelines as presented. Symanietz made a motion to approve the proposed changes to the Revolving Loan Fund Policy. The motion was seconded by Loso. Discussion: Frank stated that he feels that he does not get a lot of information regarding the EDA. In his opinion, it is a very closed committee. He statKan a is not sure what they are being asked to approve. Wick stated that they are only che highlighted areas and the plan itself has been in place for six years. In response to ment, Wick stated that their meetings are open meetings. Bartlett stated that Revolvi oan Fund is a separate fund and is limited in its focus. The loan was considered ca it is in a downtown area and there have been plans made to revitalize the downtown. nsidered, the applicant must meet the objectives of the EDA. The motion passed unanimously. Stearns County Municipal League: Rassi orted that he attended the Steams County Municipal League meeting at which they dis ber of vacant lots in developments throughout Steams County. Stearns County has a ximat $8, 00,000 that is owed on back taxes and $9,000,000 that is owed on past due assessmen APO: Rassier advised the Council thaw re will be a Full Board meeting on January 28. They will be discussing the priority projects that will be forwarded to the State and Federal Government as possible projects. Miscellaneous: Rassier stated that recently he has heard a lot of criticism about how people are chosen for the various boards and how City staff is not open with information. When there are openings on the various board and commissions, there is an application process. When people call or email City Hall, staff tries to respond to all inquiries. He stated he is not sure how to make things more open. With respect to the budget, all of the numbers are available on the City's website. He thanked those staff members that have agreed to take a wage freeze and a drop in insurance to help with the City's financial position. He also stated that he will be donating $50 of each of his paychecks back to the City. Rassier concluded by stating that staff is doing a great job. Other cities are hurting and St. Joseph made it through the year without reducing staff or services; although next year may not be the same. COUNCIL REPORTS FRANK Coborns: Frank shared some of his concerns regarding the entrance to the new Coborns as he has heard complaints from residents that it is narrow and not lit. He questioned who would be responsible for putting January 21, 2010 Page 8 of 9 up a street light. Sabart replied to Frank by stating that during the development review process, the developer did propose a wider entrance; however, the driveway was defined by the existing curb cut that was already in place. Stearns County was concerned about the increased traffic at the intersection and required that Coborn's direct traffic to Elm Street, which has a larger entrance. Sabart agreed that the street light issue is a problem; however, staff did not request one nor did the developer propose one. That was a pure oversight. Rassier stated that the City will not pay for the street light. Sabart added that staff has talked to the developer about some internal signage asking people to use the proper entrance. In addition, Symanietz stated that she is concerned that there is only one stop sign. Sabart stated that if there are too many stop signs, people are less likely to obey them. This is another detail that will be brought up to the developer. Snow Removal: Frank stated that he has received complaints that residents in Pond View have been blowing their snow from their driveways into the road. He questioned how that is handled. Jansky replied that if they see that it is happening, they will go and talk to the residents and there is also a $50 fine. St. Cloud Area Joint Planning District Board: Frank reported that he attended the SCJPDB at which there was some movement on the Urban Mississippi Task Force. This affects not only those along the Mississippi but those along the tributaries as well. He assumes that they will be asking for grant money or contributions in the near future and asked for Council direction as to which direction he should take. Rassier stated that he would like to see a little more detail to se xactly what they are doing and exactly what they are asking for. As the Council member appointed to board, he is being asked to do the best he can do to represent the City. LOSO — No Report , WICK N EDA: Wick reported that the EDA will meet next ed that they are working on their annual report. SYMANIETZ '"W Park Board: Symanietz stated th k rd meeting was cancelled due to the Holiday and has been rescheduled for Monday, uary ISTRATOR REPORTS 2010 Enaineerino Rates: Weyrens stated that she received the 2010 engineering rates for SEH as well WSB and SRF. For 2010, SEH is comparable to the other firms and in some cases, much lower. Wick made a motion to accept the engineering rates for the calendar year 2010. The motion was seconded by Symanietz. Discussion: Frank stated that he has no problem with SEH. On the other hand, in these competitive times, what would be the advantage /disadvantage to get some competitive bids? Weyrens stated that the City did that last year for the accounting firm and ended up going to back to the old firm this year due to the delivery of service that was received last year. Rassier stated that the City did this several years ago. The biggest thing is the history and knowledge that SEH has that swayed the Council into staying with them. Frank stated that every third cycle he would like for the City to review the rates for the Attorney, Engineer and Auditor. The motion passed unanimously. Field Street: Weyrens reported that the draft Programmatic from Cultural Resources should be coming shortly, possibly in early February. This will be placed on the agenda once it is received. January 21, 2010 Page 9 of 9 Joint Planning Board: Weyrens advised the Council that the Joint Planning Board will be meeting on January 25 and there are three agenda items: 1. Variance for C & L Excavating 2. Mining Operation near County Road 2 3. Lot Split by Interstate Adiourn: Wick made a motion to adjourn at 9:OOPM, seconded by Symanietz and passed unanimously. Judy Weyrens Administrator A*l** RS < Q