HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010 [03] Mar 25March 25, 2010
Page 1 of 3
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the City Council for the City of St. Joseph met in special session
on Thursday, March 25, 2010 in the St. Joseph City Hall.
Members Present: Mayor Al Rassier, Councilors Dale Wick, Renee Symanietz, Bob Loso, Steve Frank
and Administrator Judy Weyrens
Others Present: Thomasette Scheeler, Diane Weick, Mike McDonald
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 th 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/worst 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
March 25, 2010
Page 3 of 3
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.
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.
Adeiourn: Wick made a motion to adjourn at 6:25 PM; seconded by Symanietz and passed
unanimously.
J d Wens
d inistrator