HomeMy WebLinkAbout[04a] MinutesMT OF FT. JUSEPH
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBMITTED BY:
ATTACHMENTS
Request for Council Action
City Council Agenda 4(a)
April 1, 2010
Minutes — Requested Action: Approve the City Council minutes
of March 18 [Regular and Closed] and March 25, 2010.
Administration
City Council Minutes — March 18 [Regular Meeting] 2 -12
City Council Minutes — March 18 [Closed Session] 13
City Council Minutes — March 25 [Workshop] Via Email
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION: Approve the City Council minutes of March 18 [Regular and
Closed]and March 25, 2010.
4(a):1
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the City Council for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session
on Thursday, March 18, 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 Representatives Present: City Engineer Randy Sabart, City Attorney Tom Jovanovich, EDA Director
Cynthia Smith - Strack, Finance Director Lori Bartlett, Public Works Director Terry Thene and Police Chief
Pete Jansky.
Others Present: Mary Edwards, Tom Klein, Jay Lommel, Teri Lommel, Adam Lommel, JNlian Donabauer,
Bob Wahlstrom, Ellen Wahlstrom, Mike McDonald. Sr. Kara Hennes, Kristy Bast, Jeff Bast, Sr. Paula
Revier
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Ellen Wahlstrom, 409 a Avenue SE, approached the Council to question several of the items on the
agenda. They are as follows:
• EDA Annual Report: On page 1 of the Executive Summary, it states that, in 2009, "approximately
$8 million commercial real estate value was added to the City's Tax Base ". On Page 7 [TABLE 1-
1 ] it shows the value for commercial and industrial construction for 2009 at $7,216,910. She
questioned the difference between the two numbers. The executive summary also states that
"commercial building activity in 2009 equates to a $75,000 increase in City tax revenue and a
similar increase in county tax revenue ". Wahlstrom questioned whether that $75,000 is clear
money or whether that is tied to the tax abatement for Coborns. Frank suggested that this
information be discussed during the presentation of the EDA Annual Report.
Ethics Policy: Wahlstrom questioned the Code of Ethics Ordinance that was included in the
Council Packet and whether or not that is the Ordinance that will be addressed at the meeting.
She also questioned why there is a need for the Resolution of Values as she believes that will
only cause inertia. Wahlstrom added that due to those value statements, the Council members
may feel an inhibition. Rassier advised Wahlstrom that the Ethics Policy is mandated by the State
and some of this is a result of the outcry of the citizens to understand why government does what
they do. In conclusion, Wahlstrom stated that she assumes that these are guidelines for the
Council as they are already expected behaviors.
Mike McDonald, 213 13ffi Avenue SE, also addressed the Council to discuss a few items of concern.
• Ethics Policy — McDonald stated that this has been requested by the EDA and he feels that this is
the strangest way to resolve a problem. If there are issues, McDonald stated it would be best to
talk to the board members who may be causing the problems. He questioned the need to waste
staff time to simply repeat state statute. As a board member himself, he stated that this is crazy
and that if board members need training, the City should simply train them.
• Equipment Certificate — McDonald stated that, in the past, he spoke to the Council regarding
borrowing and bonding. He stated that St. Joseph has the highest tax rate in the area because of
the amount of borrowing that is done by the City. Although it may seem like a good deal to borrow
money, he stated that we really do pay for this. He also stated his concern over the equipment list
that has been presented as some of those funds have already been collected in the past. He
questioned how this is financially responsible? Rassier stated that the funds that were previously
collected were transferred for other needs. McDonald concluded by stating that many of the items
on the equipment list are wish list items and are not necessary.
Approval of the Agenda: Wick made a motion to approve the agenda with the following additions:
9(d) Cable Commission Appointment
9(e) Upcoming Meetings
The motion was seconded by Loso and passed unanimously by those present.
4(a):2
Consent Agenda: Wick made a motion to approve the consent agenda as follows:
a. Minutes — Approve the City Council minutes of March 4, 2010.
b. Bills Payable — Approve check numbers 042608- 042657 and EFT numbers 000386- 000390.
c. Gambling Permit — Accept the Application for Exempt Permit for the Church of St. Joseph
for an event to be held on July 3 and 4, 2010.
d. Treasurer's Report — Accept the February 2010 Treasurer's Report.
e. Donations — Accept the donations and their purposes as presented.
f. Ordinance Repeal — Authorize the Mayor and Administrator to execute Resolution 2010-
006, repealing Ordinance 29 — Star City.
The motion was seconded by Loso.
Discussion: Wick noted minor corrections to the minutes of March 4, 2010.
The motion passed unanimously by those present.
EDA MATTERS
SCSU Study: Cynthia Smith - Strack, EDA Director, approached the Council to present the results of the
Economic Impact Study that was completed by St. Cloud State University. She stated that Dr. Mary
Edwards was also present. She stated that there were two goals:
1. To determine how the economies of St. Joseph and Collegeville Township would change in the
event that the College of St. Benedict and St. John's University didn't exist.
2. To determine how the potential impact of bringing 208 students who live off - campus back to
campus housing. She added that this number was based on the number of beds that the College
and University plan to add.
Based on the Study, it is estimated that the annual business volume generated by both CSB /SJU in both
communities is $15.6 million. The total business volume in St. Joseph is approximately $76.4 million
annually and of that, 17% is from various spending by CSB /SJU. Strack also stated that the economic
impact of CSB /SJU on the local government is $3.7million. The local jurisdictions pay an estimated
$1.4million to provide public goods and services to support CSB /SJU. Strack also noted that if neither
CSB nor SJU were present in the communities, a total of 1,227 jobs would be lost.
Both CSB and SJU add to the intellectual vitality of the area which is an intangible element and thus, was
not captured in the study. Strack added that a recent residency change would require 208 more students
to live on campus and would result in an estimated decline in business volume by $1.3million. As a result
of that change, landlords' revenues would fall by $0.6million.
In conclusion, Strack stated that the study was conducted to be used for two main reasons:
1. Distribution to economic development leads as warranted. They wanted good numbers as they
have been receiving a lot of questions from developers looking for the overall impact of the
college of the local economy.
2. Planning purposes related to student rental unit conversion. This will help to determine whether it
makes sense to get some public involvement.
The EDA approved the results of the study in January 2010.
Frank made a motion to accept the recommendation of the EDA and authorize acceptance of the
SCSU Study determining the Economic Impact of CSB /SJU on the City of St. Joseph. The motion
was seconded by Wick.
Discussion: Frank stated that there was a lot of good information in the study. He added that
there are a lot of things that cannot be measured such as volunteering and he suspects that the
students do volunteer in the community. When looking at the attractiveness of the City, people
tend to look at athletics, plays, guthries, etc. There was one thing that bothered him and that is
4(a):3
that the landlords expressed their concern of the students not living in town. He felt that if this
study was intended for the landlords, they should have paid for a portion.
The motion passed unanimously by those present.
EDA Annual Report: Strack then presented the Council with a summary of the 2009 EDA Annual Report.
She stated that, as City leaders are aware, the global economic downturn continues. Some economists
believe that it has ended; others say we are in for a double recession. The reports are highly variable.
She advised the Council that 2009 was a great year for tax base expansion in St. Joseph. Approximately
$8million of commercial real estate value was added to the City's tax base, which is the largest since
1998.
• Strack reported that 2009 featured construction initiation /completion of the Coborns Superstore
and the Central MN Federal Credit Union. She added that the EDA was instrumental in that tax
abatement was issued for the Coborns project. Without abatement, Strack stated that the project
would have been shelved for an estimated 10 years. In addition, Strack reported that the
construction of the Coborns Superstore led to the construction of the Central MN Federal Credit
Union. An estimated 150 jobs were added to St. Joseph due to Coborns and the Credit Union.
• She added that an optometrist's practice and mental health professional practice were added to
the Millstream Shops and Lofts and the EDA assisted in redefining the banners /signs for the
Millstream Building.
• There were a few projects completed due to help from the Revolving Loan Fund and the
Business Facade Architectural Program. There is one more project in the works as well.
• The City Website was updated to include a 'one stop shop for business' information page for new
businesses.
• She reported that the EDA continues to work to promote downtown development.
• The EDA held a Business Builder Breakfast and listening session. Strack added that more are
planned for 2010.
• The EDA worked with St. Cloud State University on the study regarding the economic impact of
CSB /SJU on the local economy.
• Strack reported that the EDA met 13 times in 2009.
• She provided the Council with an update on the Gateway Commons Development. The EDA met
with the Developers and representatives from the Walz families regarding the development of
that property.
After providing the Council with a summary of 2009 accomplishments, Strack discussed the EDA's goals
for 2010. They include the following:
• Investigate and pursue proactive measures to secure and provide for shovel ready industrial sites
and encourage build -out of Parkway Business Center.
• Work with property owner to proceed with St. Joseph Professional Plat.
• Continue to work with property owners seeking development of land adjacent to proposed CSAH
2 including, but not limited to, seeking federal EDA funds to install utilities in said areas.
• Hold at least two events for business owners.
• Continue to market available commercial and industrial lots, land, lease space, buildings, etc.
• Continue to respond to inquiries and continue proactive follow up of viable leads /prospects.
• Continue website development and updates.
• Continue to pursue revitalization within the downtown through:
• Promotion of the Business Facade Architectural Grant Program.
• Competition and revealing of the land /streetscape design plans being completed by
Scenic Specialties and fundraising related thereto, and
• Collaboration with interested parties.
• Continue to address rental unit conversion issues resulting from residency requirement changes
at the College and University.
• Continue to implement/administer technical and financial incentive programs.
4(a):4
Strack advised the Council that in January 2010, the EDA recommended approval of the 2009 Annual
Report.
In response to questions raised by Mrs. Wahsltrom, Strack stated that the 2009 number shown on Table
1 -1 should have an asterick [ *] near it as those numbers were as of November 2009 rather than through
the entire year. She added that the $75,000 increase in City Tax Revenue is gross, not net. As a result,
costs associated with Tax Abatement, TIF, BFA and RLF would be deducted from that $75,000. Strack
advised the Council and the public that the full report is available on the City Website for review.
As chair of the EDA, Wick thanked Cynthia for all her hard work. He added that the EDA did a lot in 2009.
Wick made a motion to accept the recommendation of the EDA and approve the 2009 EDA Annual
Report as presented. The motion was seconded by Loso.
Discussion: Frank questioned whether it should have been noted that the mental health
professional was added to the Millstream Shops and Lofts as it is not physically located there yet.
Cynthia stated that it was included as they have been working with this property owner and
business for several years. Frank then questioned the economic impact to the City of losing the
Stonehouse. Strack stated that she is unsure at this time, but assured the Council that the
building will still be there and they will continue to pay property taxes. She added that the building
will be available for sale.
The motion passed unanimously by those present.
Interim Use Permit — Adam Lommel /Jillian Donabauer: Weyrens reported that the Planning Commission
conducted a Public Hearing on March 1, 2010 to consider the issuance of an Interim Use Permit at 132
8'h Avenue SE. She added that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Interim Use
permit with a 5:2 vote. The Commissioners felt that it would be better to provide relief to the neighborhood
by giving them some stipulations and thus giving the City better legal options should there be more issues
in the future. Wick stated that there was a lot of history on this property. The Planning Commission
decided to grant the IUP until August when they will then need to apply for renewal and go through the
process again.
Loso made a motion to deny the request for Interim Use based on the history of the property and
total disregard for the neighborhood based on the number of ICR's listed on the Findings of Fact
and the petition submitted by the neighbors. The motion was seconded by Frank.
Discussion: Frank stated that he watched the portion of the meeting relating to this and was able
to listen to both the attorney and the family. After watching the video, he had some unanswered
questions. He questioned the response of the neighbors on the decision of the Commissioners.
Wick advised Frank that they are not allowed a chance to discuss the issue after a vote and he
has not heard anything since the meeting. Weyrens advised Frank that she spoke to one of the
residents and she questioned if this was going to provide relief to the neighborhood and whether
or not it gives the City a better position to which Weyrens stated it does. Weyrens stated she is
unsure as to whether she was happy with the answer. According to Loso, the applicant has total
disregard for the neighborhood and lifestyle of community living and that is not good. Rassier
advised the Council that to deny the request, they must have findings of fact. Jovanovich added
that the findings of fact must support their denial. Frank stated that although he agrees with Loso,
he would like to give the benefit of the doubt. Jovanovich suggested approval of the Interim Use
Permit as a way to reach a goal and not tie the City up in court with an uncertain outcome.
Jovanovich added that the main goal is to get the conduct changed. He suggested requiring
Lommel to enter into an agreement with the City whereby they would receive an Interim Use
Permit and in exchange the behaviors of the house would change. He would also like Lommel to
agree to the following condition:
" Lommel agrees to evict the tenants and adhere to the St. Joseph Housing Ordinance
and, if the City has to enforce the same, he would then indemnify the City for its attorney
fees in evicting the tenants ".
4(a):5
Jovanovich stated that such a condition would put the burden on him. He then stated that if he is
not willing to put some real commitment into cleaning this situation up, then they should deny the
permit immediately.
Wick stated that the first violation occurred on January 21 2009 and staff has been trying to get
this under control. He stated that he is concerned about the next step, if this is turned down as it
could go on for another year in the court system with the same behavior.
Based on the Findings of Fact that were included, Frank suggested that #3(c) include disposing
of garbage on his property as well.
Loso stated that the Police Department tries to enforce the Ordinances and when they are unable
to do so, then it comes to the Council. He suggested letting this issue go to court. Jovanovich
expressed concern that people know how to delay the process. He suggested giving them
another chance and if the City is then unable to control the site, we would have real leverage. If
this is denied, we can try for immediate injunctive relief; however, that is not a sure thing. Lommel
would then be able to get an attorney and delay the process. The Planning Commission tried to
provide immediate relief to the neighbors by working to clean it up right away.
Rassier stated that the complaints at 132 - 8'h Avenue SE have extended over a one year period
and he questioned what difference a few more months will make if the matter is extended through
the court process. It is also his understanding that once the license is issued the past violations
are not considered so in essence the property owner has a clean slate.
Ayes: Rassier, Frank, Loso
Nays: Wick Motion Carried 3:1:0
Based on the Council decision to deny the request for Interim Use, Jovanovich stated that the Council
must determine the Findings of Fact. Weyrens stated that they must be specific. Loso stated that he is
denying the request on the following:
1. A petition of homeowners was submitted indicating the total disregard for the neighborhood.
2. The amount of ICR's associated with this property.
3. The amount of time that the resident was aware of the process prior to applying for the Interim
Use Permit, ignoring the Ordinance requirements.
Frank and Rassier concurred and stated that the property is operating in contrast to the Ordinance.
Jovanovich suggested that Administrator prepare revised findings of fact based on the discussion at this
meeting and be reviewed by the Council with final adoption. The Council agreed to meet on March 25,
2010.
Special Use Permit — Kristy Bast: Weyrens reported that the Planning Commission conducted a Public
Hearing on March 1, 2010 to consider issuance of a Special Use Permit to allow for the sale of used
automobiles. She added that the City Ordinances do allow for such. The property owner was advised that
they will not be allowed to park cars in the front of the building and staff has clarified that dust from the
compost site will not cause a hardship. The request was unanimously approved by the Planning
Commission.
Wick made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve the
Special Use Permit with contingencies to allow for the sale of used automobiles. The motion was
seconded by Frank.
Discussion: Frank commented that the City seems to be adding a lot of car lots and he
questioned whether that fits in with the comprehensive plan and the vision for the City. Weyrens
stated that the provisions in this area do not allow for banners and streamers, etc. He added that
he was concerned about the number of car lots along CR75, but he figures that if they can make
a go, then the City should not stand in their way.
4(3):6
The motion passed unanimously by those present.
Preliminary /Final Plat — Monastery of St. Benedict: The Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing
on March 1, 2010 to consider the amended preliminary and final plat entitled Benedict. Weyrens stated
that the Council has seen this several times. While in the process of getting ready to record the plat, the
Stearns County Surveyor found one more discrepancy with the St. Joseph Cemetery. The parish is in
support of having the cemetery included in the plat.
Loso made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve the
Preliminary/Final Plat entitled Benedict. The motion was seconded by Frank and passed
unanimously by those present.
CITY ENGINEER REPORTS
le Avenue SE Improvements: Sabart stated that Council has been discussing the condition of 16`h
Avenue SE and the need to complete a construction project. Previously the Council has ordered the
public improvement hearing and at the last meeting, they discussed the merits of conducting an
assessment benefit analysis. Since then, staff spoke with a representative from Precision Appraisals and
discussed the City's goals and desires for the study. He added that they have also run into a 'bump in the
road' as staff received notice that they are closing their doors. The good news is that the City has not yet
entered into any contract with Precision Appraisals. During their discussion with the representative, it was
stated that, due to the depressed market conditions, it is hard to find comparables to study. For this type
of project, it is also hard to find equivalent properties. There are other appraisers out there if the Council
still wants to conduct such a study. It is also hard to do such a study with no improvement costs such as
curb and gutter. Sabart added that it is hard to find a rural road within City limits.
Wick questioned the options available. Sabart replied that the Council could change the scope of the
project and potentially further reduce the scope. There is the option to order the Public Hearing and
conduct the assessment hearing prior to awarding a contract. This would allow the City to gauge the
number of appeals prior to entering into a contract. Another option is to discuss the level of assessments.
Weyrens suggested the possibility of conducting the required hearings, design the project and then
construct the project in 2010. This would provide the property owners additional time to prepare for the
project. Under this scenario the assessments would not begin until 2012. Rassier suggested going back
to the drawing board to possibly consider the curb and gutter option.
Loso questioned the cost sharing for such a project. Weyrens replied that generally this would be
assessed at 100 %. If the street is a City street, it would be 60/40. Rassier stated that the residents on Hill
Street paid for 100% of the assessments.
Frank questioned the concerns that have been raised in the past such as the blades on the plows. Thene
re- stated that the road is in very poor shape. Sabart added that by not doing the project, there are
increased burdens on Public Works to fill the pot holes, etc. It is fair to expect that, if the project is
delayed, there will be some intermediate work that will need to be done and that will carry some additional
costs.
Loso questioned what will be done with Minnesota Street W as that is a similar situation to 16`h Avenue
SE. Both are a catch 22 situation. Sabart stated that he has spoke to the County to get an answer and
they are not sure at this time as the frost is still not out. He added that an overlay is probably not the right
answer. Loso questioned why one would delay the inevitable. According to Sabart, filling potholes is a
perpetual activity and 16th Avenue SE is not to the same degree as Minnesota Street W. He added that
he had not been out there to look at the road since last fall so he is unsure if it has deteriorated more
since then. According to Thene, portions of the road are turning back to gravel.
Sabart stated that they originally presented 4 options:
• Rural Street Section
• Urban Street Section w /curb and gutter
• Reclaim
4(a).7
• Reclaim w /culverts
Loso commented that he does not like the reclamation process. According to Sabart, there are some
concerns about truck and agricultural traffic. He added that in order to make improvements to the
structure of the road, the costs will get higher.
Wick questioned if this item was intended as FYI to which Sabart stated that yes, it was originally
intended as information only. Rassier stated that if the Council is going to look at changing the
percentage of assessments, they may want to re -look at the options. He added that he would like to make
this road be more compatible with the other roads in the City. Weyrens suggested that they continue the
discussion of the proposed road improvement at the March 25 Council workshop.
Frank questioned whether it would be beneficial to meet with the homeowner's one more time to see if
there has been any change. Weyrens stated that she spoke with a few residents who are suggesting that
the City complete the project with curb and gutter because they feel that the City cannot support the
assessments. She stated that it all comes down to dollars and cents. Rassier agreed that it is a good idea
to inform the neighbors. He suggested that if a decision is made as to where this project is headed, a flyer
could be sent out to the neighborhood.
POLICE CHIEF REPORTS
Gang Task Force: Frank questioned if there are any issues with our gang task force with respect to
forfeitures to which Jansky replied there are no issues. Rassier added that we need to make sure that we
are not sending an officer to the task force and losing since St. Joseph is already short one officer.
Jansky advised the Council that an officer from Sartell has been assigned to the task force and the costs
are shared between Sartell, Sauk Rapids, Waite Park and St. Joseph. Each City gets a report regarding
issues in their community. He added that the costs are distributed per capita.
Agency Assist: Loso questioned whether it is possible to get a list of what agencies assisted the City of
St. Joseph. Jansky replied that it is hard to measure mutual aid. Stearns County assisted at a party last
weekend at which over 40 people were arrested. There are times when different agencies assist St.
Joseph and St. Joseph does the same.
ADMINISTRATOR REPORTS
Human Rights Initiative: Weyrens stated that at the last Council meeting the Council agreed to be part of
the St. Cloud Human Rights Office. As such the Council will need to approve the Joint Power Agreement
between the City of St. Cloud and the City of St. Joseph. In addition to the Joint Powers Agreement, the
creation of the Human Rights office will also require a Memorandum of Understanding between the State
of Minnesota Human Rights Office and the Joint Human Rights Office. Weyrens stated that both
documents have been provided for review and comment.
In reviewing the Joint Powers Agreement it was noted that the agreement did not provide for early
termination. There is a termination clause, but if only two Cities are part of the agreement the clause is
not effective. Weyrens stated that she has discussed the clause with the Administrator from St. Cloud
and he agreed that portion needed to be re- drafted. Frank added that he would like to see a sunset
provision. The St. Cloud Times recently reported that a Human Rights Commission was appointed and he
questioned whether or not they will still be appointing a Human Rights Committee to which he was
advised that they were and anybody would be eligible to apply. Weyrens stated that they would like to
have the office up and running by July 1.
The following concerns were addressed regarding the proposed Joint Powers Agreement Establishing a
Board of Directors to Organize and Govern a Community Based Effort to Provide Human Rights Services
and Support a Regional Human Rights Office.
Section 8: Powers and Duties of the Board — It was suggested that paragraph 8.14 be removed from
this section and included as part of the termination clause.
4(a):8
Section 10: Employees — Wick suggested that paragraph 10.2 be moved within the document to a
new section relating to the budget. He also suggested that another paragraph be added to clarify the
role of administrative employees. Rassier added that he was under the understanding that if the grant
was not approved, then the entire project would be null and void. Weyrens advised the Council that
the grant was received and the Department of Human Rights continues to look for clarification on the
use of those funds.
Section 11: No Payment to Assisting Staff — Wick addressed issues relating to paragraph 11.1. It
states that "each member's contribution must be paid by January of the following year'. He added
that this is not possible due to the fact that the City cannot expend funds for the following year until
January 1. He also added that it is strange that they would like this approved prior to the City starting
its annual budget.
Sections 13: Termination and 14: Withdrawal — Jovanovich stated that both of these sections need to
be reviewed.
There were some concerns raised regarding the Memorandum of Understanding and Service Agreement
between the Minnesota Department of Human Rights and the Joint Powers Board as well.
A. Purpose— Paragraph one states "...that a Regional Human Rights Office in the St. Cloud
area would increase enforcement of anti - discrimination..." Wick suggested that the word
enforcement be replaced with awareness.
B. Service Agreement — Jovanovich expressed his concerns relating to Section 2: Scope of
Services. He is concerned about the amount of time that will be devoted to complaint
processing. The St. Cloud Area is going to get more value out of education and outreach;
thus, it is important that any additional complaint processing time be done at the State level.
Wick added that there are some changes to be made to the following sections for
consistency:
Section 2.1 (iv): Taylor all education and outreach activities to meet the needs of the
member cities and member residents.
Section 2.2 (vi): Make determinations on complaints.
Section 2.4 This section states that "all decisions regarding the hiring, promoting,
disciplining and discharging of the employee are reserved to the
Commissioner of Human Rights ". Wick commented that the City is
basically hiring a State Employee but has no part of the hiring process.
Weyrens advised him that the City is basically paying for a service
contract through the State. It also states that "all equipment purchased
for the St. Cloud Regional Human Rights Office will be the property of
the MDHR ". Wick clarified that the equipment that is purchased is
automatically State property to which he was advised that yes, they will
tell us what must be purchased.
Wick also questioned Section 3: Consideration and Payment. This section states that "the
Minnesota Department of Human Rights will create a branch office located within the vicinity
of St. Cloud, MN..." He expressed his concern that the office will not be in St. Cloud, rather in
Buffalo, Big Lake, etc. Previously, Mike Williams stated that the office does not necessarily
need to be in St. Cloud. Frank questioned Wick if the office needs to be located in St. Cloud
or St. Joseph to which Wick stated he would like "vicinity" to be more defined.
C. Authorized Representatives — There was some question as to what the "successor
organization" is. Weyrens stated she would get clarification on this.
in
4(31:9
G. Indemnification — Jovanovich advised the Council that this entire section needs to be re -done
as it does not make sense. He stated that a number of clauses were lumped together and it
needs to be clarified.
J. Early Termination — It was suggested that this section include the same clause as the Joint
Powers Board. Frank stated that he would like to see some language added which states that
if the City does not feel that this is working, it can withdraw completely. Also, in the event that
there is not enough membership, the agreement would be terminated. Frank suggested that
these items be tied together.
Weyrens stated that she will take it all back and bring back revised documents at the next meeting
Equipment Certificate: Weyrens clarified that with respect to a comment made during open to the public,
Equipment Certificates are not issued every year; rather there are two that are continuously rotated. The
purpose of the equipment certificates was to provide for stabilization in the budget/tax rate for the
purchase of major equipment. It has become more difficult to budget and pay for large equipment,
therefore, portions of the equipment are budgeted and the balance is paid through equipment certificates.
Frank stated that at the last meeting, the Council directed Thene to look at rental of the Plasma Cutter
rather than purchasing such an item. He stated that it seemed strange that there was no question about
the computer equipment that is being requested. He questioned if there are any other vendors that could
be used and possible save some money or whether it would be best to go to something else. Weyrens
responded that the City has made a considerable investment in the program entitled Laserfiche. All of the
City records have been imaged and are managed by this program, including police documents. Before
the City purchased Laserfiche, other software was investigated, but did not provide the same data
storage, Laserfiche is accepted by the historical society for permanent record retention and other Cities
use this same software. As a matter of fact Anoka County uses this software as the main police software
for the Cities in their area. Due to the cost, the City started the imaging with the minimum needed and we
have progressed to the full level.
Frank added that it appears that the City Offices will be in this building for a while and the City has spent
several dollars for external building studies. He suggested the possibility bringing someone in from the
outside to get some ideas on how to best use the space available. Weyrens advised Frank that they have
not yet discussed the facilities and space needs yet. Frank concluded by stating that he would like to see
what can be done with the City Offices.
Rassier stated he is okay with approving the equipment certificate, but added that discussion needs to
take place as to whether prior funds should be used on projects not completed over the past couple of
years or should those funds be used to fund some of the items on the equipment certificate. Loso
questioned where the prior funds came from. Bartlett explained that these funds are actually reserves that
have been set aside in the 5 -year capital improvement plan. During the budget process, staff reviewed
the capital equipment. Previously, the City had been building the fund balances over time and now the
City uses Equipment Certificates.
Wick stated that, unless the number had changed, there were $75,000 budgeted for seal coating. He
questioned whether or not that is enough for what the City wants to do. Thene advised the Council that he
is in the process of getting quotes from different vendors. Wick added that the State continues to figure
out their budget and we know we are going to take a hit. In his opinion, funds have already been set aside
for those projects and thus he feels that the equipment certificate should be reduced.
Rassier made a motion to approve the purchase of the equipment identified on the Equipment
Certificate List, funding the same with the issuance of equipment certificates, using the prior
funds stated as an offset to the cost of equipment. The equipment certificate will be
approximately $ 138,000 without financing costs. Further, this motion authorizes execution of the
Financial Advisory Service Agreement authorizing a negotiated bond sale. The motion was
seconded by Wick and passed unanimously by those present.
4(a):10
Ethics Policy: Weyrens stated that previously the Council has discussed the adoption of a Code of
Conduct for City Officials and Statement of Values. The Code of Conduct Ordinance is a reiteration of
the State Statute that governs City Officials. However, adopting such an Ordinance provides a concise
reference. In contrast, the Statement of Values is not an enforceable document; rather they are
guidelines that the City would ask all City Officials to adhere to.
Frank made a motion to approve Ordinance 29: Code of Conduct for City Officials authorizing the
Mayor and Administrator to execute the amendment. The motion was seconded by Wick and
passed unanimously by those present.
Frank made a motion to table, indefinitely, the value statements until the City receives further
clarification from the League. The motion was seconded by Loso.
Ayes: Rassier, Frank
Nays: Wick, Loso
Loso made a motion to approve Resolution 2010 -007 authorizing summary publication of
Ordinance 29: Code of Conduct for City Officials. The motion was seconded by Wick and passed
unanimously by those present.
Cable Commission Appointment: Weyrens stated that the Cable Commission is currently comprised of
Noreen Loso and Tom Nahan. They would like to add Tom Klein to the Cable Commission as well. Wick
made a motion to approve the appointment of Tom Klein to the Cable Commission. The motion
was seconded by Frank and passed unanimously by those present.
Upcoming Meetings: Weyrens advised the Council of the following meetings:
• March 30 Intergovernmental Meeting, Sartell
• April 19 Weyrens stated that she would like to schedule a meeting with the City Council,
Planning Commission, St. Joseph Township, Waite Park and Stearns County
Commissioner Mark Sakry. The purpose of the meeting is to continue discussion
of the Land Use Management of the Orderly Annexation Area.
Workshop Items: Weyrens suggested the possibility of using the 2nd meeting of each month to meet in a
workshop session. Loso suggested the 1$' meeting of each month instead. Weyrens agreed stating that
the timing does not work out for the Council to approve Planning Commission items at their first meeting.
MAYOR REPORTS — No Report
COUNCIL REPORTS
FRANK
Transportation Committee Meeting Update: Frank stated he and Weyrens has been meeting with
representatives from St. Ben's, the Monastery, the Council on Aging and Tri -Cap to discuss
Transportation. Frank would like to discuss this at a future meeting.
LOSO
Parking Restrictions: Loso made a motion to relieve the winter parking restrictions effective March
18, 2010. Relief is provided for this 2009 -2010 season only. The motion was seconded by Wick.
Discussion: Rassier stated that, with it being this late in the season, we may as well wait. Wick
questioned what will happen in the event that there is another snowfall. According to Jansky and
Thene, they would plow around the vehicles. Thene added that he hopes people will use common
sense.
4(a):11
Ayes: Wick, Frank, Loso
Nays: Rassier Motion Carried 3:1
Loso thought that the Planning Commission discussed parking last fall and made some minor changes.
Weyrens added that she thought this was approved by the City Council as well.
WICK — No Report
Ad'ourn: Frank made a motion to adjourn at 9:45; seconded by Wick and passed unanimously by
those present.
Judy Weyrens
Administrator
4(a):12
March 18, 2010
Page 1 of 1
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the City Council for the City of St. Joseph met in closed session
on Thursday, March 18, 2010 immediately following the regular City Council meeting in the St. Joseph
City Hall.
Members Present: Mayor Al Rassier, Councilors Dale Wick, Bob Loso, Steve Frank and Administrator
Judy Weyrens
Wick made a motion to close the City Council meeting pursuant to Minnesota Statute 13D.03
subd. 1(d), 2 to discuss labor negotiation strategy. The motion was seconded by Loso and
passed unanimously.
The meeting was opened and adjourned by consensus at 10:00 PM
Judy Weyrens
Administrator
4(a):13
March 25, 2010
Page 1 of 3
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the City Council for the City of St. Joseph met in closed session
on Thursday, March 25, 2010 immediately following the regular City Council meeting in the St. Joseph
City Hall.
Members Present: Mayor Al Rassier, Councilors Dale Wick, Renee Symanietz, Bob Loso, Steve Frank
and Administrator Judy Weyrens
Interim Use Permit —Adam Lommel. 132 — 8th Avenue SE: Weyrens presented the Council with the
Findings of Fact whereby the Interim Use Permit of Adam Lommel, 132 — 8th Ave SE to operate an owner
occupied rental unit is denied. The Findings of Fact are based on the discussion of the City Council on
March 18, 2010. At that meeting the Council authorized staff to prepare final Findings of Fact for
adoption at this meeting. Wick clarified that the vote at this meeting is to adopt the Findings of Fact and
that the information contained within are a detail of the discussion at the Council meeting on March 18.
Frank made a motion to adopt the Findings of Fact denying the Interim Use Permit of Adam
Lommel, 132 — 8th Avenue SE. The Interim Use Permit would have allowed an owner occupied
rental unit. The motion was seconded by Loso and passed unanimously.
Human Rights — Organization Documents: Weyrens presented the Council with the revised documents
regarding the St. Cloud Regional Human Rights Office. The documents include the Joint Powers
Agreement (JPA) between the City of St. Cloud and City of St. Joseph and a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between the State of MN Human Rights Office and the St. Cloud Regional Human
Rights Office. At this time the Council is being asked to authorize execution of the JPA and the Members
of the Regional Human Rights Office will recommend approval of the MOU.
Weyrens also presented the Council with a letter from the City Attorney, Tom Jovanovich, regarding the
two documents. In the letter Jovanovich states that if the Council approves the Joint Powers Agreement,
it should approve with the following conditions:
1. The Joint Powers Board cannot negotiate the MOU with the Minnesota Department of Human
Rights (MDHR) in a manner which is inconsistent with any terms of the Joint Powers
Agreement.
2. The MOU must provide that if the grant funding for the Regional Office is either reduced or
eliminated, the JPB and the MDHR agree that the MOU will be terminated.
His letter also clarifies that the MOU cannot be entered into until the Joint Powers Board is created.
Therefore the MOU is subject to further negotiation between the JPB and the MDHR.
The Council discussed the revised draft expressing disappointment that the change to section 10 and 11
of the JPA was not amended. Section 10 relates to employee related matters and then 10.2 makes a
reference to the funding of the office. Section 11 makes a reference again to staffing and then references
funding matters. The Council has requested that Section 10 relate to employee matters and Section 11
relate to financial obligations.
Wick stated that the MOU states that all property purchased for the office will become the property of the
MDHR and he questioned if local funds can be used for State purchases. Weyrens stated that she would
verify the provision. Wick further stated that Section 8.3 requires an annual report to the Members on the
Board and he would like to see a time added to this provision.
The Council agreed to consider this matter under the consent agenda for April 1, 2010 if the document
has been amended to reflect the changes above.
16th Avenue SE: Rassier stated that previously the City Council discussed the proposed improvements to
16 1h Avenue and need to determine at this time if the project will move forward to the public hearing stage.
Sabart stated that he does not have new information to present but can answer any questions the Council
may have.
March 25, 2010
Page 2 of 3
Weyrens stated that one of the discussion items for the project is the financing of the improvements.
Previously the Council has discussed the cost sharing of the improvement and alternatives. Any method
of financing will include a cost share of the City which will result in a tax levy. Weyrens stated that the
Council will be receiving the Debt Management Study at the next Council meeting. While any tax levy
has an impact to the tax capacity rate, the debt management study illustrates that due to reduced debt
the City will be able to reduce the levy for indebtedness by approximately $ 62,000. Therefore, if the
project is completed a tax levy will not necessarily lead to an increased tax capacity rate.
Rassier and Loso stated they have been contacted by some of the affected residents and they
encouraged the Council to complete the project the right way with curb and gutter. Frank and Wick
concurred that they too have been contacted. Loso stated that in his opinion the project needs to be
completed (constructed) with curb and gutter and the only question is how much of the project will be
assessed to the residents. Loso suggested that the staff prepare some alternatives for the Council to
review that include the following:
1. The current pavement is approximately 22 feet in width; determine the cost for the
reconstruction of 22 feet of roadway with the City absorbing the difference through tax levy.
2. Assess the difference between the cost of reclaim and reconstruction and the City portion
would be the difference between the two.
3. Assess the project at a 60/40 split excluding the storm water costs. In this case the resident
would be responsible for 60 percent.
4. Same as option one, but also deduct the storm water portion of the project and fund through
the Storm Water Utility.
When questioned if the project could be completed in 2010 Sabart responded that the schedule will be
tight and it is possible to get the project completed with the exception of the final wear course. Historically
the City has not placed the wear course until after the first winter season. This allows the contractor to
make any necessary corrections. With regard to the length of the project, it is anticipated the construction
of the project will take between one and one -half and two months for completion.
The Council has previously approved the resolution receiving the report and calling for hearing on the
improvement leaving the date of the hearing to be determined. At the time of adoption the Council was
considering completing the mill and overlay and had requested additional information on assessing the
project. At this time the Council by consensus requested the improvement include reconstruction to
include an urban section roadway. Staff should establish the hearing date based on statutory guidelines.
2010 Budget and LGA Cuts: Councilor Frank stated that he requested this matter be placed on the
agenda to discuss alternative solutions to the impending budget cuts. Frank questioned if the City has
received a best case /worst case scenario with regards to LGA reductions. Weyrens stated that the
proposal of the Governor will reduce the 2010 LGA by $ 217,000 and the proposal of the House and
Senate would reduce the aid by approximately $ 92,000. Therefore, in essence that would be the
best/worse case scenario. Weyrens further stated that Cities should also be prepared for reductions in
LGA for 2011 and maybe even later in 2010.
Frank stated that he would like the City to be more proactive than reactive and suggested that the City
Council consider establishing a sub - committee that would meet with members of the public to solicit their
ideas of what projects they would like to see completed or to prioritize the projects outlined by staff. For
example, the City will need to construct a second water tower at some point and to him that is a project
that will be driven by demand, not necessarily when the City want to construct it. Therefore the City
should be prioritizing items so the most crucial are completed. He realizes that the City survived the LGA
reductions in 2009 and part of that was one time money.
Loso stated that he disagrees with the suggestion of forming a sub - committee as that is what members of
the Council are elected for. He also has a difference of opinion on the need to construct the second
water tower. He remembers when the current tower was constructed and from planning to construction
took a number of years. He also believes that the Council did prepare for the 2009 LGA cuts and as a
Council decisions were made that keep the budget within the funding levels received by the City.
March 25, 2010
Page 3 of 3
Rassier stated that he too believes that the Council needs to make the decisions on priorities and as
group need to decide what project to move forward. The Council has already reviewed and prioritized the
five year capital improvement plan — those are the projects that the City needs to consider. He too
believes the Council took a proactive role in monitoring the budget and reduced revenue. In 2009 the
City had a full time staff position that was left vacant and currently the City has an open full time Police
Officer position that has not been filed. If the City loses $ 217,000 in LGA, it is his opinion that the City
Council will have to look at staffing levels and make necessary reductions. Unfortunately the Council
cannot keep eliminating capital as projects and equipment will be needed to continue to provide services.
Rassier stated that he would like staff to prepare information on the average cost of an employee with
benefits for when the Council discusses budget reductions in the future.
Police Chief Jansky stated that while his department is down one staff person, he has had to expend
overtime dollars to cover shifts or utilize the part time officers. In prior years the City received a grant
from MN Public Safety for party house enforcement and that was used in spring and fall to offset overtime
cost. Now that the City is short one Officer the lack of grant funding perpetuates the need for overtime.
Jansky estimated that he will need to use 36 hours of overtime on weekends between now and CSB /SJU
graduation. The Council understood the need for the overtime and informed Jansky that as a department
head he has the authority to schedule such. The Council agreed to continue budget discussions at an
upcoming meeting.
Adjourn: Wick made a motion to adjourn at 6:25 PM; seconded by Symanietz and passed
unanimously.
Judy Weyrens
Administrator