HomeMy WebLinkAbout[04a] Minutes (ITV oF Council Agenda Item 4 (a)
MEETING DATE: October 6, 2011
AGENDA ITEM: Minutes — Requested Action: Approve the Council minutes of
September 1, September 15 and September 29
SUBMITTED BY: Administration
BOARD /COMMISSION /COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
BUDGET /FISCAL IMPACT:
ATTACHMENTS: Request for Council Action 4(a):1 -2
September 1, 2011 Minutes 4(a):3 -8
September 29, 2011 Minutes 4(a):9 -10
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION: Approve the Council minutes of September 1, September 15
and September 29, 2001.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
September 1, 2011
Page 1 of 6
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the St. Joseph City Council met in regular session on Thursday,
September 1, 2011 at 7:OOPM in the St. Joseph City Hall, opening the meeting with the Pledge of
Allegiance.
Members Present: Mayor Rick Schultz, Councilors Renee Symanietz, Dale Wick, Steve Frank, Bob Loso
and City Administrator Judy Weyrens
City Representatives Present: City Attorney Tom Jovanovich, City Engineer Randy Sabart, Finance
Director Lori Bartlett, Police Chief Pete Jansky, Public Works Director Terry Thene.
Others Present: Mike Phillip, Bud Reber, Jane Reber, Clarence Fischer, Tom Klein, Jim Graeve, Mary
Ann Graeve, Bruce DeWenter, Gary Heltemes, Denny Pfannenstein, Jan Pfannenstein, John Walz, Dick
Taufen, Jeff Taufen, Mike Deutz, John Meyer, Carole Tamm, Tasha Tamm, Leonard Walz, Robert Fries,
Sally Lorentz, Bill Lorentz, Roy Walz, Cory Ehlert, Mary Niedenfuer, Mike Philips, Del Sheets, Jane
Reber, Rose Diedrich, Jodell Johnson.
Approve Agenda: Loso made a motion to approve the agenda as presented; seconded by
Symanietz and passed unanimously.
Consent Agenda: Loso made a motion to approve the consent agenda as follows:
a. Minutes — Requested Action: Approve the minutes of August 18, 2011.
b. Bills Payable — Requested Action: Approve check numbers 044357 - 044396 and EFT
numbers 000569 — 000573(Payroll).
c. Joint Powers Agreement — Requested Action: Authorize the Mayor and Administrator to
execute the amended Joint Power Agreement for the Gang Strike Officer adding the City of
Little Falls as a participant.
The motion was seconded by Frank and passed unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Bud Reber, 118 — 2nd Ave SE approached the Council to state his objection to the proposed Park Terrace
Improvements. He stated that most of the residents in the City have paid a larger proportion of the
projected then proposed for the Park Terrace project.
Dave Keller, 15 — 4th Avenue NW approached the Council regarding an old parking ticket that he
discovered at his home. He realized that it was mis -paid at the time and offered to make the correct
payment if it would help the City.
Public Hearing — Park Terrace Improvement: Mayor Schultz stated the purpose of the public hearing is to
solicit public testimony as to whether or not the City Council should order the improvements for the Park
Terrace Improvements, as the ordering of the improvement will result in a large tax levy for fifteen years.
At this time Mayor Schultz opened the public hearing.
Jim Graeve, 619 Minnesota St E, spoke in support of the project. He stated that he likes the direction the
council is going with regard to assessing projects. He stated that residents should only be assessed once
for improvements and then after the initial assessment, the responsibility should be that of the community.
Dick Taufen, 23 2nd Avenue NW, spoke in opposition to the proposed financing for the Park Terrace
Improvements. Taufen stated that over the past years he has been assessed two and three times and
the lowest cost participation he received was 50 %. He encouraged the Council to use the existing policy
for cost distribution of the project. .
Dave Keller, 154 Avenue NW, questioned how many times residents should be expected to pay for
hookup fees for water and sewer. What basis is the Council using to determine the cost sharing.
September 1, 2011
Page 2 of 6
Bruce Austin, 545 8th Avenue SE, spoke in opposition to the proposed financing for the Park Terrace
Improvements. Austin stated that he previously lived in Park Terrace and paid the assessment requested
by the City, and he owns a business where he once again to pay the larger portion for the extension of
services. At this time he does not feel that he should pay for services for a specific neighborhood, the
improvements do not benefit he or his business.
Cory Ehlert, 427 4 Avenue SE, spoke in opposition to the proposed financing for the Park Terrace
Improvements. Ehlert stated that he owns a number of residential and commercial properties and it is his
opinion the City is not being equitable to all residents. At one time the residents paid 80% of the
proposed improvements, and then the Council reduced the cost sharing to the resident contributing 60 %.
He stated he understands the challenges facing the City, but he does not understand how the City is
justifying the change in policy.
Mike Phillips, 338 7 Avenue SE, spoke in opposition to the proposed to the proposed financing for the
Park Terrace Improvements. He stated that in 2005 he was annexed and assessed for utility services
and street, curb and gutter. The residents impacted by that project did not receive assistance from other
resident, they paid the entire assessment. Therefore he does not see why he is being asked to pay a
portion of a project that he does not benefit from. .
Mary Anne Graeve, 619 Minnesota Street E, questioned how the new policy will be implemented. It is her
opinion that the resident should pay for water and sewer and the community at large pay for the
improvements to the street as we all use streets. The assessments in the past have imposed financial
hardship to some. She also encouraged the Council to look at alternatives to curb and gutter, such as
rain gardens. Communities such as Sartell have used them effectively and maybe St. Joseph should re-
consider the design standards.
John Meyer, 951 13th Ave SE., stated that he understands that the proposed improvement is necessary.
However, he stated that the report prepared by independent appraiser provided a range for the proposed
assessment, but the City accepted the low end amount. He questioned what motivated the Council tuse
the lower number, why not use the maximum that could be assessed.
Del Sheets, 1619 Dale Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed financing for the Park Terrace
Improvements. Sheets stated that he shares the concerns of those who spoke before him and
encouraged the Council to find a more equitable cost sharing for the project.
Jane Reber 1314 E Minnesota Street spoke in opposition to the proposed financing for the Park Terrace
Improvement project. She stated that she was assessed at two different times and paid 60% of the
project cost and it is inequitable for the City to change the cost sharing at this time.
Rosie Deidrich, 18 1 Avenue NE, spoke in opposition to the proposed financing for the Park Terrace
Improvement project. She stated that she too paid 60% of the costs for improvements as they abutted
her property and she should not be expected to pay the costs for another neighborhood. She also stated
that her taxes have been increasing each year and while the Council may indicate the impact to be $ 50
per year, that does not include any increase for the general operation.
Ron Eiynk, 134 Avenue NW, spoke in opposition to the proposed improvement. First he stated that he
did not appreciate the comments of Councilor Symanietz at a past meeting when she indicated the she
would thing the improvements "are a piece of cake and they should jump on the band wagon ". Secondly,
he stated his opposition to paying for a service he already has and questioned the Council how many
times they will be asked to pay for the same services. If the Council is compelled to complete the project,
he encouraged the Council to pay the service line costs for residents that will have to redirect their sewer
service as it comes to their home.
Ray Walz, 110 E. Ash, spoke in opposition to the proposed financing of the Park Terrace Improvements.
He stated that he agrees with those speaking before him and encouraged the Council to look at other
cost sharing alternatives.
September 1, 2011
Page 3 of 6
Dave Keller, 154"' Avenue NW, stated that the letter mailed to the residents does not explain the process
and he questioned what process was used.
Bill Lorentz, 40 5 Avenue NW, stated that he has paid an assessment in the past and he acknowledges
that the project needs to move forward. He further understands that one on likes to pay taxes or
assessments, but there should be some mechanism or system that could help defray cots.
Jodell Johnson, 225 — 12 Avenue SE, expressed concern that the letter she received in the mail was the
first information that she received regarding the proposed improvement and she is opposed to the
proposed cost sharing. She stated that she was involved in a project and was required to pay 60% of the
project cost and in her opinion the street was better before the project then when it was finished.
Mary Niedenfuer, 202 e Avenue NW, stated that the project is more complex than what was mailed to
the residents. The information did not say that the residents of Park Terrace already have water and
sewer and that the City attempted to assess the residents approximately $ 16,000. She stated it is her
opinion that there is no benefit to reconstructing the road and the water and sewer should be paid by the
City, not the residents.
Weyrens stated that she has received considerable written testimony regarding the matter and identified
the following as submitting testimony: Norman and LeeAnn Ruegemer, Dan Schreifels, Dan Wippler, Joe
Leach, Bernard & Elizabeth Schloemer, Bruce Gohman, Mike Gohman, Aleta Kvatum, Rick Schroeder,
Bill Elfering, Charles Potter, Sy Prom, Bob and Marcella Gill, Ken Jacobson, Harvey Notch, Luke Kalla,
Judy Meyer and Marty Meyer, Susan Hennen, Tim and Bill Nelson, Pam Pierskalla, Brad Cobb, Mark
Holthaus, David and Marsha Schneider, Kevin and Jeanne Schirmers, Tom and Jane Lowell, Jeff Tesch,
Dorian Davidson, Gina Dullinger, Marilyn Ruhr, and Linda Sniezek.
There being no one further wishing to testify, Mayor Schultz closed the public hearing at 7:50 PM.
Schultz requested staff provide an overview of the project. Weyrens stated that in the late 1990's the City
was required to chlorinate the water system, and when the chloride was added to the system residents
experienced cloudy, rusty and particles in the water. The City turned off the chlorination and realized that
the old water lines had considerable mineral buildup and the lines needed to be repaired. With that in
mind the City inventoried the water infrastructure and developed a plan to replace the old water mains so
that when a new filtration plant was constructed the City would be ready for chlorination. The inventory of
the system included a prioritization of the pipes and other than a small section of water main in Elm
Street, the Park Terrace area is the last area to be improved.
As a financial management tool, the City has adopted a Capital Improvement Plan where the City
identifies capital projects that need to be completed to keep the City viable. The Park Terrace project is
part of this plan. Last year the City started discussing the proposed improvements and in February the
City authorized the Engineer to prepare a feasibility report, which was accepted by the City and a public
hearing was scheduled for April 14.
On April 14, 2011 the City Council conducted a public improvement hearing for impacted residents. In
order for the City to assess a property the City has to be able to illustrate that the proposed assessment
will equal the benefit that is received by the property. To address this issue, the City hired an
independent appraiser to review the proposed project and determine what benefit will be recognized by
each property. The City received the report and it indicated that the maximum benefit ranged between $
4,500 and $ 6,500. The initial assessment roll prepared illustrated the assessment with a 60%
contribution by the resident, but once the assessment analysis was prepared the City did not have the
ability to assess a larger amount.
Once it was determined that the City could not support an assessment of 60 %, the Council discussed the
financial impact to the entire City and it was that discussion that prompted a public hearing. Before this
project, impacted residents paid a larger portion of the project than the City as a whole, so those paying
September 1, 2011
Page 4 of 6
the larger portion of the assessment had an opportunity to speak. Therefore, since the residents are
being asked to pay the larger portion of the assessment, the Council opted to conduct a public hearing.
City Engineer Randy Sabart discussed a summary of the project and stated that the proposed
improvements will replace infrastructure that was constructed in the 1960's, with utilities located in rear
yards. The location of the utilities creates difficult maintenance and some of the pipes are not located
within an easement. The proposed project will relocated the sewer lines in the street and increase the
size of the water main. The existing water main ranges from 1 - 1/2" to 2 inches and the standards today
would include a (6) six inch water main. The City had televised some of the sewer lines and pipe distress
is illustrated. In some areas the clay pipes are cracked, pipes are sagging and roots are intruding. With
regard to the street, the pavement is starting alligator and will continue to deteriorate until it is replaced.
In an effort to reduce costs, the City Council considering lining the sewer pipes rather than replacing the
pipes; however that did not prove to reduce the costs significantly. In addition, sewer pipes that are
sagging are not candidates for lining. Sabart stated that due to the condition and location of the sewer
lines, City Staff is required to perform additional maintenance than if the lines were in optimal condition.
City Attorney Tom Jovanovich stated that the City Council did not arbitrarily chose to assess only ten (10)
percent of the project; rather they are limited by MN Statute 429 that limits the amount of an assessment
to the benefit received. The appraiser hired by the City did not give any value to the sewer pipes that
have out lived their useful life. Appraisers take the position that only those benefits that are visible add
value. When a party is looking at purchasing a property, they can see that the road is new, and if a
property is connected to a municipal utility system they assume it is working. Jovanovich stated that if the
infrastructure was not operation, there would be added value.
When questioned what happens if the City does not complete the improvements and the sewer system
backs up, Jovanovich stated that the City has some discretionary immunity. If the project does not move
forward the City has to articulate the reasons for not moving forward, and sewer backups would occur the
courts have ruled on behalf of Cities. Loso expressed his disagreement with Jovanovich and stated that
he believes the City would be negligent. Jovanovich clarified that the City is not negligent. The City staff
currently maintains the system and documents preventative maintenance and follows a guideline. The
City Council has proposed a project to the residents, but financially the project is not viable. With these
circumstances the courts have ruled on behalf of the City's.
Symanietz clarified her statements from a previous meeting as referenced by Eiynck. She stated that her
comments were in reference to the significantly lower assessment and she figured that the residents
would see the project as more affordable and they would support the project.
Schultz made a motion to table action on the proposed improvement for Park Terrace until
September 15, 2011. The motion was seconded by Loso and passed unsnimously.
Public Improvement Hearing — Capital Improvement Amendment: Weyrens stated that the purpose of the
public hearing is to accept testimony on the amendment of Capital Improvement Plan to add the following
items to the 2011 CIP: Replacement roof for City Hall, new HVAC equipment for City Hall and repairs to
the police garage to increase energy efficiency. In order for the City to bond for the improvements, they
must be included in the CIP. Based on information from Bond Counsel a draft amendment to the CIP has
been prepared identifying the need for the improvement. It was initially thought that the publication
requirements only needed 10 days, instead fourteen are required. Therefore, the Council can open the
hearing at this time, but cannot take action until the meeting on September 15, 2011.
Mayor Schultz opened the public hearing and with no one present approached the Council. Frank made
a motion to continue the public hearing on September 15, 2011 as requested by Bond Counsel.
The motion was seconded by Schultz and passed unanimously.
Fire Truck Replacement: Fire Chief Jeff Taufen approached the Council to discuss the replacement of
the pumper truck. Previously the Fire Board requested each jurisdiction request authorization to move
forward with purchasing a replacement pumper truck with at an estimated cost of $534,000. The Fire
September 1, 2011
Page 5 of 6
Board received favorable responses from each entity so they authorized drafting of specifications for the
soliciting of competitive bids. The funding for the Fire truck includes $60,000 trade -in value for the
existing truck, $ 60,000 from the existing CIP and $ 20,000 from reserve funds. Therefore the Fire Board
is requesting the City issue ten year CIP bonds in the amount of $ 400,000 to finance the purchase.
Taufen stated that he was requested to look at used Fire Trucks to see if one would meet the needs of
the Fire Board. In researching Fire Truck Taufen stated that he searched Craigslist, Ebay and some
trade magazines. The trade magazines do list some used trucks; however, none of the trucks are in
Minnesota. Therefore, the cost of the truck would have to include traveling to the state in which the truck
is located and then there would be shipping to bring the truck back.
Taufen expressed frustration as he thought the Council had already moved to proceed with the purchase
of a new truck. It is his opinion that if the Council would rather purchase a used truck, the Fire Board
would be better served by keeping the existing truck as you know what problems the truck has.
Schultz stated that he is not opposed to purchasing a fire truck; however, the comments expressed at the
public hearing regarding the proposed tax impact of the Park Terrace project is an indication that the
taxpayers are looking to maintain or reduce costs not increase. Schultz stated he is asking departments
for due diligence when making purchases. Frank concurred with Schultz and stated that asking the Fire
Department to consider used vehicles is no difference than asking the public works department. The
public works department has saved considerable equipment costs by purchasing used trucks from Apple
Valley. Wick clarified that the Council only asked the Fire Department to see if any used trucks were
available and unless the Council intended to change the prior action authorizing the purchase, no action
is needed at this time.
2012 Preliminary Budget: Weyrens presented the Council with a summary of the proposed preliminary
budget for 2012. She stated that it is difficult to determine the impact due to the Legislative changes to
Market Value Credit. The impact will vary between residential and commercial. The proposed budget
indicates a negative impact to homes valued under $ 250,000 but a positive impact to homes over that
value and to businesses. The proposed budget does include $6,000 for addition park related activities
and the memberships remained as they are for 2011. The budget also included joint powers agreements
to include Human Rights and Gang Strike Police Officer. Since Tri -Cap will not have funding for 2012,
busing services are not included. Wick questioned the status on the update for Human Rights activities to
which Weyrens stated she would contact the office and report at the next meeting.
Weyrens questioned if the Council had additional items they would like to include in the proposed budget.
Loso stated that he would like to see the City start funding the St. Joseph Historical Society. Currently
the City does nothing to support them. Frank disagreed with Loso and clarified that the City does provide
the building and pays for the building expenses. Loso withdrew his request.
Schultz stated that he would like staff to bring back the budget at the next meeting along with requests for
memberships that the Council has received to include the Partnership. Symanietz stated that the City
has prepared a list of all membership currently paid and that information should be included for the next
meeting as well. Schultz made a motion to table action on the proposed budget until September
15, 2011; seconded by Symanietz and passed unanimously.
Street Closure Requests: Weyrens reported that the Police Department and Administration have been
receiving requests to close roads for neighborhood parties. While the City encourages and welcomes
neighborhood interaction, a policy needs to be established for closures. Police Chief Pete Jansky stated
that Cities such as Sartell have created an application for street closure and each request is considered
by the City Council and if approved, barricades are provided by the Public Works Department. Weyrens
questioned if the Council would like to approve each request or if the matter can be handled
administratively. Symanietz made a motion authorizing staff to administratively review and approve
street closure requests for neighborhood gatherings. The motion was seconded by Wick and
passed unanimously.
September 1, 2011
Page 6 of 6
UPDATES
Office Staffing: Weyrens reported that Sarah Bialke has submitted her resignation as Office Specialist
effective September 7, 2011. Weyrens stated that she has contacted an office staffing company to assist
with the placement. Loso stated that he does not feel the position should filled due to budget constraints
and may want to consider restructuring.
Meeting with Michelle Bachman Staff: Schultz reported that he will be meeting with Michelle Bachman's
staff to discuss current issues and avenues for which the office can be of assistance to the City.
Adjourn: Symanietz made a motion to adjourn at 10:00 PM; seconded by Wick and passed
unanimously.
Judy Weyrens
Administrator
September 29, 2011
Page 1 of 1
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the St. Joseph City Council met in special session on Thursday,
September 29, 2011 at 4:OOPM in the St. Joseph City Hall.
Members Present: Mayor Rick Schultz, Councilors Renee Symanietz, Dale Wick, Steve Frank, Bob Loso
and City Administrator Judy Weyrens
City Representatives Present: City Engineer Randy Sabart
Others Present: John Greer, Susan Palmer, Jodi Terhaar, Dan Johnson, Teliza Callaway.
College of St. Benedict — Development Agreement/Final Plat: Weyrens stated that staff has been
working with the College of St. Benedict to finalize the Development Agreement and Final Plat for the plat
entitled College Park 2nd Addition. Previously the City Council approved the rezoning, special use and
PUD and preliminary plat. Before the Final Plat could be approved final plans and specifications needed
to be reviewed and the City cost for the Storm water needed to be determined.
Sabart stated that City staff has spent considerable time finalizing the storm water costs. In a previous
agreement, the City agreed to pay a proportionate share of the costs to relocate the storm water pond
that was constructed at the time Callaway Street was built. Sabart stated that the City's share for storm
water costs are divided into three categories, piping, excavation and turf restoration. Each component
would require a different participation rate for the City. Sabart stated that while the College is proposing
to construct three ponds, the City's cost participation was based the ponding required if one large pond
were constructed. The College elected to construct three ponds, partly to add some aesthetics, therefore,
City participation did not seem appropriate. Initially the College proposed to construct the pond with 42"
pipe; however, since that time the City has illustrated that the City only benefits from a 33" pipe, so the
plans were revised reducing the pipe costs.
John Greer, Attorney representing the College of St. Benedict, concurred with Sabart that a fair
compromise for sharing the costs has been achieved and the College is agreeable to the terms. He
further stated that the College will be placing considerably more into the Stormwater system including
adding an infiltration pond. While the use of an infiltration pond is not required, it is considered
ecofriendly.
Sabart stated that all, but one minor engineering item has been resolved and the plat is ready for
approval. Frank questioned if the fees or process would have been different if the project commercial.
Sabart stated that the fees worked through were part of previous agreements, which typically the City
does not have with commercial developers. The only thing that could have been different is when the
City executed the agreement for the relocation of the pond, a maximum distance could have been
established. Sabart stated that the fees and charges that were negotiated where in the best interest of
the taxpayer. Frank questioned if the City will recapture any of the stormwater costs if the project
includes commercial development. Weyrens stated that the Development agreement for the project area
prohibits commercial ventures and permitted uses only relate to College activity.
Wick questioned if the former Kennedy School and surrounding property sell, would some of the costs be
re- allocated. Sabart responded that if the property would develop additional stormwater infrastructure
would be required so, no, the City would not recoup costs.
Loso questioned the net impact of the agreement to which Weyrens stated the City would receive the
Park Dedication fees, an approximately an addition $ 60,000, the difference between the Callaway street
fee and Storm Water Fee.
Frank made a motion to authorize the Mayor and Administrator to execute the Development
Agreement and Final plat for College 2 Addition. The motion was seconded by Loso and passed
unanimously.
Adiourn: Frank made a motion to adjourn at 4:15; seconded by Loso and passed unanimously.
Judy Weyrens
Administrator
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
September 15, 2011
Page 1 of 9
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the St. Joseph City Council met in regular session on Thursday,
September 15, 2011 at 7:OOPM in the St. Joseph City Hall, opening the meeting with the Pledge of
Allegiance.
Members Present: Mayor Rick Schultz, Councilors Renee Symanietz, Dale Wick, Steve Frank, Bob Loso.
City Administrator Judy Weyrens
Citv Reqresentatives Present: City Engineer Randy Sabart, City Attorney Tom Jovanovich, Finance
Director Lori Bartlett, Police Chief Pete Jansky and Public Works Director Terry Thene
Others Present: John Greer, Dan Johnson, Sue Palmer, Jodi Terhaar, Ryan Gideon, Teliza Callaway,
Brent Carlson, Jim Graeve, Arlee Carlson
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Jim Graeve, 619 E Minnesota Street, spoke in support of the proposed Park Terrace Improvements. He
stated that he is in favor of the City funding the largest portion of the project and encourages the City to
order the improvement at this hearing. He stated that both bonding rates and bidding climate make this
the right time to complete the project.
Graeve also invited the Council and residents to attend the annual Harvest Feast sponsored by the St.
Joseph Farmer's Market on Friday, September 16 from 3:00 pm to 6:00 PM.
Approvat of the Apenda: Wick made a motion to approve the agenda with deletion of item 4(a),
September 1 City Council minutes. The motion was seconded by Symanietz and passed
unanimously
Consent Aqenda: Loso made a motion to approve the consent agenda as follows:
a. Removed
b. Bills Payable — Requested Action: Approve check numbers 044486-044532and EFT
numbers 000584-000588 (Payroll) and 001549 (Accounts Payable)
c. Treasurer Report — Requested Action: Accept the August Treasurer's report as presented.
d. Donations — Requested Action: Accept the donations from the park donation box in the
amount of $ 313.53.
e. Capital Purchase — Requested Action: Approve the purchase of a
f. Audit Services — Requested Action: Authorize execution of the Engagement letter between
the City of St. Joseph and KDV for completion of the 2011 Audit.
g. Transfer - Requested Action: Approve the residual transfer of $ 28,000 from the General
fund to the EDA Fund.
Discussion: Loso questioned the purpose of the residual transfer for item 4(g). Bartlett stated the
transfer is the operating budget for the EDA. The revenues were budgeted in the General Fund
and the expenses were budgeted in the EDA Fund. The 2012 Budget will have both items
budgeted in the EDA so that a residual transfer is not needed.
The motion was seconded by Wick and passed unanimously.
Noise Violation. Brent Carlson. 120 Iverson: Weyrens reported that the police department responded to a
noise complaint on August 28, 2011 at 120 Iverson Street W. The Police Department verified that the
noise could be heard off the property and the property owner was notified that he would be receiving a
notice of violation from the City Offices. Weyrens stated a notice was mailed to the property owner of an
alleged noise violation and he was provided 7 days to contact the City to dispute the allegation. In
reviewing the property, it was noted that the same property had a warning for noise in February 2011.
Since the City Office did not receive a request for an evidentiary hearing, the property owner is admitting
that a noise violation did occur. The process for noise violation is twofold, the first acknowledging that a
September 15, 2011
Page 2 of 9
violation did occur and the second is disposition. Weyrens stated that the property owner is also
operating a rental unit without a license, with is a separate matter.
Wick made a motion to acknowledge that a noise violation did occur on August 28, 2011 at 120
Iverson Street West. The motion was seconded by Loso and passed unanimously.
Brent Carlson, property owner, approached the Council on his own behalf. He stated that he was already
given a ticket for the noise violation and questioned the proceedings at this time. Police Chief Pete
Jansky stated that the administrative ticket is a criminal action and is separate from the action at this
meeting, which is civil.
Loso made a motion to fine the property owner, Brent Carlson, $ 250.00 for the noise violation that
occurred on August 28, 2011 at 120 Iverson Street W. The motion was seconded by Wick and
passed unanimously.
Weyrens stated that the last matter regarding Carlson is the lack of securing a rental license. The staff
mailed a notice to Carlson in May and again in July informing him that he needed to renew his rental
license if he intended to have tenants at his residence. The City Office staff did not receive a response
from Carlson, so on August 28, the Rental Housing Inspector left a phone message for Carlson and again
no response. Weyrens stated that the rental license expired on August 14 and the Ordinance provides
for a 5% per day penalty for each day the license is not renewed. Based on the renta► license fee, the fee
and penalty as of the date of this meeting is $ 171.00.
When questioned why he did not respond to the correspondence, Carlson stated that he had a busy
summer. He also questioned if he has not already paid for the license as he was issued a ticket for
renting without a license which carried a fee of $ 100.00. Jansky again stated that the ticket issued is a
criminal ticket and the matter at this time is civil, two separate processes. Wick questioned if he would be
applying for a rental license, to which he stated yes. Schultz stated that he needed to take of his licnese
tomorrow to avoid further penalties and sanctions.
Capital Improvement Amendment: Mayor Schultz re-opened the public hearing from September 1, 2011
regarding a proposed amendment to the 2011 Capital Improvement Plan. Weyrens stated that the
purpose of the amendment is add to the CIP, the re-roofing, HVAC, and modifications to the City Hall and
Police Garage to increase efficiencies. Schultz stated that he is concerned that these items were not
included in the CIP and questioned if there are similar or additional items that have been omitted. Bartlett
stated that staff tries to include all items but occasionally one is missed. Staff is unaware of other items
that should be included. Weyrens stated that the project my include the backup generator for the facility,
and will be based on available funding. Minimally the electrical components will be added.
There being no one presen# to speak the public hearing was closed.
Wick made a motion to amend the 2011 Capital lmprovement Plan to include replacing the HVAC
and re-roof City Hall and make necessary modifications to the Police Garage and City Hall. The
motion was seconded by Loso and passed unanimously.
College of St. Benedict — Development Plan
Weyrens stated that staff has been working with representatives of the College of St. Benedict to plat and
develop property adjacent to CR 121, south of Callaway Street and north of the Field Street right-of-way.
The proposed development consists of student housing, a college welcoming center, and future
recreation and athletic facilities. The property being planned contains approximately 54 acres. Since the
property is currently zoned Agricultural, rezoning is required and development will include a PUD/Special
Use and Preliminary/Final Plat approval.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The initial application for rezoning requested E& E, which is
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the initial application of the College requested a
September 15, 2011
Page 3 of 9
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow E& E Zoning is Planning District 12. The Planning
Commission conducted a public hearing and the Planning Commission recommended the City Council
deny the request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment as the College has the opportunity to develop the
property to accommodate their needs using the zoning districts identified in the future land section of
Planning District 12. The further indicated that since the Comprehensive Plan was amended in 2008,
land characteristics and development have not changed to warrant a change and an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan should be for the benefit of one property owner.
Upon the Planning Commission denying the request for amendment, the College of St. Benedict withdrew
their request. Weyrens requested the Planning Commission affirm the actions of the Planning
Commission to formally deny the requested amendment.
Loso motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny the request to
amend the Comprehensive Plan to allow for E 8� E in Planning District 12 for the following
reasons:
1. The property owner has the ability to develop the property using the zoning districts
identified in Planning District 12.
2. The characteristics of Planning District 12 have not changed since the Plan was
updated in 2008
3. The Comprehensive Plan should not be amended for the benefit of one property
owner.
The motion was seconded by Wick and passes unanimously.
RezoninQ: Weyrens stated that the College of St. Benedict submitted an alternative application for
rezoning to change the existing zoning from Agricultural to R4. Staff encouraged the College to submit
an application to request R4, Townhouse, Zoning. This zoning classification would accommodate the
needs of the College by adding an application for PUD and Special Use. The Planning Commission
conducted a public hearing on the re-zoning and recommended the Council approve the rezoning of the
subject property to R4. Weyrens clarified that one portion of the plat will remain as Agriculture and will be
identified as outlot B on the plat to follow this action.
Loso made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and rezone the
property owned by the College of St. Benedict a combination of R4 and Agricultural as the
proposed zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The motion was seconded by
Symanietz and passed unanimously.
Preliminarv Plat. Collecae 2" Addition: Weyrens stated that the College of St. Benedict submitted an
application for Preliminary and Final Plat entitled College 2"� Addition. The Planning Commission
conducted a public hearing to consider the plat and corresponding development agreement. The
Planning Commission recommended the approval of the Preliminary Plat contingent upon the engineering
items being satisfied and execution of a development agreement. The proposed plat contains One lot and
block and six (6) outlots. Since the College is only requesting development of Lot 1 Block 1, the
remaining property is designated as outlots and as such they cannot be developed with final platting.
The Council requested the City Engineer, Randy Sabart to review any open items. Sabart stated there
are till storm water issues outstanding and the plat includes the right-of-way for Callaway Street and since
the City owns the ROW, the City would need to be a signature to the plat. The Engineer for CSB stated
that they did not find title work that illustrated City ownership, to which Wick stated it is identified on the
preliminary plat they submitted. CSB agreed to include the City as a signature to the plat. John Greer,
Attorney for CSB stated that he sees the platting of Callaway as a benefit to the City as the current legal
description is long and complicated. Wick questioned what is involved for the city to be a party to the plat.
Sabart responded that the survey work has already been completed so it woutd be a matter of placing
some property pins.
September 15, 2011
Page 4 of 9
Wick made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve the
Preliminary Plat entitled College 2" Addition. The motion was seconded by Symanietz and
passed unanimously.
Weyrens clarified that at this time the Plat is not ready for approval as there are outstanding items that
need to be resolved. The Planning Commission only reviews final plats if they are inconsistent with the
approved preliminary plat. Therefore, the final plat would only come back to the City Council.
PUD/Special Use: Weyrens stated that the College of St. Benedict has also requested approval of PUD
and issuance of a Special Use Permit to allow for a mixed use development to include student housing, a
College Welcoming Center and athletic / recreational facilities. The College is only proposing to develop
Lot 1 Block 1 College 2'� Addition at this time. The development of said lot will include four (4) eight (8)
unit facilities and a common building.
Developing property as a PUD allows the developer to have some flexibility with the zoning requirements,
with the deviations approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. The plan before the Council
has the following deviations — the number of required parking spaces have been identified on the plan;
however, only 144 parking spaces must be provided with the initial development and a provision has
been included requiring the improvements for the remaining 24 spaces if the City deems they are
necessary; one quarter of an inch deviation in the pitch of the roof for one small roof section; the R4
Ordinance requires two means of ingress/egress for each building, the PUD allows for finro means of
ingress/egress for the development of lot one; exterior material; and slight modification on distance
between buildings.
Weyrens stated that the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed PUD and
Special Use, recommending the Council approve request for development identifying the terms of the
development through the execution of a development agreement. Schultz made a motion to approve
the PUD and grant a Special Use Permit to allow for the development of the property entitled
College 2" Addition, with the exception of outlot B which remains zoned Agricultural. The motion
was seconded by Loso and passed unanimously.
Development Aqreement: Weyrens presented the Council with a draft of a Development Agreement for
the plat entitled College 2"� Addition. The purpose of the development agreement is memorialize the
terms of the development and outline responsibilities. The agreement encompasses all the property
contained within the plat and details the requirements and responsibilities for both the City and CSB. The
agreement also details the approval for the construction of the student living facilities and resolves
outstanding agreements regarding storm water and road access.
Wick questions if the improvements for College 2"� Addition are considered public or private. Sabart
responded the improvements are a combination of both public and private with all infrastructure within the
plat being private. Symanietz the location of sidewalk and crossing controls. Sabart responded that the
developer is responsible for constructing a trail parallel to CR 121/College Avenue and Stearns County
determines the location of the crosswalk. The Development Agreement includes a provision that should
pedestrian traffic become problematic on CR 121/College Avenue, the College is financially responsible
for adding safety controls such as flashing lights.
Wick questioned the ingress/egress and it will pose problems similar to the access to Coborn's. Sabart
responded that the proposed access to CR 121/College Avenue will be located across the street from an
existing access to College property on the west side of CR 121/College Avenue. The problem with the
access to Coborn's is the width of the apron; whereas, the College will have adequate access to size the
apron appropriately.
Weyrens stated that there are two open items in the Development Agreement. The flrst item relates to an
agreement between the City and College executed in 2004. When the City constructed Callaway Street,
the City purchased right-of-way from the College. As part of the agreement for land acquisition, the City
agreed to not assess the College for the portion of the street that abutted their property as they asserted
September 15, 2011
Page 5 of 9
that they do not benefit from the street and had no need to utilize the same. Therefore, the City executed
an agreement and included language that if the College needed access to Callaway Street they would
agree to negotiate a fee and access was defined as a curb cut.
Since the proposed development needs access to Callaway Street staff is recommending a fee of $
112,455.10. The fee was calculated using the useful life of a street (15 years), less the years that have
lapsed since the final lift was installed (2006) and using the actual cost of the construction of Callaway
Street to establish a per year cost and then multiplying that number times the remaining life of Callaway.
Weyrens reported that the College objects to the proposed fee and has offered $ 50,000.
Greer stated that it is the opinion of the College that they are not being treated the same as other property
owners that abutted Callaway Street and are being asked to pay a larger contribution for Callaway than
the developer who needed the access. City Attorney Tom Jovanovich stated that the one could argue
that the developer paid a disproportionate share for Callaway as they paid the entire cost of Callaway as
it abutted their property and they paid and additional transportation fee.
Greer stated the matter for the College is one of equity, as the School District did not pay an assessment
for Callaway and they have two separate access points to the street. Greer stated that the City had
initiated condemnation proceedings to secure the right-of-way for Callaway and as part of a settlement
agreement, the City agreed not to assess the College as they did not have need for the access nor did
they benefit from the property. The agreement included language which would alfow for a negotiated fee
if the College needed access at some point in the future. Greer admitted the College is not in a good
bargaining position, as they are seeking development approval and the City has set a fee. He stated that
it is his opinion that if the College had been assessed, the College would have had some protections
under the law to include that the property being assessed must receive value from the improvement, the
assessment must be uniformly applied, and the assessment must not exceed the benefit received. Greer
reiterated that these factors are protections granted by MN Law. Greer also stated that typically when a
street is constructed abutting property owners have access to utilities, which is not the case for Callaway.
Sabart responded to the concerns raised by Greer. First the School District was not assessed for the
construction of Callaway as the City would not have been able to illustrate benefit. The site already had
access to a street and the majority of the School site that abutted Callaway was a playground or field.
Secondly, Callaway Street was constructed with limited utilities as the College did not express a need so
water and sewer stubs were constructed to the edge of the plat. Had the City installed additional utilities
the cost of the road would have increased sustainably, so the cost to the College was already minimized.
Jovanovich concurred that the provision cited by Greer are accurate; however, the City is not assessing
the property at this time and when the College entered into the agreement for a future payment, they
knowingly waived their rights to the benefits provided under Minnesota Statute 429. At the time Callaway
Street was constructed the College did not want to be assessed or have a deferred assessment placed
against the property. The City at this time is looking to charge a fair and proportionate fee, equal to what
a property owner would pay, using an objective method.
Greer stated that the College respectfully disagrees and offers to pay $50,000 for access to Callaway
Street. Schultz questioned how the College established the fee they are offering to pay, to which Greer
responded that they picked a number they feel is fair and equitable. Wick stated that he could not
approve a fee that is not based on some mathematical formula as it then becomes an arbitrary fee that is
not quantifiable. The Council affirmed that access fee for Callaway is $ 112,455.10
The other outstanding item in the Development Agreement relates to the relocation of the storm water
pond constructed when Callaway Street was developed. The City entered into an agreement whereby
the College would allow the City to construct a storm water pond adjacent to Callaway Street on CSB
property for purpose of a temporary holding pond. The agreement includes a provision that the City will
pay a proportionate share of the relocation of the storm water pond in the event that the College develops
the property.
September 15, 2011
Page 6 of 9
Greer stated that the second open item relates to the relocation of the storm water pond that was
constructed with Callaway Street. The executed agreement from 2004 includes a provision whereby,
when the College develops the property, the City will pay a proportionate share of the system cost to
relocate the pond that will serve both the needs of the City and CSB. Greer stated that based on the
stringent design requirements of the City, the College is compelled to design a system that is much large
and more expensive than if they were building one for just their needs. For example, the College will be
required to install at 42" pipe that could have been much smaller if the drainage did not include Callaway
Street. The Engineer for the College has indicated that based on his calculations the City is responsible
for 51 % of the pond costs.
Sabart stated that he has not seen the calculations completed by the College Engineer, but calculated a
different percentage for the City. Sabart clarified that the City requirements are no more stringent than
the area communities and he questioned the size of the pipe proposed by the Engineer as it may not
need to be 42". Regardless, Sabart stated staff will meet with College representatives to resolve this
matter and bring back a recommendation to the City Council. Wick stated that in reviewing the executed
agreement he questioned the responsibility of the City to provide drainage for property other than the
ROW. Symanietz questioned if any of the Graceview properties will drain to the new holding pond to
which Sabart responded no.
The Council requested that staff continue to meet with CSB to finalize the storm water fee and final plat
and agreed to meet specially once all the issues have been resolved.
Park Terrace Improvement: Schultz stated that the Council needs to come to resolution on whether or not
to proceed with the improvements to the Park Terrace area. Loso questioned the City Attorney as to how
long after a public hearing does the Council have to make the decision whether or not to move forward.
Jovanovich stated that City has six months. Weyrens stated that the Council conducted the public
improvement hearing on April 14 so the latest the Council could make a decision is October 3, 2011.
Wick requested Weyrens explain the financing process. Weyrens stated that the Council is most familiar
with issuing MN Statute 429 Bonds which requires 20% of the project to be funded through special
assessments. Since the City is only proposing to assess approximately 10% of the project, 429 bonds
cannot be issued. Another form of bonding is Capital Improvement Bonds and this category has different
options to include public facilities and street maintenance.
If the project moves forward, the City would issue Street Maintenance Bonds. The process for this type of
bonding requires the City to have a Street Improvement and Maintenance Plan and minimally must
include a five year plan. While the City has fulfilled this requirement through the establishment of the
Engineer's CIP, staff would look at extracting all street projects and labeling the document Street
Improvement and Maintenance Plan. If the City opts to move forward with the project, residents have
thirty days in which than can circulate a petition to request the matter be placed on a ballot for election by
the residents. The petition must include five (5) percent of the voters voting in the last election.
Jovanovich stated that one of the problems with the 429 Statute is that is has not kept current with the
realities of improvement projects. At one time achieving an assessment rate of 20% was common, but in
today's market it is not a reality.
Frank stated that the decision to move forward is difficult as the bidding climate and interest rates help
reduce the cost of the overall project; however, he questioned whether there is some merit in waiting.
The process of securing appraiser to perform benefit analysis is relatively new and there is some conflict
on whether or not replacing pipes that have served their useful life has benefit. It is possible that some of
these issues will be worked out by other Cities and St. Joseph may benefit from lessons learned by other
Cities.
Wick stated that it is his opinion that if the voters filed the necessary petitions to place this matter on the
ballot, the question would fail and the City would not have the ability to finance the project. Wick stated
that it is difficult to ask residents to support a tax levy for an improvement when most residents have
already paid for improvements and where assessed 60% of the costs. He further stated that he has
September 15, 2011
Page 7 of 9
spent considerable time reviewing Appellate Court decisions and most cases he read were from the
1960's and 1970's. He questioned Jovanovich if there are current cases to reference. Jovanovich stated
that there are some current cases that refer to contested assessments.
Loso stated that the City has a responsibility to maintain the infrastructure and if the City dos nothing the
streets will fall apart and the Sewer has the potential of failing. Loso stated that he supports the project
and does not agree that the homeowners should have to pay to reconnect the service line due to the
relocation of the Sewer main. While the City is portraying that the resident is only paying $ 4,500, in
reality some will pay much more and could be as high as $ 10,000. Therefore it is his opinion they are
paying a larger portion of the cost.
Schultz stated that the City started the process for improvement by ordering a feasibility report. The
Council reviewed the report and concurred that the infrastructure is in need of replacement and the same
project has been in the Capital Improvement Plan for over 10 years. The City conducted a public hearing,
inviting the affected residents to testify on the proposed project. Since that hearing considerable input
has been received and residents impacted by the project indicated that the water service is sufficient
even though the water mains are the size of most service lines, they are not experiencing difficulty with
the sewer system and the road is not that bad. In addition, the City has received considerable feedback
from residents at large that they do not support issuing debt that will result in a large tax levy. The City
has looked at alternatives, such as spot repairs and lining, but that is not the answer, the City will still
have a system that has outlived the useful life. Schultz stated that at some point the City will have to do
something, but he is uncertain what that is at this time.
Jovanovich stated that one of the problems with the pared assessment analysis approach is not giving
value to infrastructure that cannot be seen such as water and sewer pipes. If the City does nothing and
substantiates the reason for not moving forward and residents experience sewer backups, the Courts
have not found the City's liable as they have done due diligence. Loso disagreed with Jovanovich and
stated that the City has a responsibility to maintain the infrastructure and at this time the City cannot
legally assess a larger portion. Jovanovich disagreed with Loso and state that there is nothing that would
prevent the residents from agreeing to pay a larger portion so the project could move forward. He further
stated that if the pipes would break, the City would have a stronger argument to assess the cost of the
pipe replacement as the property does not have much value without working sewer; hence benefit is
derived.
Loso is concerned that the home owner will pay for these changes and hook ups. The council weighing
out the pros and cons for the city and home owner. Schultz points out that the first discussion the
homeowners were not for the
When questioned what the next steps are, Sabart responded that a good portion of the road will last a
couple of years and then potholes will develop and patching begins. With regard to water, the sub-
standard pressure does not appear to be a concern of the residents so the bigger concern is the sewer.
The holes in the sewer pipe can be repaired with lining, but areas where the pipe is sagging collecting
water can only be repaired by replacement. The maintenance staff will continue to spend additional time
maintaining the system gaining access through back yards avoiding obstacles. The City was trying to
avoid being a position waiting for a collapse, but given the situation, the maintenance staff will continue to
provide additional maintenance. Frank stated that not while his preference, some Cities might opt to let
the road return to gravel if they cannot afford to make the necessary repairs.
Loso makes the motion authorizing the Mayor and Administrator to execute resolution 2011-019
ordering the Improvement for the Park Terrace Improvement and authorizing the expenditure to
design the project. The motion was seconded by Wick.
Discussion: Wick question how the motion would impact the ability for residents to petition to
bring the matter to the voters. Jovanovich stated that the City should consider conducting the
public hearing to issue the debt before incurring the cost to minimize the risk.
September 15, 2011
Page 8 of 9
Ayes: Schultr, Loso,
Nays: Wick Symanietz, Frank Motion Fails 2:3:0
Jovanovich stated that those voting against motion need to articulate the reason for voting contrary to the
motion.
Symanietz stated that she voted contrary to the motion for the following reasons:
1. She has received considerable feedback from the residents objecting to the City
contributing 90% of the assessment and the residents only paying 10%.
2. Based on the appraisal by the City hired independent appraiser, Julie Schwartz, the
City's portion of the project costs are too high and would result in a financially
burdensome levy by the City for a period of fifteen years.
Wick stated that he voted contrary to the motion for the following reasons:
1. Many residents have questioned the need for any of the improvements at this time,
including residents that would benefit from the improvement. A number have testified
that their services are not in need of upgrade and the street is not in that bad of
shape.
2. The levy that would be required to complete the project would result in an overly
burdensome levy for a period of fifteen years.
3. It would be unfair to the other citizens of St. Joseph for the City to pay for such a
targe portion of the project costs with the resulting levy paid predominately by
residents not benefiting from the improvement.
4. The proposed 90/10 assessment cost share is disproportionate to what other
residents have paid in the past, including a 2010 project.
Frank stated that he voted contrary to the motion for the following reasons:
1. Based on the appraisal by the City hired independent appraiser, Julie Schwartz, the
City's portion of the project costs are too high and would result in a financially
burdensome levy by the City for a period of fifteen years.
2. The City Council was presented with alternative �xes and downsizing the project is
not economically feasible since any downsizing would result in the need for portions
of the road to be disturbed twice at intervals less than the normal useful life of the
road.
3. While the potential of a petition requiring the project to be placed on the ballot as a
referendum question is not reason alone to vote against the motion, it is compelling
enough evidence that the project is not supported community wide
Preliminarv Budaet 2012: Weyrens stated that the Council has received the preliminary budget for 2012
and action on the budget must be ratified at this meeting. The 2012 budget proposes a General Fund
Tax Levy of $ 1,360,570, Debt Levy in the amount of $ 502,920, supporting a General Fund Budget of $
2,440,925. Staff is recommending the City Council accept public testimony on the budget at 7:00 PM on
December 1, 2011. Between this meeting and December 1, 2011, the City Council has the ability to
lower the levy supporting the 2012 budget but cannot increase the levy.
Loso made a motion authorizing the Mayor and Administrator to execute resolution 2011-021
setting the levy for collectible 2012, and setting the public testimony hearing for December 1, 2011
at 7:00 PM. The motion was seconded by Schultz and passed unanimously.
ADMINISTRATOR REPORTS - None
MAYOR REPORTS
Meetinqs: Schultz stated that he and Council Wick recently attended the CSB Cabinet meeting to discuss
items of mutual concern; attended the Off Campus Housing meeting on September 7, 2011 welcoming
the students to St. Joseph; and attended the APO Executive meeting
September 15, 2011
Page 9 of 9
Schultz reported that he will be hosting a town hall meeting at the Local Blend on Saturday, September
17, 2011 from 8:30 am to 10:00 am and wiN be attending the MN Street Market grand opening on
September 17, 2011 at 10:00 am.
COUNCIL REPORTS
FRANK
Stearns Countv Plannina: Frank stated that he has received some concerns regarding the upcoming
hearing for the Conditional Use Permit for the farming operation just outside the corporate limits. The
concern has centered around the slurry facilities that will be added and the expansion of the livestock.
Weyrens responded that the Joint Planning Board will be considering this matter on September 26, 2011.
Concerned with the interest they were adding cows, slurry and having that kind of farm close to future
developments.
LOSO — No Report
WICK
HRA Grant Open House: Wick reminded the Council and residents that Stearns County HRA will be
conducting an information session on a potential grant opportunity for residents and land lords who
qualify. The grant program benefits low income property owners with funding potential for maintenance
needs such as roofing, windows, and siding. This is the first step in the application process. If the city
receives enough interest, Stearns County will process a grant application on behalf of the City of St.
Joseph. The Information meeting will be on Wednesday, September 20, 2011 at 6:00 (owner occupied .
housing) and 6:30 (rental property) at the St. Joseph Community Fire Hall.
SYMAN ITZ
Assisted livinq week: Symanietz reported that she and Mayor Schultz participated in Assisting Living
Week at Arlington Place.
Adiourn: Wick made a motion to adjourn at 9:20PM; seconded by Symanietz and passed
unanimously.
Judy Weyrens
Administrator