Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 [09] Sept 15 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 City Representatives 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. Approval of the Agenda: 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 Agenda: 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 rental 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 present to speak the public hearing was closed. Wick made a motion to amend the 2011 Capital Improvement 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 & 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. Rezoning: 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. Preliminary Plat. College 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 would 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 two 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 Agreement: 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 first 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 allow 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. 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. Ayes: Schultz, Loso, Nays: Wick Symanietz, Frank Motion Fails 2:3:0 September 15, 2011 Page 8 of 9 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 large 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 fixes 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 Preliminary Budget 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 Meetings: 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 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 will be attending the MN Street Market grand opening on September 17, 2011 at 10:00 am. September 15, 2011 Page 9 of 9 COUNCIL REPORTS FRANK Stearns County Planning: 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 living week: Symanietz reported that she and Mayor Schultz participated in Assisting Living Week at Arlington Place. Adjourn: Wick made a motion to adjourn at 9:20PM; seconded by Symanietz and passed unanimously. Vi a' / / J , dy ey ns dmi trator THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK