HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 [07] Jul 15 {Book 31}
CITY OF ST. JOSEPH
. WW~/, cityofstjoseph .com
St. Joseph City Council
July 15, 2004
7:00 PM
Administrator 1. Call to Order
Judy'Weyrens 2. Approve Agenda
3. Consent Agenda
Mayor a. Bills Payable - Requested Action: Approve check numbers
Larry I. Hosch b. Minute - Requested Action: Approve Minutes
c. Joint Powers Agreement - Requested Action: Authorize the Administrator to
Councilors execute the JointPowers Agreement between the City of St. Joseph and Resource
Training and Solutions.
AI Rassier d. Gambling Permit - Requested Action: Accept the Application for E~empt Gambling
Ross Rieke Permit for the Central Minnesota Chapter of the Minnesota Deer Hunters
Gary Utsch Association for a fundraiser to be held on September 22, 2004 at the Lighthouse.
Dalc 'Wick 4. 7:00 PM - Public Comments to the Agenda
5. 7:05PM -.: Rezoning of Birch Street East
6. 7:15 PM - River's Edge, Final AUAR - Westwood Professionals, Matt Vollbrecht
. 7. 7:25 PM - College of S1. Benedict - Flag Request
8. 7:30 PM - Sand Companies - Letter of Support for Tax Credit Application
8. 7:40 PM - City Engineer Reports
a. Water Filtration Plant
b. Other matters
9. Department Head Reports
10 Mayor Reports
11. Council Reports
12. Administrator Reports
a. Request for Reimbursement - Street Address Change
b. Budget Meeting Schedule
c. Public Hearing Schedule
13. Adjourn
.
2.) College Avenue North, PO Box 668 . Saint. joseph, Minnesota )6,74
Phone ,2.0,,6,,72.01 I:a x ,2.0,,6,,0,42.
Draft
July 1, 2004
Page 1 of 5
. Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the City Council for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session
on Thursday, July 1, 2004 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall.
Members Present: Mayor Larry Hosch. Councilors Gary Utsch, AI Rassier, Dale Wick. City Administrator
Judy Weyrens.
Others Present: City Engineer(s) Joe Bettendorf and Tracy Ekola, Rick Packer, Matt Vol brecht, Kay
Lemke, Tom Herkinoff, Linda Brown, Bob Herges
Approve AQenda: Utsch made a motion to approve the agenda with the following changes:
Remove 3(a) Bills Payable
The motion was seconded by Wick and passed unanimously.
Consent AQenda:Rassier made a motion to approve consent agenda as follows. A motion was
seconded by Utsch and passed unanimously.
a. Minute - Requested Action: Approve Minutes
b. Change order- Authorize the Mayor to execute Change Order No.5 for 2003 Liberty Pointe
Improvements, allowing a contract increase of $ 3,900.
c. Application for payment- Authorize the Mayor to execute Pay Application No. 6 for 2003
Northland Plat 7 and authorize payment to· R.L. Larson Excavating, Inc in the amount of
$1,175.37.
d. Application for payment- Authorize the Mayor to execute Pay Application No.4 for the 2002
East Baker Street Lift Station and authorize payment to R.L. Larson Excavating, Inc. in the
amount of $7,315.09.
e. Application for Payment- Authorize the Mayor to execute Pay Application No. 1 for 2004
. Northland Plat 8 and authorize payment to Molitor Excavating, Inc. in the amount of
$173,264.87.
f. Application for Payment- Authorize the Mayor to execute Pay Application No.8 for the 2003
LibertyPointe Improvements and authorize payment to R. L. Larson Excavating, Inc. in the
amount of $43,617.14.
g. Variance Request - Adopt the findings of the Planning Commission and deny the 44' sign
variance request of Stonehouse Properties LLC.
h. Gambling Permit - Accept the application for an Exempt Gambling Permit for theSt.
Joseph Volunteer Fire Department for a fundraiser to be held on October 14, 2004 at the EI
Paso Sports Bar.
Public Comments to the Agenda
Kay Lemke of 33 E Ash Street spoke in opposition to the rezoning of Birch Street. She stated she had a
few concerns that she would like to see addressed and taken into consideration before the Council makes
a final decision on the rezoning of Birch Street East.
1. What kind of buffer will be put up to block the view of the backs of the buildings?
2. It was her understanding the Council had requested the Planning Commission to consider a
lower density commercial zoning district for East Birch Street. This has not happened. Why?
Birch Street - RezoninQ: Hosch acknowledged that the Council has received the report from the Planning
Commission recommending the Council approve an amendment to the Zoning Map to rezone certain
property abutting Birch Street East from the current R1, Single Family to B2, Highway Business.
Hosch responded to the concerns of Lemke. First, the current B2 Zoning District includes a buffer to
protect adjacent properties. Second, Hosch stated that it has he who expressed concerns with some of
the permitted uses within the B2 Zoning District and did not believe they should all be allowed. Since the
. last Council meeting, the City Attorney has provided the Planning Commission with a letter stating that
even though a use is listed as a permitted use, the Council still has the authority to deny a development
Draft
July 1, 2004
Page 2 of 5
request if it is not compatible with adjacent properties. With this information, Hosch stated he is ·
comfortable moving fOlWard with the rezoning,
Hosch requested the Council table action on this matter as Councilor Rieke is not present and he would
like all Council Members present when the Council takes action. Therefore, Rassier made a motion to
table this until the next meeting due to Rieke's absence and the need for a 4/5 vote. The motion
was seconded by Utsch and passed unanimously.
River's Edqe - Final AUAR: Matt Volbrecht from Westwood Professional Services presented the Council
with the Final AUAR for the ARCON development entitled River's Edge. Vollbrecht stated that the 30 day
comment period has ended and all comments received have been reviewed. Once approved by the
Council the Final Draft of the AUAR and Mitigation Plan and will be released for public comment.
During discussion the following items were discussed:
. Hosch questioned the population number included in the AUAR with regard to the water system.
Vollbrecht responded that the 2000 census numbers were used and when the AUAR discusses
the Municipal Water System, the College population is removed as they are served by a private
water system.
. Wick presented grammatical corrections as well as questioning when the Council will see all the
comments that were received. Vollbrecht stated that the comments have been included in the
appendix of the AUAR. It was discovered that Vollbrecht had not included the appendix.
Vollbrecht assured the Council that he had responded to all the comments with the exception of the
requested language change of Municipal Development Group. Vollbrecht stated that their comment was
not included, as Westwood does not want to add the word "required" to the Noise Mitigation Plan.
Rassier stated that he agrees with that decision, but he also stated that they should work with the ·
property owners if there is a need for noise mitigation.
Wick questioned if the Council will have another opportunity to re\7iew the Final AUAR. Vollbrecht
responded that once the final document is approved by the Council, their will not be another opportuniiy
for review, The Council questioned the process of amending the AUAR if it is still going out for public
comment. Vollbrecht responded that once the plan goes out for public comments, those agencies
submitting comments have an opportunity to review the changes and discuss any changes not made.
Wick and Utsch stated they were not comfortable approving a document that they have not seen in its
entirely. Hosch stated that since the appendixes include less than 10 pages, the Council could take a
recess to read the additional pages and then comment on the same.
Rassier made a motion to table this issue until after the other agenda items have been discussed.
The motion was seconded by Wick and passed unanimously.
Foxmore Hollow: Weyrens reported that the Planning Commission has previously recommened approval
of the Preliminary Plat for Foxmore Hollow contingent upon the approval of the City Engineer and the City
Attorney.
Rassier questioned a cul-de-sac in the Northern part of the development. He stated that he likes the
design, but is concerned about the future plans for the area behind lots 13 & 14 to the East, near the
current apartments. Rassier questioned if access from Foxmore Hollow should be provided to CR 121
through said lots. Weyrens stated that she has been approached by the owner of the apartment complex
regarding a proposed expansion. If that is the case, they would not need access to CR 121. Tom
Herkinoff, Engineer for Foxmore Hollow, stated that if Wilshire Apartments expand, they will be required
to use the existing driveway. Hosch stated that the property owner of the apartment complex was notified
of the pubic hearing and he did not appear to request any changes. Herges said that he had spoken with ·
Draft
July 1, 2004
Page 3 of 5
. the property owner and they have looked at the plat. He stated that the piece of property in question
never came up in discussion.
Wick questioned the street naming in Foxmore Hollow. Ekola responded that the street name
designations are consistent with the St. Joseph Street Naming policy as well as the Area City guidelines.
The property owner has the option of naming the street Foxmore Drive, Loop or Way. The Developer
along with the City Staff have recommended Foxmore Drive.
Wick stated that they would need a variance for the depth of the lots. Herkinoff stated that the plat was
submitted as a PUD in which they requested relief from the lot depth. All of the lots meet the minimum
square footage and all the R1, Single Family setbacks will be applied.
Herkinoff stated that at this time the developers are requesting approval of the preliminary plat with the
understanding that the developer will need to make application for the special use permit for the R3
portion of the plat and a variance will be required for the setback from a pond and to require that the pond
not be located on a separate tract of land.
Ekola stated that the St. Joseph Code of Ordinances require a 100' setback from a holding pond. The
proposed multiple family building will only be setback 50'. In reviewing the proposed variance, Ekola
stated that she concurs with the granting of such. The other outstanding issue is the connection of
sidewalk/trail to CR 121. The Developer is proposing to construct the trail north of the apartments. This
proposal will meet the intent of the Park Board.
Wick stated that this plat does not show any landscaping for the R3 portion. Weyrens stated that the
landscaping had been submitted previously, but it has changed since then. When the new public hearing
is conducted for the special use permit, a landscaping plan will be submitted.
. Utsch made a motion to approve the Preliminary Plat for Foxmore Hollow including the
development of the same as a PUD with relief given to the minimum depth requirement. Approval
is contingent upon the application and approval of a variance to construct a building within 50' of
a holding pond and to allow the holding pond to remain on the same tract of land as the apartment
building. The motion was seconded by Wick and passed unanimously.
CITY ENGINEER REPORTS
16th Avenue SE Improvements: Bettendorf reported the City Council has previously adopted a resolution
ordering the improvements and authorizing the City Engineer to prepare the plans and specifications for
the improvements for 16th Avenue and the Wobegon Park Improvements. Bettendorf stated the plans
and specifications are completed and he is requesting authorization to accept the plans and authorize the
advertisement for bids.
Rassier made a motion to accept resolution 2004-22, approving the r1ans and specifications and
ordering the advertisement for bids for the 2004 improvement to 161 Avenue and WobegonPark.
The motion was seconded by Utsch and passed unanimously.
Public Improvement Hearinqs for Annexation Areas: Bettendorf discussed the annexation of 2951h/103fd
and the Cloverdale Area. In order to consider constructing improvements, the Council will need to
authorize the required public hearings for the proposed utility extension. Weyens reported that the
Township on Monday night executed the Resolution for Annexation. Since the Council approved the
Annexation, the Resolution has been modified to only charge the City Tax Capacity rate if services are
installed. In the event that services are not provided, the Township Tax Capacity Rate will be applied to
the annexation area until December 31,2007.
- When questioned what action is needed by the Council, Bettendorf responded that a series of public
hearings are required for any public improvement. The first hearing is the public improvement hearing.
Draft
July 1, 2004
Page 4 of 5
At this hearing the Council must order or deny the improvements. If the improvements are ordered, the ·
project is designed and bid. The second hearing is the assessment hearing and that has typically been
scheduled after the improvements are constructed. However, if the City is concerned about risk and
assessment contention, the City could conduct the assessment hearing after the project is bid, but before
the project is awarded. Weyrens reminded the Council that they must also approve the revised
Resolution for Annexation. The Council requested to wait until July 15, 2004 to establish the hearing
dates, as Council Rieke is not present.
Rassier made a motion to approve the revised Resolution for Orderly Annexation allowing the
residents of 295th Street and 103rd Avenue to be taxed at the Township Tax Capacity Rate until
December 31,2007 in the event that services are not provided. The motion was seconded by Wick
and passed unanimously.
RFP for Field Street Corridor Study; Bettendorf stated that the RFP will be published twice in the state
register, The first time being on July 6, 2004. It will also be published in the St. Cloud Times. The
proposals will be due by Friday August 6, 2004. The City can decide to put together a Selection
Committee to interview the top bidders if they chose to do so. The City should make a final selection by
August 19, 2004. Production time will be from September to March. Bettendorf stated that if the Council
has any questions they should be routed through Weyrens.
DEPARTMENT HEAD REPORTS
Public Works: Utsch spoke on behalf of Dick Taufen. There has been some drainage issues on 1ih
Avenue SE and Taufen is proposing to cut a 6" section of curb to alleviate the drainage issues. The cost
will be borne by the property owners. Weyrens stated that Council action is not needed on this item as it
is information only.
River's Edqe; Utsch made a motion to recess at 8:00 PM to allow the Council members to review ·
some additional information for River's Edge. The motion was seconded by Wick.
Discussion: Rick Packer, Developer, requested the Council not-take action on this matter at this
meeting. He stated that the AUAR is too important of a document to not have a clear understanding of
the contents. Packer stated that he will have Westwood provide the additional data and requested this
matter be placed on the July 15, 2004 agenda.
The motion failed and the meeting was not recessed.
MAYOR REPORTS
School Survey: Hosch reported that the School Survey is in process and the School Committee will be
receiving the results within the next two weeks.
COUNCIL REPORTS
RASSIER - None
WICK
library Site; Wick reported that the Great River Regional Library Committee will be making a decision
regarding the future site of the new Library. The information will be released to the public on July 15,
2004.
UTSCH
Sidewalks: Utsch reported that he had been stopped by a landowner who asked about the possibility of ·
putting a sidewalk on 4th Avenue NE from Minnesota Street to Casey's. Currently, people are walking on
Draft
July 1 2004
Page 5 of 5
· the lawn or on the street creating a safety hazard. One of the abutting property owners has expressed
interest in providing the sidewalk and participating in the cost. Weyrens stated that the City had
previously budgeted for sidewalks and there is some money set aside. She stated that she will refer this
matter to the Public Works Director.
Adjourn: Utsch made a motion to adjourn at 8:05 PM; seconded by Wick.
Ayes: Utsch, Wick, Hosch
Nays: Rassier
·
·
· I Attachment: Yes or No I
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Consent 3(c) Joint Powers Agreement
DATE: July 15, 2004
Administration
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
AGENDA ITEM
Joint Powers Agreement - Requested Action: Authorize the Administrator to execute the Joint Powers
Agreement between the City of St. Joseph and Resource Training and Solutions
PREVIOUS ACTION
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION
· Authorize execution of the Agreement
FISCAL IMP ACT
COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS
When the City quoted Insurance, the lowest rate came from Blue Cross and Blue Shield. Resource
Training and Solutions is a cooperative that provides services to Cities and Counties. One of these
services is medical insurance. Every sixty months they bid medical services for its members and then
individual member rates are based on experience. During the contract period the City is not allowed to
quote medical insurance. The City does have the opportunity to change at the end of a 60 month contract
period (for the City that date is December 31, 2005). As you recall the medical premiums quoted
extended for an 18 month period or December 31,2005. The agreement also indicates that if you leave
the Cooperative, there is a two month waiting period to re-join.
The fee for the Cooperative is $ 9.85 per month. Even with this fee, the City received significant savings
from switching to Blue Cross through the Cooperative.
·
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
FOR GROUP EMPLOYEE BENEFITS AND OTHER FINANCIAL AND RISK .
MANAGEMENTSER~CES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SECTION 1. PURPOSE, INTENT AND OBJECTIVE... .. .... .. .... '" .........1
1.1 Purpose
1.2 Compliance with Applicable Laws
SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS................................................2
2.1 Advisory Committee(s)
2.2 Agreement
2.3 Associate Member
2.4 Board or Joint Powers Governing Board
2.5 CBA
2.6 CBA Employee Benefits
2.7 Discretionary Employee Benefits
2.8 Group Contract
2.9 Group Employee Benefits .
2.10 Other Financial and Risk Management Services
2.11 Operating Agreement
2.12 Participant
2.13 Participant Member
2.14 Pool
2.15 Program Funds
2.16 Provider
2.17 SC
SECTION 3. JOINT POWERS GOVERNING BOARD ..........................4
3.1 Board Membership
3.2 Upon Dissolution of SC
3.3 Acknowledgment by Associate Members
.
090299 i
SECTION 4. RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE BOARD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
· 4.1 Authorized Powers
4.2 Group Employee Benefits
4.2.1 CBA Employee Benefits
4.2.2 Discretionary Employee Benefit
4.2.3 Reserves
4.2.4 Self-Insurance of Health Benefits
4.3 Other Financial and Risk Management Services
4.4 Operating Agreements
4.5 SC Service Fees
4.6 Service Providers
4.6.1 Selection
4.6.2 Governmental Unit Bidding and Contracting Laws
4.6.3 Service Provider Rate Increases
4.7 Premiumsandlor Contract Charges
.4.8 Advisory Committee( s)
4.9 Authority of Board
4.10 Liability Limited
4.11 Withdrawal by Board
SECTION 5. RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTICIPANTS. . . . . . . . . . . . .8
· 5.1 Enrollment and Renewal
5.2 Participants to Furnish Data
5.3 Remittance of Premiums and Contract Charges
5.4 CBA Employee Benefits
5.5 Participant Withdrawal
5.5.1 Voluntary Withdrawal
5.5.2 Withdrawal Relating to Participant Rate Solicitation
5.5.3 Withdrawal Relating to Dual Offering
5.5.4 Withdrawal at Annual Renewal
5.6 Effect of Participant Withdrawal
5.6.1 Withdrawal from this Agreement
5.6.2 Withdrawal from a Pool
5.6.3 Program Funds
5.6.4 Future Participation Limited
SECTION 6. PROGRAM FUNDS ADMINISTRATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .10
6.1 Program Funds
6.2 General Rules Regarding Management and Disposition of Program Funds
6.3 Investment of Program Funds
6.4 Withdrawal of Participant
6.5 Termination of Pool
6.6 Funding of Risk
·
090299 11
SECTION 7. LENGTH OF AGREEMENT AND TERMINATION. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. 12
SECTION 8. LIABILITY OF PARTIES. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '" . 0012 .
SECTION 9. AGREEMENT BY PARTICIPATION ...... _. _............... 00.. .12
SIGNATURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . 13
ADDENDUM A. . .. ,. ...............................................00... 14
.
.
090299 iii
· JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
FOR GROUP EMPLOYEE BENEFITS AND OTHER FINANCIAL AND RISK
MANAGEMENT SERVICES
This Joint Powers Agreement, hereinafter referred to as "Agreement," is made between
Participant Member rlty of~t Tm:t~ph and other Participant Members as are
now or may hereafter become parties to this Agreement, and Resource Training & Solutions
hereinafter called the "SC."
RECITALS
Whereas, Minn. Stat. 471.59, Subds. 1 and 10 authorizes two or more governmental
units to exercise jointly or cooperatively powers which they possess in common, and
Whereas, Minn. Stat. l23A.2l, establishes service cooperatives, the purpose of which
among other things, is to assist participating governmental units in meeting certain specific needs
which can most advantageously be met on a regional basis, and
Whereas, the Participant Members wish to authorize the SC Board of Directors to act as
a joint board for the purpose of exercising certain powers as set forth in this Agreement, and
Whereas, the Participant Members acknowledge that the Board of Directors of the SC is
· representative of the parties to this Agreement;
NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
SECTION 1
PURPOSE, INTENT AND OBJECTIVE
1.1 Purpose. Under the provisions of Minnesota law, governmental units may enter into
contracts for the purposes of providing Group Employee Benefits for their employees and to
obtain Other Financial and Risk Management Services deemed necessary or beneficial for their
operation. Under the provisions of Minn. Stat. 471.59, two or more governmental units
(including, but not limited to, school districts, counties, towns, other governmental agencies and
service cooperatives) may agree to exercise jointly or cooperatively powers which they possess
in common. The purpose of this Agreement is to authorize the Board to exercise the common
powers of the participating governmental units in connection with certain matters pertaining to
the administration and funding of Group Employee Benefits and the provisions of Other
Financial and Risk Management Services, all as described herein. It is not the purpose of this
Agreement to transfer to the Board the authority to execute contracts on behalf of Participants, or
to in any manner become involved in any collective bargaining process.
·
090299
1.2 Compliance with Applicable Laws. It is the parties' intent to comply with the ·
applicable statutory requirements pertaining to requests for proposals for group insurance, self-
insurance, COBRA and its Minnesota extensions, service cooperatives, and all other applicable
federal and state statutes. Pursuant to the laws governing service cooperatives, it is also intended
that nonprofit non-governmental units be allowed to participate as Associate Members in the
Group Employee Benefits and Other Financial and Risk Management Services made available
pursuant to this Agreement, although it is not intended that such nonprofit, non-governmental
units exercise any of the powers or authorities exclusively delegated to governmental units
described in Minn. Stat. 471.59 Subd. 1.
SECTION 2
DEFINITIONS
2.1 Advisory Committee(s) means committees appointed by the Board in accordance with
Section 4.8 of this Agreement which are representative of the Participants as deemed appropriate
by the Board for the purpose of recommending policies, procedures and actions to the Board.
2.2 Agreement means this Joint Powers Agreement as the same may be amended from time
to time. This document, and all other documents in the same form executed (or deemed executed
as provided in Section 9 of this Agreement) by SC and other Participant Members, all as
amended from time to time, shall together constitute a single Agreement.
2.3 Associate Member means any nonprofit or non-governmental entity which participates ·
in any of the Group Employee Benefits or Other Financial and Risk Management Services made
available to Associate Members by the Board, and agrees in writing to be bound by the terms of
this Agreement other than those terms explicitly applicable only to Participant Members (or is
deemed to have so agreed as provided in Section 9 of this Agreement).
2.4 Board or Joint Powers Governing Board means the SC Board of Directors acting as
the joint board authorized to exercise certain powers of the Participant Members, as permitted by
Minn. Stat. 471.59, Subd. 2 and as set forth in this Agreement.
2.5 CBA means collective bargaining agreement.
2.6 CBA Employee Benefits means employee welfare and retirement benefits made
available by the Board from time to time for adoption by a Participant pursuant to the terms of a
CBA, and may include, but shall not be limited to health benefits coverage, wellness and
employee assistance programs, life insurance, disability income protection, dental insurance,
flexible spending programs, retirement programs and long term care insurance. In no event shall
any Discretionary Employee Benefits be considered CBA Employee Benefits unless and until
they become part of a collective bargaining agreement between a union and a Participant.
·
090299 2
2.7 Discretionary Employee Benefits means employee welfare and retirement benefits
. made available by the Board from time to time for adoption by a Participant, exclusive of any
CBA Employee Benefits, and may include, but shall not be limited to health benefits coverage,
wellness and employee assistance programs, life insurance, disability income protection, dental
insurance, flexible spending programs, retirement programs and long tenn care insurance.
Discretionary Employee Benefits may be tenninated or reduced by the Board at any time. In the
event any Discretionary Employee Benefit is tenninated by the Board but continued by one or
more Participants, the provision of such Discretionary Employee Benefit shall become the sole
responsibility of such Participants.
2.8 Group Contract shall mean an agreement for the rendering of services by and between a
Participant and a Provider of such services. In connection with the self-insurance of employee
health benefits, such an agreement may also mean a Participant's agreement to participate in a
program of self-insurance.
2.9 Group Employee Benefits shall mean CBA Employee Benefits and Discretionary
Employee Benefits.
2.10 Other Financial and Risk Management Services may include, but shall not be limited
to, technical advice regarding borrowing programs, contracted legal services, property/casualty
safety group protection, personal property and casualty protection, student accident, coverage,
and other services as made available by Group Contract for Participants from time to time by the
Board.
. 2.11 Operating Agreement means an agreement by and between the Board and a Provider
which establishes tenns for the benefits, a.Øministration or funding of Group Employee Benefits
or Other Financial and Risk Management Services.
2.12 Participant means both Participant Members and Associate Members. It does not refer
to individual employees obtaining insurance or other benefit coverage pursuant to a plan offered
by a Participant which is funded or administered in whole or in part pursuant to this Agreement.
2.13 Participant Member means any governmental unit as defined in Minn. Stat. 471.59
which is accepted for participation in this Agreement by the Board, certifies that its employee
benefit plans qualify as "governmental plans" that are exempt from application of the Employee
Retirement mcome Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), and agrees in writing to be
bound by the tenns of this Agreement (or is deemed to have so agreed as provided in Section 9
ofthis Agreement).
2.14 Pool means the collective group of Participants in a given program of Group Employee
Benefits or Other Financial and Risk Management Services, as the context shall require. Absent
an agreement expressly to the contrary, a separate Pool shall exist for each such program and a
separate Group Contract shall exist between the Provider and each Participant for the rendering
of services or benefits for which such Pool is fonned.
.
090299 3
2.15 Program Funds means any monies, reserves, excesses or other amounts, whether .
acquired through contributions, payments, discounts, dividends, refunds, credits, reserves,
savings, interest or otherwise, that are held and administered in accordance with Section 6 ofthis
Agreement.
2.16 Provider means the person, insurance carrier, third party administrator, or other entity
which is selected by the Board, in its discretion, to provide Participants with Group Employee
Benefits or Other Financial and Risk Management Services or, as in the case of self-insured
health benefits, to provide administrative or other services in connection with such Benefits or
S ervi ces.
2.17 SC means Resource Training & Solutions, a governmental agency and public
corporation, whose existence is authorized by Minn; Stat. 123A.21.
SECTION 3
JOINT PO\VERS GOVERNING BOARD
3.1 Board Membership. The SC Board of Directors, when exercising the joint powers
authorized by this Agreement, will also serve as the Board referred to in this Agreement. The
Board will be elected pursuant to the Bylaws of the Sc. As appropriate, the Board may
designate one or more representatives to act on its behalf.
3.2 Upon Dissolution of Sc. In the event that the SC is dissolved, the Board shall continue .
to exist and its members shall be elected solely fÌom the governing bodies of the Participant
Members to this Agreement in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Joint Powers Act,
Minn. Stat. 471.59, Subd.2. Any administrative services provided by the SC prior to its
dissolution shall be provided thereafter as detennined by the Board in its discretion.
3.3 Acknowledgment by Associate Members. Associate Members acknowledge that Minn.
Stat. 471.59 does not authorize their participation in a Joint Powers Agreement, even though
Minn. Stat. 123A.21, Subd.3 authorizes nonprofit, non-governmental organizations to participate
in Group Employee Benefits, Other Financial and Risk Management Services, and other
programs made available fÌom time to time by service cooperatives. By participating in any such
program made available by the SC, such non-governmental Associate Members agree to be
bound by the tenns of this Agreement (other than those tenns explicitly applicable only to
Participant Members) and that the Board is representative of their interests.
SECTION 4
RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE BOARD
4.1 Authorized Powers. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 471.59, Subd. 2, in addition to any other
powers specifically delegated to the Board by this Agreement, the Board is hereby authorized to:
e
090299 4
(a) establish, procure and administer Group Employee Benefits and Other Financial
· and Risk Management Services;
(b) define and clarify requests for proposals, rights and responsibilities, length of .
contract, premium or contribution rates and other costs, termination guidelines, the
relative liability of the parties, and the methodes) by which parties to this Agreement shall
exercise their common powers; and
(c) receive, collect, hold, invest, expend and disburse Program Funds in connection
with the exercise of its powers under this Agreement.
4.2 Group Employee Benefits.
4.2.1 eBA Employee Benefits. The Board may from time to time make employee
welfare and retirement benefits available for adoption by Participants pursuant to a CBA. The
Board may arrange alternative financing arrangements respecting such benefits, and may
administer or arrange for the administration of such benefits. Any employee or collective
bargaining representative notification of alternative financing arrangements shall be the
responsibility of the Participant. The Group Contract for the provision of such benefits shall be
between the Participant and the Provider. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 471.6161, Subd.5, the Board
has no authority nor authorization to change a policy or benefit respecting a Participant's CBA
Employee Benefits in a manner that would reduce the aggregate value of such benefits.
· 4.2.2 Discretionary Employee Benefits. The Board may from time to time make
available for adoption by Participants Discretionary Employee Benefits. The Board may arrange
alternative financing arrangements respecting s!lch benefits, and may administer or arrange for
the administration of such benefits. The Group Contract for the provision of such benefits shall
be between the Participant and the Provider. Notwithstanding that a Group Contract for
Discretionary Employee Benefits be between a Participant and a Provider, the Board, upon
reasonable notice to Participants, may prospectively amend, reduce or terminate any such
Discretionary Employee Benefits in its sole and absolute discretion.
4.2.3 Reserves. The Board shall from time to time determine the minimum amount of
funds needed for purposes of risk management and rate stabilization. Any such funds shall be
held and used in accordance with, and subject to the limitations set forth in, Section 6.
4.2.4 Self-Insurance of Health Benefits. In accordance with Minn. Stat. 471.617,
Group Employee Benefits that are employee health benefits may be self-insured. A self-
insurance Pool made available by the Board shall be a pool established and operated by the
Board, or by the Board and one or more other joint powers governing boards governed by Minn.
Stat. 471.59 or service cooperatives governed by Minn. Stat. 123A.21.
·
090299 5
4.3 Other Financial and Risk Management Services. The Board may make available Other
Financial and Risk Management Services for electing Participants and may administer, or ·
arrange for the administration of such services. The Board will detennine the most cost-effective
and appropriate manner in which to deliver Other Financial and Risk Management Services and
the service fees and other costs pertaining to the same.
4.4 Operating Agreements. The Board, alone or in collaboration with other governmental
units, whether acting alone or jointly, including other service cooperatives, may negotiate
Operating Agreements for the benefit of the SC and each of the Participants with respect to any
Group Employee Benefit or Other Financial and Risk Management Service. Such Operating
Agreements may establish, among other things:
(a) the tenns and conditions for any program,
(b) premium or contribution rates and other costs,
(c) funding arrangements,
(d) administrative arrangements, including the extent to which the SC shall provide
administrative services,
(e) the applicable responsibilities of the Board, and
(f) the amount of service fees payable to the SC. ·
The Operating Agreement is a proprietary document between the-Service Cooperative and the
provider. However, at the request of àny Participant, the Board may provide that Participant
with any infonnation regarding the applicable Operating Agreement that is reasonably necessary
for the Participant to understand its rights and obligations thereunder.
4.5 SC Service Fees. The SC may be paid a service fee in consideration for services rendered
pursuant to this Agreement and any Operating Agreements. The amount and source of such
service fee shall be established from time to time by the Provider and the SC and shall be
approved by the Board. Such service fee may include, but shall not be limited to, a percentage of
premiums collected from Participants for the payment of Group Employee Benefits, a fixed fee,
or such other arrangements approved from time to time by the Board. At the time a Participant
elects to participate in any of the Group Employee Benefits made available by the Board, the
Participant shall, by execution of this Agreement (or by the deemed execution of this Agreement
as provided in Section 9), be deemed to have acknowledged and agreed to the amount of such
service fee as set forth in Addendum A attached hereto (as in effect from time to time), and the
source of its payment, including any part thereof derived from discounts, refunds, dividends, or
similar revenues. Services fees payable with respect to Other Financial and Risk Management
Services shall be established and disclosed from time to time as detennined by the Board.
Participants shall be given advance notice of any change in Addendum A.
·
090299 6
4.6 Service Providers.
. 4.6.1 Selection. The Participants hereby delegate to the Board the right to select the
Providers for Group Employee Benefits and Other Financial and Risk Management Services.
4.6.2 Governmental Unit Bidding and Contracting Laws. As applicable, the Board
shall comply with all state and federal laws relating to requests for proposals, review of
proposals, length of Group Contract rules, and other laws and regulations relating to contracting
for Group Employee Benefits and Other Financial and Risk Management Services.
4.6.3 Service Provider Rate Increases. The Board will annually review renewal
infonnation as presented by Providers, make recommendations and detennine if requests for
proposals are necessary. Rate renewals for group insurance will be detennined on the basis of
the aggregate change of premiums.
4.7 Premiums and/or Contract Charges. To the extent not established by the applicable
Operating Agreement or in any other manner prescribed by this Agreement, premiums and/or
contract charges shall be detennined by the Board in its discretion; provided, however, that in
accordance with Section 6.5, no retroactive assessment may be made without the consent of the
affected Participants.
4.8 Advisory Committee(s). The Board may, but is not required to, appoint one or more
advisory committees. The purpose of any such committee may include, without limitation, the
. receipt and processing of infonnation relating to group employee benefits, and the future
direction of such benefits as well as other programs and services. The Board shall consider, but
is not required to adopt, advisory committee r~commendations and proposals. Labor
representation, when appropriate, on any advisory committee fonned by the Board shall be, in so
far as is reasonably possible, representative of the bargaining representatives of individuals
covered in the relevant Pool. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section 4.8, the
SC shall create a labor-management committee to advise it on certain matters as required by
Minn. Stat.123A.25.
4.9 Authority of Board. The Board, with due consideration given to recommendations
submitted by any advisory committee which may be established, shall, unless otherwise
expressly agreed, retain final authority in all matters relative to this Agreement and to the Group
Employee Benefits and Other Financial and Risk Management Services subject to this
Agreement; provided, however, that nothing in this Agreement shall pennit the Board to enter
into a Group Contract on behalf of a Participant, and that, subject to any applicable notice rules,
nothing in this Agreement shall prevent a Participant ITom withdrawing from this Agreement,
any Group Employee Benefit, or any Other Financial and Risk Management Service.
.
090299 7
4.10 Liability Limited. The Board, its authorized representatives, employees and designees
shall have no duty or liability to any of the Participants or Providers with respect to the fees, .
premium and/or contract charges, offers, acceptances or binders of coverage, cancellation
notices, or other matters relating to a Participant's subscribers, all of which shall be the
responsibility of the Participant. The Board, its authorized representatives, employees and
designees, and each Participant shall have no duty or liability due to negligence of other
Participants and Providers. When it is not exercising the joint powers authorized by this
Agreement (and therefore not acting as the Board), the SC Board of Directors shall have no duty
or obligation whatsoever to act for the benefit of Participants (as Participants).
4.11 Withdrawal by Board. The undertakings for the provision of Group Employee Benefits
in this Agreement may be tenninated by the Board or the SC (as applicable) at any time.
SECTION 5
RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF P ARTICIP ANTS
5.1 Enrollment and Renewal. Participants may elect whether to participate in any Group
Employee Benefit and any Other Financial and Risk Management Service made available by the
Board. If a Participant elects to participate in a Group Employee Benefit or Other Financial or
Risk Management Service, the Participant must execute any applicable Group Contract, Group
Contract amendment, emollment and renewal documents directly with the Provider.
5.2 Participants to Furnish Data. Each Participant agrees to furnish all reasonably necessary .
employee data directly to the SC or its designee.
5.3 Remittance of Premiums and Contract Charges. The Participant shall remit premiums
and/or contract charges in the time and manner as fÌom time to time detennined by the Board.
504 CBA Employee Benefits. Each Participant that participates in CBA Employee Benefits
shall be solely responsible for the collective bargaining of such benefits, and for providing any
notices regarding CBA Employee Benefits, including, without limitation, the obligation to notify
certain representatives regarding the adoption of a self-insured health benefit plan set forth in
Minn. Stat. 471.617, SubdA.
5.5 Participant Withdra\yal.
5.5.1 Voluntary'Vithdrawal. At any time during a year, (but at least three (3) months
prior to renewal), a Participant may tenninate its participation in this Agreement or in a Pool
upon ninety (90) days written notice to the Board and to all Providers of programs in which it
participates.
5.5.2 "Withdrawal Relating to Participant Rate Solicitation. If a Participant solicits
proposals independently of this Agreement \-vhen there has not been a fifty percent (50%)
increase in the aggregate rates for that Participant group in a given year, the Board retains the
right to deem that the Participant has withdrawn fÌom the appropriate Pool. "Soliciting .
090299 8
proposals" shall be defined as requesting and/or accepting written or verbal proposals of any
· kind, regardless of how fonnal or infonnal. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Participant
receiving a 50% or greater increase in the aggregate rate for that Participant group in a given
year shall be allowed to solicit proposals without jeopardizing their participation in the Pool. If
the Participant elects to reject all proposals and remain a Participant in the Pool, the Participant
will receive a rate to be established by the Board.
5.5.3 Withdrawal Relating to Dual Offering. If a Participant offers Group Employee
Benefits through an additional or different plan which, in the discretion of the Board, are
considered to be substantially similar to those provided by a Pool in which the Participant
participates, then the Board retains the right to deem that such Participant has withdrawn from
the Pool.
5.5.4 Withdrawal at Annual Renewal. If a material change in any tenn or condition
of a Group Employee Benefit or Other Financial or Risk Management Service in which a
Participant participates is proposed to commence as of the Participant's annual renewal date, the
Participant may withdraw :trom the applicable Pool as of the renewal date, provided the
Participant gives advance written notice of its intent to withdraw promptly (within 30 days) after
receiving notice of the material change, even if such notice is given less than 120 days in
advance ofthe renewal date.
5.6 Effect of Participant Withdrawal. Upon a Participant's withdrawal or deemed
withdrawal :trom this Agreement or from a Pool, the following rules shall apply:
· 5.6.1 Withdrawal from this Agreement. Upon its withdrawal :trom this Agreement, a
Participant shall be deemed to have withdrawn from all Pools maintained under this Agreemßnt
in which the Participant is participating at the time of such withdrawal. If a Participant no longer
participates in any Pool, the Participant shall be deemed to have withdrawn :trom this Agreement,
as well as :trom the applicable Pool(s).
5.6.2 Withdrawal from a Pool. Withdrawal by a Participant :trom any Pool shall not
affect the Participant's participation in any other Pool.
5.6.3 Program Funds. No Program Funds or any other amounts that may, in any way,
be attributable to a Participant's participation in a Pool shall be returned to the Participant in the
event such Participant's participation in a Pool ends prior to the Pool's tennination.
5.6.4 Future Participation Limited. If a Participant withdraws or is deemed by the
Board to have withdrawn :trom a Pool, such Participant's participation in such Pool shall be
prohibited for a period of twenty-four (24) months from the date of such withdrawal or deemed
withdrawal. If a Participant withdraws or is deemed by the Board to have withdrawn :trom this
Agreement, such Participant's participation in this Agreement (and any Pool offered hereunder)
shall be prohibited for a period of twenty-four (24) months from the date of such withdrawal or
deemed withdrawal.
·
090299 9
SECTION 6 .
PROGRAM FUNDS ADMINISTRATION
6.1 Program Funds. It is understood and agreed that, in connection with the Group
Employee Benefits and Other Financial and Risk Management Services made available pursuant
to this Agreement, the Board may acquire Program Funds. The Board may, in its discretion,
establish and maintain separate accounts for specified portions of the Program Funds, and may
designate specific purposes, such as the payment and financing of Group Employee Benefits or
the stabilization of the cost of such benefits, for which the amounts credited to such account shall
be used, but it shall not be required to do so.
6.2 General Rules Regarding Management and Disposition of Program Funds.
Program Funds shall be used solely for the purposes of providing Group Employee Benefits and
Other Financial and Risk Management Services, providing related services, defraying the
reasonable expenses of administering such benefits and services, and, if the Board determines
that such use would either directly or indirectly benefit Participants (e.g., by spreading risk,
achieving economies of scale, generating revenues or enhancing the Board's ability to negotiate
with Providers as a result of the Board's visibility, presence in the marketplace or enhanced
expertise), establishing, providing and administering similar benefits and services offered by the
joint action of other governmental units. Program Funds shall not inure to the benefit of the
Board; this prohibition shall not, however, prohibit the payment of service fees to an SC as
provided below. Subject to the foregoing, the Board, in its sole discretion, shall determine the .
management and disposition of the Program Funds. The Board may consider Advisory
Committee recommendations regarding the use of Program Funds before any determinations are
made. The following are examples of purposes for which the Board may use and app1y Program
Funds.
(a) to negotiate the purchase of, administer, provide and maintain (either directly or
through the purchase of insurance, or both) Group Employee Benefits (including, but not limited
to programs related to the purpose for which the Fund was created, such as, for example, in the
case of a Health Pool, an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) and Wellness Program) and
Other Financial and Risk Management Services;
(b) to payor provide for the payment of reasonable and necessary expenses of
administering Group Employee Benefits and Other Financial and Risk Management Services
including, without limitation, all expenses which may be incurred in connection with the
establishment and administration of Pools, the employment of administrative, legal, accounting,
other expert and clerical assistance, the leasing of such premises and the purchase of lease
materials, supplies, equipment, and liability and property insurance;
(c) to establish and accumulate funds deemed adequate by the Board to carry out the
purposes of the Pools, for example, for purposes of rate stability and risk reserve;
.
090299 10
(d) to pay any federal, state or local income, employment, death or other tax which
. may be properly imposed on or levied against Group Employee Benefit, Other Financial and
Risk Management Service, a Pool, or on benefits paid therefrom;
(e) to pay for any bond and to pay the premiums on any insurance purchased by a
Pool, including, but not limited to liability insurance, "stop loss" insurance and other insurance
intended to pay directly or indirectly the benefits established with respect to a Pool; and
(f) to pay the SC any service fee payable to it pursuant to, or authorized pursuant to,
this Agreement.
6.3 Investment of Program Funds. Program Funds shall be held and invested in a manner
that is consistent with any applicable legal requirements regarding the holding and investment of
funds by the Participant Members who are governmental units within the meaning of Minn. Stat.
471.59.
6.4 Withdrawal of Participant. In the event of the withdrawal of a Participant prior to the
tennination of this Agreement or of a Pool, Program Funds attributable to contributions of such
Participant shall not be returned to such Participant.
6.5 Termination of Pool. In the event of tennination of a Pool, any portion of the Program
Funds that has been designated for use solely in connection with the tenninating Pool, and any
other portion allocated to the tenninating Pool by the Board in its sole discretion, shall be
. distributed to the Pool Participants in a manner to be detennined by the Board, which may
include the following:
(a) payment of benefits to or on behalf of enrolled employees with respect to claims
arising prior to such tennination;
(b) provision of similar benefits for such employees;
(c) payment of reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in such tennination;
(d) payment of taxes; and
(e) cash payments to Participant Members according to a fonnula established by the
Board.
Upon such tennination, the Board shall continue to serve for such period of time and to the
extent necessary to carry out the directions of the preceding sentence. The Participants who
receive such distributions shall be solely responsible for detennining whether, and to what
extent, any amounts they receive will be distributed to individuals who were covered by benefit
programs provided by the tenninating Pool.
.
090299 11
6.6 Funding of Risk. Premiums may be adjusted, but no retroactive assessment shall be
made without consent and agreement by the affected Participants. Subject to their obligation to ·
provide accurate information regarding the individuals who will receive benefits from a Pool, no
Participant or its employees shall bear any financial risk other than the agreed upon premium.
SECTION 7
LENGTH OF AGREEMENT AND TERMINATION
Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 471.59, Subd. 4, but subject to the provisions herein relating to
Participant withdrawal, this Agreement shall be ongoing.
SECTION 8
LIABILITY OF PARTIES
Any Participant to this Agreement holds the Board and its employees and it designees, and the
SC and its board, employees and designees, harmless from any and all causes of action arising at
law or in equity unless such action shall arise from its or their gross negligence and is permitted,
after application of all doctrines and statues respecting immunity, by applicable law. The parties
agree to waive any rights to litigation from any dispute arising out of this Agreement unless such
action is the result of intentional wrongdoing. All benefits hereunder are the sole responsibility
ofthe Provider(s) and the Participants, and shall not be the responsibility of the Board or the SC.
SECTION 9 ·
AGREEMENT BY PARTICIPATION
Any governmental unit, and any nonprofit or non-governmental entity, which participates in any
of the Group Employee Benefits or Other Financial and Risk Management Services and remits
premium and/or contract charges in accordance with this Agreement, shall be deemed to have
approved this Agreement and, in the case of an eligible governmental unit, to have executed this
Agreement by its duly authorized officers, and shall be bound by the terms and conditions of this
Agreement to the same extent as if such formal approval had been obtained and such execution
had occurred.
·
090299 12
. Pursuant to all applicable state and federal laws, this Agreement has been approved by the
governing boards ofthe parties and is signed by the duly authorized officers of the parties.
P ARTICIP ANT MEMBER
Name of Organization City of St. Joseph
By
Title
Date
SERVICE COOPERATIVE
Name of Organization Resource Training & Solutions
By 1i(~ @.Wa-.~
. Title Executive Director
-:;¡- /~ /01- .
Date
I I
.
090299 13
ADDENDUM A ·
1. SC Service Fees
The SC shall be paid a monthly administration fee as provided in Section 5.3 of the
Operating Agreement between the SC and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota equal to
$9.85 per contract per month paid by each Participant
·
·
090299 14
. I Attachment: Yes or No I
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: July 12, 2004
Administration
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT APPRO V AL
AGENDA ITEM
Gambling Permit - Accept the Application for Exempt Gambling Permit for the Central Minnesota
Chapter of the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association for a fundraiser to be held on September 22, 2004 at
The Lighthouse.
PREVIOUS ACTION
.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION
Accept the Application without a waiting period.
FISCAL IMPACT
COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS
.
Minnesota Lawful Gambling Page 1 of2 06/03
LG220 Application for Exemptpèrmit Fee $50 : For Board Use only
Fee Paid
. Organization Information Check No.
Organization name Central MN Chapter Previous lawful gambling exemption number
Minnesota Deer Hunters Association
Street City State/zip code County
6085 321st Street St Cloud MN 56303 Stearns
Name of chief exeèutive officer (CEO) Daytime phone number of CEO
First name Last name Include area code
Tim Clement 320-252-6543
Name of treasurer Daytime phone number of
First name Last name treasurer. Include area code
Dennis Sowada 320-393-4214
Type of Nonprofit Organization
Check the item that best describes your organization:
_ Fraternal _ Religious
_ Veteran ..JL Other nonprofit organization
Check the item that indicates the type of proof your organization attached to this application:
_ IRS letter indicating income tax exempt status
_ Certificate of Good Standing from the Minnesota Secretary of State's Office
_ A charter showing you are an affiliate of a parent nonprofit organization
_ Proof previously submitted and on file with the Gambling Control Board
. Gambling Premises Information
Name of premises where gambling activity will be conducted (for raffles, listthe site where the drawing will take place)
The Lighthouse -
Address (do not use PO box) City State/zi p code County
St Joseph MN 56374 Stearns ~--
Date(s) of activity (for raffles, indicate the date ofthe drawing)
September 22, 2004
Check the ¡tem(s) that indicate the type of gambling activity your organization will be conducting:
_ *8ingo J:L Raffles (cash prizes may not exceed $12,000) _ *Paddlewheels _ *Pulf-tabs _ *Tipboards
*Equipmentfor these activities must be obtained from a licensed distributor.
This form will be made available in name and address will be public Board whose work assignment requires
alternative format (i.e. large print, Braille) information when received by the Board. that they have access to the information;
upon request. The information requested All the other information that you provide the Minnesota Department of Public
on this form (and any attachments) will be will be private data about you until the Safety; the Minnesota Attorney General;
used by the Gambling Control Board Board issues your permit. When the Board the Minnesota Commissioners of
(Board) tD determine your qualifications to issues your permit., all of the information Administration, Finance, and Revenue; the
be involved in lawful gambling activities in that you have provided to the Board in the Minnesota Legislative Auditor; national and
Minnesota. You have the right to refuse to process of applying for your permit will international gambling regulatory agencies;
supply the information requested; however; become public. If the Board does not Issue anyone pursuant to court order; other
if you refuse to supply this information, the you a permit, all the information you have individuals and agencies that are
Board may not be able to determine your provided in the process of applying for a specifically authorized by state or federal
qualifications and, as a consequence, may permit remains private, with the exception law to have access to the information;
. refuse to issue you a permit. If you supply of your name and your organization's name individuals and agencies for which law or
the information requested, the Board will and address which will remain public. legal order authorizes a new use or sharing
be able to process your application. Private data about you are available only to of information after this Notice was given;
Your name and and your organization's the following: Board members, staff of the and anyone with your consent
LG220 Application for Exempt Permit Page 2 of 2
06/03
Organization Name -
Local Unit of GovemmentAcknowledgment
If the gambling premises is within city limits, the If the gambling premises is located in a township, both
city must sign this application. the county and township must sign this application. .
On behalf of the city. I acknowledge this application. On behalf of the county, I aCknowledge this application.
Check the action that Check the action that
the city is taking on this application. the county is taking on this application.
o The city approves the application with no o The county approves the application with no
waiting period. waiting period.
o The city approves the application with a 30 day o The county approves the application with a 30 day
waiting period, and allows the Board to issue a waiting period, and allows the Board to issue a
permit after 30 days (60 days for a first class permit after 30 days.
city).
o The city denies the application. o The county denies the application.
Print name of city Print name of county
(Signature of city personnel receiving apptication) (Signature of county personnel receiving application)
Tit! e
Title Date_I-f_
Date 1 1- TOWNSHIP: On behalf of the township, I acknowledge that
the organization is applying for exempted gambling activity .
within the township limits. [Atownship has no statutory
authority to approve or deny an application (Minn. stat sec.
349.213, subd. 2).] -
Print name of township
(Signature of township official acknowledging application)
Title
Date ~~-
Chief Executive Officer's Signature
The inf0l11lation provided in this application i~mPle,~e ~e to the best of my knowledge,
Chief executive officer's signature :/ ~ ./ ~ ~ \.. A --
-
Name (please print) /..../77 é ~.h/}e/7~ Date 7 1~/1!..!i
. ,
Mail Application and Attachments
At least 45 days prior to your scheduled activity date send:
· the completed application,
· a copy of your proof of nonprofrt status, and
· a check for $50. Make check payable to "state of Minnesota".
Application fees are not prorated, refundable. or transferable.
Send to: Gambling Control Board
1711 West County Road B, Suite 300 South .
Roseville, MN 55113
I Attachment: Yes or No I
i.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
5 - Birch Street Rezoning
DATE: July 1, 2004
Administration
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
AGENDA ITEM
Birch Street Rezoning - RI, Single Family to R3, Multiple Family
PREVIOUS ACTION
The City Council initiated a rezoning request to reconsider the rezoning of property abiltting Birch Street
East. Acting on a previous request, the City Council denied the rezoning by a vote of 3-2. As you recall,
MN Statute requires a 4/5th vote of the Council when rezoning property from residential to business or
commercial. Therefore, by not receiving the required votes the rezoning was denied.
;.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION
Adopt the findings of the Planning Commission, rezoning property abutting Birch Street from the current
RI, Single Family to B2, Highway Business.
FISCAL IMPACT
COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS
Included in the packet is an opinion from the City Attorney regarding the control of the City when
development plans are submitted in a B3 zoning district. Concern was expressed as to whether or not the
City has the ability to deny a redevelopment request if the proposal is a pennitted use in the B2 Zoning
District. The City Attorney has provided an opinion that the City can deny a request if the proposed
development is not compatible with the adjoining property.
I was also asked to provide a layout of the subject property, indicating the buildable area of each lot. The
Planning Commission acknowledged that a development may require more than one lot. What ever is
constructed must meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
.
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in regular
session on Monday, June 21, 2004 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. e
Members Present: Chair (Council Liaison) Gary Utsch. Commissioners: Bob Loso, Marge Lesnick, Jim
Graeve, Mike Deutz, Sister Kathleen Kalinowski. Administrator Judy Weyrens.
Others Present: Kay Lemke, Ellen Wahlstrom, Andrew Berger, Janel Weisen, Tim Borresch, Jim
Fredricks
Mike Deutz stated that he would not assume his position on the Planning Commission until the Birch
Street Rezoning is completed as he has a potential conflict of interest.
Public HearinQ - Birch Street - RezoninQ: Chair Utsch called the public hearing to order and stated the
purpose of the hearing is to consider the rezoning of all property north of the east/west alley
abutting Birch Street East between the north/south alley between College Avenue North and 15t
Avenue NE and the north/south alley between 151 Avenue NE and 2nd Avenue NE. The property
is currently zoned R-1.
Weyrens clarified that the City Council on June 3, 2004, by a unanimous vote of the City Council, initiated
the rezoning request that is before the Planning Commission at this meeting. Utsch opened the floor
those present for questions or comments.
Kay Lemke of 33 E Ash Street spoke in opposition to the rezoning. She stated that her property abuts the
area in question. She discussed three other businesses in that area and how they fit the neighborhood.
She addressed reasons as to why she feels that these three businesses are non-intrusive to the
neighborhood.
1. Beauty Shop - Lemke stated that the Beauty Shop fits the area and causes no concerns
because there is access from College Avenue which blocks extra traffic in the neighborhood.
2. Loso's Pottery - She mentioned that this is another business that works for the neighborhood -
due to the fact that they make the pottery, but do not sell anything from that location.
3. Baggenstoss Trucking - At this location, all they do is store trucks. There is-no need for extra ~
traffic.
Lemke further stated that the house on the corner of Birch Street and 1 sl Street just sold and it is her
understanding the house was sold as a residential property. If this is correct then the homes in question
can be sold a residential and should be zoned as such.
Tim Borresch of 121 E Ash Street: spoke neither in opposition nor in favor of the proposed rezoning. He
addressed some issues that he feels are important to consider.
· With regards to the alley behind this property, there is not enough room in the alley for two
cars to pass one another and he questions if commercial traffic can be supported in the
neighborhood.
· Borresch questioned who would pay for improving the alley if traffic warranted such.
· Questioned the maintenance of commercial property and stated that typically the front of
commercial property is maintained but the garbage and parking are located in the rear yards.
If that is the case then the remaining residential neighborhood will have to look at the worst
side of the property. .
· Borresch further questioned who will be responsible for the maintenance of Ash Street as the
residents have recently been assessed for the reconstruction. Additional traffic will cause the
road to deteriorate faster than if the road is residential.
Janel Weisen, Why USA Realty: Weisen spoke on behalf of Dorothy Court whose property is in question
and in favor of the proposed rezoning. Wisen stated that Dorothy Court initiated the first process for
rezoning. The request came after a buyer for the home requested to use the house for office space.
Weisen stated that through research she discovered that the property owned by Court was identified on -
the Future Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan as Highway Business. Therefore, she submitted an
application for rezoning. Wisen questioned why the City would spend a considerable resource on
. adopting a Comprehensive Plan and then not following the document. .
Wisen stated that one of the objections to the previous application was that rezoning the area in question
will reduce the amount of affordable housing. In researching the housing stock in St. Joseph, Wisen
stated that at the present time there are 68 homes for sale with 30% of them selling for less than
$150,000. Wisen stated that affordable housing is available in St. Joseph and should not prevent the
subject area from being converted to Highway Business.
Wisen further stated that from a realtor perspective, it is hard to sell houses with a major highway in the
front yard. Highway 75 has an average of 27,000 cars per day, this is not conducive to residential living.
According to Weisen, the property that was recently bought on the corner of 1 sl and Birch was sold as
investment property hoping that the rezoning would pass. It is a single person, not a family. Weisen
stated that this area would not be a safe place to raise children.
Ellen Wahlstrom of 409 Efh Ave NE spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning. She stated that she
does not live in the area and is not directly affected by the rezoning. However, she did mention that she
lives is an area in which a new development was recently added. She said there have been some serious
problems in her area due to buildings being too high and having water runoff. She also stated that a
residential neighborhood should be protected with a buffer area and questions if one is provided in the
Highway Business District. In her neighborhood, there are trees, bushes, grasses, etc all of which
provide a buffer.
Andrew Berger of 26 E Birch Street spoke in favor of the proposed rezoning. He stated that the matter
before the City at this time appears to be a battle between businesses and homeowners. Berger urged
the Planning Commission to rezone the subject area as it is not a safe place to raise children and is not
residential in character. He further stated that the residents abutting Ash Street are opposed to the
rezoning as they are afraid of the infringement of commercial activity and want to keep a buffer between
. their property and CR 75. Berger stated it is his opinion that the property owners on Birch Street are the
buffer for the residents abutting Ash Street and they should not be denied the rezoning request because
other property owners want to continue to use their property as they ãre currently.
Mike Deutz, owner of multiple properties along Birch Street E spoke in favor of the proposed rezoning. He
stated that rezoning this area is part of the Comprehensive Plan and as a result, the request should be
honored. Deutz commented on the three business mentioned by Lemke. He stated in his opinion these
three properties do not conform with the R1 Zoning Ordinance nor do they pay commercial tax rates.
Therefore, Deutz requested that the Planning Commission accept the rezoning application. With regard
to potential road repair. Deutz stated that the property owners were assessed for the new road and Ash
Street was built as a commercial road. Therefore, the road should not deteriorate and the City planned
for excess traffic.
Buffers have been a question and a concern for residents in this area. The current homeowners along
Birch Street are the buffers at this time. Deutz stated that a large buffer is part of the Comprehensive
Plan for this area.
Weyrens reported that she has received two comments regarding the rezoning. The first is a written
request of Dorothy Anderson, representing the property owners at 103 Ash Street East. Her letter
requested the City deny the rezoning request and keep the area residential in nature. The second
comment was a phone call from Gary Stock, 117 - 1 st Avenue NE, who spoke in support of the rezoning.
Lemke spoke in response to some comments made by others. She stated that the houses along Birch
Street are not the buffer. She stated that she is still able to hear traffic from her home. According to
Lemke, new roads in the City may lessen the traffic on Hwy 75, therefore it takes away some of the safety
concerns. Lemke further stated that not all homes purchased in this area are by young families with
. children.
The Public Hearing was closed at 7:22 PM.
Utsch responded to the some of the concerns raised during the public hearing. .
ISSUE RESOLUTION
Back of Building facing residential neighborhood The Zoning Ordinance require that garbage areas
be screened. In addition the revised Zoning
Ordinance includes language on outdoor storage.
Commercial -vs- Residential Throughout the Comprehensive Plan process, the
City planned for the area being discussed at this
time to be commercial. During the public hearings
for the Comprehensive Plan no one objected to
the future conversion of this area to Highway
Business.
Street Reconstruction Costs When the City reconstructed Ash Street, it was
built to a commercial grade. In addition, when the
project was assessed, non homestead property
was charged a larger percentage. Therefore, the
residential property owners are not paying for
commercial roads.
Land Use Controls A question arose as to whether or not the City
could prevent a high use business from
purchasing multiple lots and developing a use that
is not compatible with the neighborhood. The City .
Attorney has provided an opinion that states the
City does have control through the current
regulations to deny any of the permitted uses if it
is not compatible with adjacent land uses.
Graeve stated that he is concerned about a strip mall being built along this area. In his opinion business
should conform to the neighborhood, not change the character of a neighborhood. Graeve read the
intent portion of the Highway Business District whereby it states the purpose of the Hwy 75 Business
District is to provide development that is pleasant, attractive, and aesthetically pleasing. Graeve stated
that he is opposed to the proposed rezoning until specific development plans are presented. With regard
to the letter from the City Attorney, Graeve stated it is his understanding that if the property is rezoned,
the City automatically takes the defensive roll which is a more difficult position. For example, if a use is
denied, the City must provide the evidence that the use in incompatible with the neighborhood.
Kalinowski stated that the City does not want to do strip zoning nor is that allowable under Minnesota
Statute. Therefore, the entire area must be rezoned. She further stated it is her opinion that it is logical
to rezone this area because it is not safe for families with children.
Lesnick made a motion to recommend that the Council adopt the findings of the Planning
Commission and rezone the property abutting Birch Street from current R1, Single Family to 52,
Highway Business. (See attachment "A") The motion was seconded by Kalinowski.
Ayes: Utsch, Lesnick, Kalinowski, Loso
Nayes: Graeve
.
EMAIL - FROM DALE WICK
(. Judy, can you find out if (c) below affects any decisions about the Birch Street East Rezoning? I
am still uncomfortable with the "blanket" rezoning ofthat area without any detail of how the
properties are going to be developed. Also, is the property map that is being created going to be
available for the Planning Commission ori Monday? Let me know ifyoµ have any questions.
Thanks for your patience.
462.357 Procedure to effect plan: zoning.
Subd. 2. Generalrequirements. (a) At any time after the adoption of a land use plan for the
municipalíty, the planning agency, for the purpose of carrying out the policies and goals ofthe
land use plan, may prepare a proposed zoning ordinance and submit it to the governing body
with its recommendations for adoption.
(b) Subj ect to the requirements of subdivisions 3, 4, and 5, the governing body may adopt and
amend a zoning ordinance by a majority vote of all its members. The adoption or amendment of
any portion of a zoning ordinance which changes all or part of the existing classification of a
zoning district from residential to either commercial or industrial requires a two-thirds majority
vote of all members of the governing body.
(c) The land use plan must provide guidelines for the timing and sequence of the adoption of
l. offici~l controls to ensure planned, orderly, and staged developtnentand redevelopment
consistent with the land use plan.
Response
In discussing this matter with Laurel Pugh and Sue Dege ofRajkowski Hansmeier, this Statute
only applies when a jurisdiction does not have a Zoning Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan or is
in the process of drafting said documents. Once the City has a Zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan the timing and planning are part of those documents.
.
I Attachment: Yes or No I
·
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Rezoning Request - Birch Street East
DATE: June 21, 2004
AGENDA ITEM
Public Hearing - Rezoning of Property abutting Birch Street East
PREVIOUS ACTION
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 3, 2004 and considered the same request.
The Planning Commission recommended the Council approve the request as it was consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. The City Council on May 20,2004 voted to accept the recommendation of the
Planning Commission, but the vote was 3 ayes and 2 nays. Rezoning from Rl to Business or Industrial
requires a super majority vote. Therefore the rezoning was denied. The Council members voting against
sited lack of a development plan, lack of zoning control and questionable process as reason for denial.
With regard to the first two, lack of development plan and lack of zoning control. Of the eight
properties affected by the rezoning, only one property was requesting to convert to a business use and that ·
was an office space. One ofthe concerns raised was that once the property was re-zoned the City would
have no control over the development and something such as a strip mall could be constructed. The
comment continued, that dependirfg on the tenants of the building~ a traffic hazard could be created or it
could have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Discussion included whether or not the City should
amend the Ordinance to include a special use provision for development abutting a residential
neighborhood. For an opinion, the matter was referred to the City Attorney for review and comment.
Enclosed in your packet is the opinion whereby the City Attorney agrees that a mechanism for
development approval is already in place and the City would have the ability to deny a permitted use if it
is determined that the use is incompatible with adjacent land uses or inconsistent with the intent of the B2
Zone.
Within the same comment, it was questioned if the City would be creating non-conforming business lots.
In your packet is an illustration of the affected properties with illustrating the setbacks and the remaining
building pad. Any development or redevelopment that occurs must meet all the setback requirements. I
think the Planning Commission already agreed that development or redevelopment might require the
purchase of more than one lot.
With regard to the process. The question arose as to how the petition was initiated and whether or not the
procedure was followed. The request for rezoning at this time has been initiated by the City Council.
Therefore the Planning Commission need only act on the request. A boundary survey and site plan does
not need to be submitted.
·
. RECOMMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Recommend the Council rezone the property abutting East Birch Street as it is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS
I.
.
__._________0_..' w
a:.
=> 0 ...
(.?z
¡¡;
[ 0
1-1-1-1- "~ ~
U-.l1..u..,1.L.. 0- 0
ZO w.....
0000 z~ "'''-'')
wO <0
V>V'lV1V') ::J~ C~ .
00001/1 ¡.~ 0
;,,::: Nr-r-_ V1
U -cnt..P-
« _"I"""'f'IÎ('I"')
CD I I I I ~I-I
I- \.f")\Dt-CO
----.-.-..--.--.-----.-' W
V> '-I-~I- - 1 I c<S
0000 :.:
----.-.----------.----., :r: ~-J..J-' I'- 1 <9 WU
~~
I- O.OZ ..-: 1.5£ V) co
- ~ I 0.> I-
3: I I I-W
OV)
V> 1-1-1-1- 1 I ..J
« \.t.. u... lL. I.L..
W 0000 ò--...J
0:: V') VI V) V') -
« I.DNvlf1 :n
U)t-1l1_
NlDlf>Oì ,...,
I- If)l/")I''''1N .O¡
0 ~ 1----1
...J I I I I
_Ntr)'q" . I'" 1
I-....I-~ ~.ozl 'ó I f.:)
0000 Z
..J-'..J..:.J ~ I .> I z
0
L___-' N
W
0 a:
N
I ló l-
V)
«
3N 3nN3^v lStJI .:J W
I-
W
w
Ò 01'O¡ ~ .O¡ I a:
l-
V)
N.....:- r--1 ::t:
r I I ~ I i u
I '" I I - a:
- ,.... I N ã5
~ .oz I ~ 1 I I :; I :::
~ L_J, ~_--'
I/) I I/)
lJ) I ,...,
..., r
l"- i .
,_ u_u. __,.. u..uu.: u_ __...., u,.u.u ,.u ....u_ .._:u.. ._uu u'uuu ,. + zs.... _'_,- 9S., ___,..... ,__, - u...u - -- ,-, ,- --.... ,. - - -. u,..u u_ h _.u -. u
\ I
<r: - -
\ n
VJ '<T
U co
::t:
0..«
WI-
V)o
- OV)
""w
co I-Z
co Z~
::t:E
\.P 00
-
\.P
n
co
-
I
I
I
I
I
~~
e
l.<w~oz;¡~- 3 "15 lJ)~S\'t~r~\OOO..O\¡~I'\S\'X Till H3S nd 9":.(;:\;0 tOCZ/i'0/90
V!Rajkowski .
.ventn Avenue Nòrth ... ~~~~~~~I Ltd
P.O. Box 1433
St. Cloud, MN 56302-1433
320-251-1055 June 16, 2004
Toll Free 800-445-9617
Ms. Judy Weyrens
Fax 320-251-5896 City Administrator for the City of St. Joseph
2S:NorthCQllege Avenue
P.O. Böx 668
rajhan@rajhan.com St. Joseph, MN 56374
www,rajhan,com RE: Development Plan
Dear Judy:
The City has asked us to evaluate whether the B2 Zoning Ordinance provides the City
with enough discretion and independent judgment to deny a building permit for the
proposed development of a strip mall.
. Ple~se be advised that Subdivision 9 oftheB2 Zoning Ordinance does give the City
discretion to deny a building permit for the strip mall. However, the Planning
Commission must fIrst review the devdopment ylan and determine that the use and
Frank J. Rajkowski·· development is incompatible with adjacent land uses or inconsistent with the intent of the
B2 zone,
Gordon H. Hansmeier
Frederick L, Grunke Upon request of the Planning Commission, the City Council will make the fInal
Thomas G, Jovanovich" determination on site plan approval based on its review of certain items submitted by the
developer. Again, the City has discretion to deny the building permit if any of the 16
Paul A. Rajkowski· items listed in Subdivision 9 are incompatible with the area or adjacent land uses.
Kevin F. Gray
The controls listed in Subdivision 9 are sufficient to deny a building permit so that the
. William J, Cashman City does not have to go through other preliminary levels of approval for this project. If
Richard W. 50balvarro you have further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Susan M, Dege Sincerely,
LeAnne D. Bartishofski
Sarah L Smith-Larkin RAJKOWSKI HANS~IER LTD.
, II
71' / /.'
Troy A. Poetz III É / ,
¡¡_f. t.,..-.... t
B ,¡Þ·0, i
Joseph M, Bromeland y f.···· ..... j
Gr~qory 1. Haupert TGJ/LJP/mai Thðmas g;._líL\ffiI1OViCh
.1 J, Pugh
Frank J. Rajkowski and Richard IN. Sobalvarro are admitted to practice in North Dakota, Gordon 1-1, I-Iansmeier in North Dakota and Wisconsin,
Paul A Rajkowski and Sarah L Smith in Wisconsin, and William 1. Cashman in South Dakota.
. Member of American Board of Trial Advocates, ·Oualified ADR Neutral.
CITY OF ST. JOSEPH
wW';'. ci tyofstjoseph.com
.
Public Hearing
City of St. Joseph
The St. Joseph Planning Commission will be conducting a public hearing on Monday, June
Administrðtor 21,2004 at 7:00 PM in the S1. Joseph City Hall. The purpose ofthe hearing is to consider the
Judy'Weyrens rezoning of all property north of the east/west alley abutting Birch Street East between the
~ .
north/south alley between College A venue North and 1 Avenue NE and the north/south
Mðyor alley between 151 Avenue NE and 2nd Avenue NE. The property is currently wned R-l.
Lõrry I, Hosch All persons wishing to be heard will be heard with oral testimony will be limited to 5
minutes. Written testimony may be submitted to the City Administrator, City of St. Joseph,
Counciloro PO Box 668, S1. Joseph, MN 56374,
AI Rðssier
Ross Rieke Judy Weyrens
Gðry Utsch Administrator
Dðle 'Wick
,:,,:.~ /, ~ H=11 ~ W-1I1 íìTT ¡
,~ ' . L-L1. I t--i " '.: I
I I .~,' tt3 : R DID I II ¡ !
n t~ r== '0 II I 11'1 I
, ~.~~ I II . I .
ξ ,~:. L
g ~, ~
- . ,. . . ..'...,.... L
[]OO~ c=:JE:J . ~."-.-.~,_._.~._.-.-
~ CR75 .
tcJr~1I.~i~[d
~~.~ml~5
l ~ ~~~Q ~J
Published June 11, 2004
.
2.) College Avenue North' PO ßox 668 . Saint, Joseph. Minnesota ')6,74
Phone ,20,161,72.01 ¡Ca X ,2.0.,6,,0142
.À\~. ~f,'~c-;~J... .~&\ @~,. :~ç ~,
~ cbY ~r ~ ~ øt ~êW
, . - . /' 1 (r "p ;¿
_ ! _,-. .... _ -,1'1"
? ,J ,¡1 '- .-;.7 , /" ,ð, ,,,. r ' " I / CðV
. -"¿,Z", .t)}, JI . JU'-:;Ý¿L¡ bod? jX(ð-~ r / ' '/
f V v- I' ~-'--4'..l../&.-! ~f -:r -- ....... t' /
" Il", /J..?-/ rf~Þ6~ t / , , ' .
,'Û,. .' d UV L. .
. ,fl~~~7!~"¿-æ-~~,-vt,,~~b,~_
'/~,~Jj;;7 l.t ,': ~"~Z" ~ .~;;I~/ht /Þ:.Y·, / U-
~ " ~ "~ J'o u.d2'~ t' i
, "v' -:z::; ....'.. > - 41// /" ,- ./? ,-~. _.J . /J, . .
, ' 0" '-"-". , ' ...........-~ ~ ~.r.n..-r.:_, ~ "',
~0 !~·~~~'~~Ic~.::zr (¿~
rhU~ð~! ...:I~ ~,u~~~4r*
#' ?.s-? t./), ' óµ 7J-~~ r.s-% ~~.
r t7J2. ð? 7 ~1 ~' "
¡~~ t, ~~. ,t¿_ ';. ..., '. ',.,'
¥,-n,~ ¿, ¿~,r" "'( " ~kq.., .'{J",/~w,~..q~~
f%Þ ~~7h1r~~~~
~~)ik~~~~~~
æ,~/~ .-µ& 1M ~r /ðr" ?G/~~' ~~ ,', '~~ "Uv~
~. { /1 ff ;./1 J' ~ 7.";J - .,. y
~-r~~.'~;7nfS/ ..,~~;.
~ ¡k.o 0?~ g~/'. iibt!~--.~" ¿,,/ µ 7.r t(./~ '
. ~. j < Yjrc., " " ----, ~'., 'P ' e/ /f- ,,' -.%1
---r--fl" ,', j'.-; (.J r/ ( " (..< ,'-~' " ,T--.
. I'f-,é.,/ d¿j~ "J.4t-€fUfd.;. ,#þt:Æ-IiH~,¿' . ß. O'7¿'" , Cl!2:~~¿u/c--4¡f;Û? .ß?d-~
- ~,," J, .f~,/"j/I~/. Jj~, '-~' " lh. ,f(,. ¿, ¡j'/ ;ì-r-,/ ,f·,,·#.· , ,. /Î~? ,
~' ,_ --.... 'd~ .A:.C.:Ji-/~ f\
1f¿ 7' ~, -.-' 12 1:" ¿¿Ja!j¿ . " ''yo ~ J., - /~, .__~J/~~ ~ ~)
~ ~ tJ AAPJ~L/~~,I' ,~r7> '1/--'
~ () Av H~r~¿p-ð'. _' -. . .
Jðrí ~~) . ..- ~¿j, '~"~~
~~ ddù/1/d',~;~
->/) 2 ¢''í! ~
IvJ~t r
.
· I Attachment: Yes or No I
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
College of St. Benedict - Flag Request
DATE: July 15, 2004
Administration
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
AGENDA ITEM
College of St. Benedict - Flag Request
PREVIOUS ACTION
The College approached the Council in 1999 requesting the same permission. Attached for your
convenience are the minutes :trom the May 20, 1999 meeting.
· RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION
Authorize the placement of banners in the existing flag poles as requested with the College providing the
City assurance that they will be responsible for the banners and assume all liability.
FISCAL IMPACT
COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS
Jon McGee, Vice Presidentfor Planning, Research and Communication will be present at the meeting.
Reviewing the past minutes indicates the City was willing to agree to the banners provided the College
requested authorization each time they wished to use the light poles. Since the College lmows already
when during the next 12 months they wish to fly the banners, I have asked them to submit a request with
all the dates. In addition, I have asked Jon to contact the St. Joseph Legion to discuss the taking of some
or all of the flags down during certain days in the summer. In the past the Legion has left the flags flying
all summer. Not only does the Legion provide the flags, they also provide the labor to hang them and
take them down.
It is my understanding that Jon has discussed this matter with Patty at the Legion and they are still
· working out the details. Jon will be able to provide that data at the Council meeting.
May 20,1999 ·
Flaq Request: Weyrens presented a requested from the CSB Alumnae Office to place banners on the
light pOles Minnesota Street during reunion weekend, June 25 - June 27,1999. The request further
states that the College in interested in displaying the banners for special events at CSB and they would
be willing to submit a request each time they wish to display the banners. The Alumnae Office would be
responsible for placing the banners on the light poles as well as removing them. The Council was
supportive of the proposal and requested that the College attempt to use the existing mounting devices
on the light poles.
Ehlert made a motion to approve the display of banners as requested by CSB for reunion weekend, June
25 - June 27,1999. This motion further clarifies that the College of St. Benedict will assume
responsibility for any and all damages incurred as a result of displaying the banners. The motion was
seconded by Niedenfuer.
Ayes: Hiemenz, Twit, Loso, Ehlert, Niedenfuer
Nays: None Motion Carried 5:0:0
·
·
· COLLEGE OF
Saint Benedict. Saint]ohn's
UNIVERSITY
July 6, 2004
Ms. Judy Weyrens, Administrator
City of St. Joseph
25 College Avenue North
P.O. Box 668
St. Joseph, MN 56374-0668
Dear Judy,
As we discussed last week, I would like to make a formal request on behalf of the College of Saint
Benedict to hang decorative flags on city light poles on the dates specified below. Our
understanding is ,that the City Council approved a similar request in 1999 (though, to my
knowledge, the college did not produce or hang any flags at that time). We understand, as well,
that the college would be responsible for hanging and removing the flags on the specified dates,
and also would be responsible for their maintenance and upkeep.
As you requested, I have placed a call to American Legion Commander Jerry Weyer to discuss our
use of the flag standards during two weeks of the summer (one in August 2004 and one in June
2005). I will relay our conversation to you as soon as I am able to connect with Commander
Weyer. None of the dates we have identified below conflict with major national holidays in the
summer (e.g. Memorial Day, Flag Day, July 4, or Labor Day).
· The College is requesting the following dates to hang decorative flags over the next twelve months:
August 21-28, 2004 Welcome Back Week (students arrive)
September 22-27, 2004 Homecoming
October 13-18, 2004 Education Minnesota (student/family tours)
December 2-4, 2004 College board meetings
March 2-4, 2005 College board meetings
April 18-24, 2005 MaryAnn Baenninger Presidential Inauguration
May 4-13, 2005 Commencement
June 20-27,2005 Minnesota Private College Week/CSB Reunion
We also would like to request to hang flags when the College presents its Renaissance Award.
However, we do not know that date yet (it is typically awarded in March). I will call you when I
have additional information.
We appreciate your consideration of this request. Please do not hesitate to call me at 363.5287 if
you have any questions or if you would like additional color copies of the flag design.
We wìlllook forward to hearing from you soon.
Best regards,
Jon McGee
Vice President for Planning, Research, and Communication
College of Saint Benedict/Saint John's University
·
.
.
--- --~- -~--
~- --. - - - -
- - -- - --
.- - - - - --- ---===-- ~
- -- -- -
-- - - ---
- - - -
_n _ _ __ __ _
~ --
--- -=- -----==----*
-- - --
-- ~- - --
--- -- -. .
-- - -- --
- ~-. .~--,d
- - -- -
-~- ~- -'::--=0.0..=- ==-~..-=~=-"' ~~_
-- - - ---=-----.
-- - - - -
-- ------
- - -- --
--- ~-- -- ----=~ ~~-
~ ~~-- ~---~
- --~ =-~-- -00__
-- -- - = -= -- __0 _ =-",-----===_ _
-- ---- -- -:=-- - - - - - ---;::e;¡:::- -__~~__= ~
- ~ - . - ~ - --- ..
. -
- -- -
-- -- - -- - - - -
~ .-. - -. - -~---- _un. _~ _..
~~-~=-='-~:'-- ----~-- ~~--:-=-=-~~-=-~~~~-=-:-=-~-='
- _n -~~-.~.--- ~- .-. ._____~__=~~ Cc.~
- - --- -- -
~ =- =-- ---::- ==----- -- ~'---- -- -~~-=-= - ---=--- ~
-- ~-=~-- - ---,-- "'-=--~-~-'==---=-=~~~~---.
-- ~- - -. . - --~ ~---- ---=====- -~~--c;¡
- - -- -. --
-~- 0':__: -~~ ~'.. -. ~~-__. '-;-~--'-~.':..3.-c:.~-~.:;:-~~c=-~~.;"":c.~
- ·~~c-~~~_-. _ _ __~_ <~__~~__~~_~,_=~~__~_
. --
----~~-.- - ~ --.------.~~ "":c~--___ ~cc..~~
c·_ -~-~~-._ c-__ - ----~~~=--~-~__c~=.
- - - - -- - - -
-. -. - . -- -- - -----~ ~--
~ . - - ~ - - - - -- - -- - - -- - --
- -- - - - - - - - - - -- -~- -- -- --
~ ---..- - -~ - -~~- n~~~______
-- -. , -- -~-- - - - ~- -~--~ - ---~~~--= ~~~
C.: )C=~ CC2'~";~:;:_-:.c.._<-'_;;.'::.~~::_~~ -c- -~~U~~~~7~ I
- ~~ ~~ ~-~ - ~~--- -~-- ~--9~ - - --
-- - - - -
.
!
,
ì iG\ \
;o~, \ ,
\-~--~~ ~
I \ <'___,
, <-~ ~~~-~ ~\
- I "7" ~, \
' \'~, '.' .
· I Attachment: Yes or No I
REQUEST FOR 'COUNCIL ACTION
Sand Companies -Letter of Support, Tax Credit Program
DATE: July 15, 2004
Administration
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
AGENDA ITEM
Sand Companies - Letter of Support, Tax Credit Program
PREVIOUS ACTION
On April I, 2004 the Council accepted the recommendation of the Planning Commission and rezoned
Morningside Acres with a mix ofRI and R3 and amended the Comprehensive Plan. (See attached
minutes)
·
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION
FISCAL IMPACT
COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS
Included in your packet are two letters drafted by Sand Companies for the Mayor's signature. The letters
indicate items for which Sand Companies have received or are seeking relief. Unfortunately, this
correspondence is being typed before the Preliminary Plat hearing which is scheduled for this evening. I
have attached for your convenience the Request for Planning Commission Action which outlines the
variances needed as well as any outstanding Engineering and Legal issues. It is anticipated that the
Planning Commission will meet specially the last week in July to consider the needed variances and to
finalize the preliminary plat. Jim Sand has indicated that the deadline for submitting the Tax Credit
application is July 21, 2004. Therefore his is requesting the Council approve support at this meeting.
·
Page 1 of1
~udy Weyrens
.m: "Jim W. Sand" <JWSand@SandCompanies.com>
To: "Judy Wyrens (E-mail)" <jweyrens@cityofstjoseph.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 3:48 PM
Attach: City Council support letter - Morningside TH-06.25.04.doc; Sample Threshold Letter - Morningside TH-
06.25.04.doc
Subject: Sample Support Letters
Good Afternoon Judy,
As I mentioned to attached are the electronic version word documents for your use.
Have a good July 4th weekend.
Thanks for your help
Jim W. Sand
Vice President of Development
Sand Companies, Ine
366 South 10th Avenue, PO Box 727
Waite Park, MN 56387-0727
320-202-3100
320-202-3139 Fax
JWSand@SandCompanies.com
wv..TW . Sand Companies. com
«City Council support letter - Morningside TH-06.25.04.doc» «Sample Threshold Letter - Morningside TH-
.S.04.doc»
.
7/7/2004
(CITY LETTERHEAD) ·
July _, 2004
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency
400 Sibley Street, Suite 300
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1998
RE: Morningside Townhomes.
St. Joseph, Minnesota.
Dear Multifamily Development:
The St. Joseph City Council, at its meeting held on July _, 2004, has reviewed and
endorsed the housing development proposed of Morningside Townhomes which proposes
thirty-two townhomes within the City of St. Joseph. This endorsement is based upon the
findings that the proje-ct will meet locally identified housing needs and that the proposed
housing is in short supply in the local housing market. This is evidenced by a housing ·
study prepared in 2001 by Admark Resources.
The City Council's endorsement is evidenced by the City Council Approval of
Resolution # , a copy of which is attached to this letter.
Sincerely,
Larry Hosch
Mayor
·
· (CITY LETTERHEAD)
July _, 2004
. Minnesota Housing Finance Agency
400 Sibley Street, Suite 300
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1998
RE: Morningside Townhomes.
St. Joseph, Minnesota.
Dear Multifamily Development:
The City of St. Joseph is committed to providing Life Cycle Housing to the city which
offers a wide range of housing opportunities for its residents. In October of 2002, we
became a participating member of a Joint Powers Agreement to organize and govern a
community based effort to provide Life Cycle Housing.
The Joint Powers Agreement is a cooperatively developed housing plan that will enable
· the development of Life Cycle Housing within our city. As it relates to Morningside
Townhomes, the Plan defines "Rental Life CyCle Housing Units" whose maximum
monthly rent is no greater than 30% of the monthly income of house holds earning 65% or
less of area median income, adjusted for the size of the unit, as specified and periodically
updated by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. As part of the Plan,
the units must maintain these income and rent restrictions for at least fifteen years. To
compliment this· Joint Powers Agreement, our 2002 Comprehensive Plan outlines
strategies, recommendations and resources to meet our need for affordable housing in 8t.
Joseph.
The Joint Powers Agreement encourages us to make at least 15% of our new housing
stock affordable. The Morningside Townhome development will be cooperatively
developed to provide Life Cycle Housing to our city. With the rise in land prices and
increases in construction costs, obstacles to the development of Life Cycle Housing can
be difficult to overcome. The City of St. Joseph is willing to support in the development
of the Morningside Townhomes in exchange for providing qualifying Life Cycle Housing
units to the city.
Waiver of Development Costs. With each new development within the city, a park
dedication fee is due in lieu of land dedication. The park dedication fee paid by this
development will go specifically to develop on-site improvements such as street lights,
sidewalks, boulevard landscaping and play lot. The fee paid will not go into the general
· park fund of the city but rather specifically to off-set these improvement costs.
Density Bonuses. The site of the Morningside Townhomes was designated for an R-l ·
Single Family zoning by our Comprehensive Plan. To allow for the much higher density
of multiple townhomes on one lot, on April 1, 2004 the City Council approved the zoning
of the property to R-3 and amending the Comprehensive Plan. These density bonuses
allowed more units on the property thus reducing the per unit land and improvement
costs.
Reduced Setbacks. The City Council has approved various reduced setbacks for the
Morningside Townhomes. These reduced setbacks on the approved plan allows for the
development of additional units on the site.
Decreased Road Widths. The City Council has allowed the utilization of private roads
into the development property to access the townhome units. Typically public roads
would have widths of 32' to 36' within a 50' or 60' right-of-way. By allowing the use of
the private roads, the width is reduced to approximately 24' with no required right-of-
way.
Flexibility of Development Standards & Code Requirements. The city has approved
flexibility in our development standards within the R-3 zoning along with flexibility
within the code requirements for the Momingside Townhomes. By the city allowing the
use of a planned unit development (PUD) overlay, it has allowed for zoning and code
flexibility within the R-3 code standards. The PUD has provided for various reduced ·
setbacks, private roads, multiple buildings on a single lot and others such as not requiring
buildings to have ITontage on a public right-of-way.
Fast-track Permitting & Approval. Morningside Townhomes will be required to meet all
building code requirements. Timing can be essential for the success of a project and the
city and its building official will, to the best of their abilities, work with owner to allow
for fast-track permitting approvals.
As has been previously stated, the City of St. Joseph is committed to the development
and completion of Life Cycle Housing within the city. As part of our cooperatively
developed plan and agreement to complete this, we support the Morningside Townhome
development. We ask that you participate with us to help meet our common goal of
affordable housing in the City of St Joseph, by funding this development.
Sincerely,
Larry Hosch
Mayor
·
. I Attachment: Yes or No I
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Preliminary Plat Approval- Sand Companies
DATE: July 12, 2004
AGENDA ITEM
Preliminary Plat and Special Use Permit - Sand Companies, Morningside Acres
PREVIOUS ACTION
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the rezoning of Mornings ide Acres as well as
an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to allow for R3 zoning in Planning District 13. On April 1,
2004 the Council accepted the recommendations of the Planning Commission and amended the
Comprehensive Plan to allow for R3 in the Momingside Acres Addition as well as rezoning the property
a mixed use ofRl and R3. The process included review of a concept plan.
RECOMMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
. Table action on the Preliminary Plat until after the variance hearing for the design standards.
COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff has spent considerable time reviewing the Momingside Acres Plat. When the concept plan is
accepted, the plan is not reviewed for Ordinance Compliance. It is understood that modifications will
occur when the final plans are submitted with detail. As you can see in the material you already
received, we were still waiting for completed information as late as June 25. When the final information
was received, the review indicated that a number of variances will need to be secured.
The property is being developed as a PUD which allows for deviation from specific setback and density
of the underlying district (see attached Ordinance). A PUD does not make any provisions from deviations
from Ordinance 54 - Subdivision. Ordinance 54 includes a provision for variance if the design standards
cannot be meet. The following variances will be required:
Ordinance 52.09 Subd.10 (See Rajkowski Hansmeier letter #2) Maximum R3 allowed
within a PUD
Ordinance 52.19 Subd. 4(b) (See Rajkowski Hansmeier letter #3 and SEH Memorandum #9)
Driveway distance from wetland.
Ordinance 52.18 Sand Companies is requesting deviation from the Park
Dedication Ordinance.
. Ordinance 54.16 subd 3(r) 2 (See SEH Memorandum #5) Stormwater Pond Setbacks
Ordinance 54.16 subd 4(d) All buildings must front a public street
The above mentioned variances will require an additional public hearing and the Planning Corrmnssion .
will be asked to consider a special meeting date the last week in July (26/27/28).
Review Comments
Joe Bettendorf and myself met with representatives from Sand Companies to review all the comments
received. During this meeting many of the outstanding items have been resolved. Please find below a
summary of meeting.
ENGINEERING - SEH Memorandum dated July 6, 2004
· Sand Companies does not intend to construct the sidewalk connection from 29Sth Avenue to
Iverson Street. This was a requirement of the Park Board and Ordinance 54.18 requires
developers to connect to the trail system. (#1)
· The roads indicated within the R3 portion of the development will not be public roads, they are
driveway and an internal road system. As such they will not be named. (#2)
· The City has not received approval from the Stearns County Engineer or Stearns County
Environmental. The Stearns County Environmental Board tabled action on the plat to gather
additional information regarding the wetland. It is anticipated the Board will submit comments
on July 21,2004. With regard to the County Engineer, the City Office wil1 contact the Highway
Department to request a status on the request. (#3, 8)
· Engineering Design Issues (#4, 6, 7, 10, 11) will be resolved during design
LEGAL - Rajkowski Hansmeier Letter dated July 2, 2004
· The comments # 2, 3, 5 have already been addressed in this memo and wil1 need to be resolved .
through the variance process. The remaining items will be resolved with the execution of the
Development Agreement.
BUILDING INSPECTION - Inspectron Memo dated July 7, 2004 (please refer to the Recommendations)
· I have attached a revised site plan which addresses the fire access. Due to the grade of the
property, it is not possible to provide an additional access near l03rd, however, the Developer has
revised the plan to include hammerhead where the access is requested, The hammerhead allows
the truck to backup and turn around. This compromise will be provided to the Fire Chief and
Building Official for comment. The other access requested has subsequently been added.
· Parking areas and fire lanes will be marked and maintained.
· Sand Companies will place the address signs as requested
· Upon further review of the plan, the Building Official has concurred that sufficient hydrants area
available therefore this comment can be dis-regarded.
· The preliminary plat will be resubmitted to include the property corner grading plans.
· When the Plan was reviewed by Inspectorn, we did not have the information needed to verify
density. Therefore, Ron had to make some assumptions and during the review it appeared as they
exceeded the maximum density. During the meeting on Thursday, Sand Companies agreed to
provided the additional data and provide the density calculations. They were received by the City
the same day and reviewed by Ron. He concurred that based on the new information the
proposed development falls within the density requirements. The calculations are attached for
your reVIew
.
MISCELLANEOUS
· Included in your packet are two letters that have a signature for the Mayor. Please be adVised that these
letters have NOT been drafted, approved or recommended by the City Staff. These letters have been
submitted by Sand Companies and they are seeking approval of those items for their application for
assistance through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency.
·
·
Sand Companies: Jamie Thelen, President of Sand Companies approached the Council on behalf of .
Sand Companies. He stated that they are looking to develop the property known as Morningside Acres.
The development will consist of 29 single- family lots and 48 multi-family Town/Patio homes.
Weyrens reported that the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing to amend the
Comprehensive Plan to allow for R3 development in Planning District 13 and to rezone the property with
a mix of single and multiple family. The hearing also include the request for special use to allow the
townhome and patio home development. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.29 requires all multiple
family developments containing more than 12 units to complete the special use permit process. Due to
the lack of a complete plan, the Planning Commission denied the special use permit request.
Utsch spoke on behalf of the Planning Commission. He stated that the public hearing was conducted and
no one presented wished to address the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission supports the
mixed density development, but denied the Special Use Permit until the preliminary plat is ready for
review. Rassier requested the Planning Commission require the extension of the sidewalk along 2951h to
the entrance of the new subdivision.
Hosch spoke in support of the concept plan submitted by Sand Companies and stated it is his opinion
that the proposed development is more characteristic of R2, than R3. Hosch stated that to him R3 is an
apartment complex not patio homes. Hosch further stated that the addition of patio homes will provided
the much needed senior housing. Wick questioned how the proposed development will meet the
requirements of the Affordable Housing Agreement. Then stated that the 32 townhouse units are
considered affordable and will meet the requirements of the Affordable Housing Agreement.
Weyrens stated that during the concept plan review it was noted that some design issues will need to be
resolved. The major issue is the close proximity of the buildings to the holding pond. This matter will be
reviewed by the City Engineer and resolved before the preliminary plat hearing. The other outstanding
issue is whether or not the area being developed can drain to a regional pond. Ekola stated that SEH will .
complete the storm water analysis before the preliminary plan is comleted.
Wick made a motion accepting the recommendation of the Planning Commission to amend the -
future land use plan of Planning District 13 of the St. Joseph Comprehensive Plan to include
multiple family. The motion was seconded by Utsch and passed unanimously.
Rassier questioned the rezoning of the property and why a small portion of the property is being rezoned
as R3. He further questioned why the subject property is not zoned as a PUD. Weyrens clarified that
PUD is not a zoning classifìcation, rather it is a type of development. Therefore the property must be
zoned with the appropriate classification.
Jovanovich stated that there were some problems in the past when rezoning a piece of property as R3 to
be used for townhomes and in the end the property was developed with an apartment complex. In order
to prevent that from happening again, the City recently amended the R3 Zoning Ordinance requiring
issuance of a Special Use Permit for any R3 development containing 12 or more units. This provision
allows the City discretion when a development plan is submitted.
Due to the fact, that a preliminary plat has not yet been submitted, Rieke questioned whether or not it is
appropriate to rezone the property R3. Hosch and Rieke stated they are comfortable with the plan as it
was submitted. Rieke understands that the developer is requesting concept approval to prepare the
detailed plans. Rassier expressed his concern with rezoning a parcel without a detailed plan. Utsch
clarified that a Special Use Permit is required for all R3 development containing 12 or more units.
Therefore, rezoning the property at this time does not grant the developer with a site plan approval. A
public hearing is required and both the Planning Commission and City Council will review the plans.
Rassier made a motion to rezone the property known as Morningside Acres a mixed use of R1 and .
R3, with the R3 located on the southern edge of the property. The motion also clarifies that any
. I Attachment: Yes or No I
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Administrator Report (a)
DATE: July 15, 2004
Administration
ORIGINATINGDEP ARTMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
AGENDA ITEM
Request for Reimbursement -Street Address Change
PREVIOUS ACTION
The City sent notification to the property owner on· Constitution Drive that the address has been re-
assigned to 17th Avenue NE. As you recall it was brought to the Council's attention that Constitution
Drive was difficult for public safetyio find, as it really was a connection to 17th A venue. The Council
concurred and agreed to change the address to 17th Avenue NE.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION
.
FISCAL IMPACT
COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS
When addressing is completed every attempt is made to make sure that it is logical and follows the City
Street Addressing Policy. I looked back to see why 17th Avenue was named Constitution Drive. I have
included the original plat so that you can see that Constitution Drive was originally to assigned three
names _17th Avenue, 18th Avenue and Constitution Drive. The minutes of March 20, 2003 indicated that
the Public Safety Staff has requested to use one name to avoid confusion. It was at that meeting that the
street was named Constitution Drive.
We have run into an occasion before where an address had to be reassigned. The City previously has
taken the position that we make every attempt to address prevent re-addressing, and we have denied
requests for reimbursement of licenses and checks. The City has on one occasion paid for brick when the
address was installed on the same.
With regard to addressing - when developments were straight lots and blocks street addressing was easy.
Now with curvilinear roads, street naming is becoming more difficult. We hope that the incentive to
provide better emergency services out weighs the cost of the address change.
.
7·-$-orr
/~~,ffi~ .
.L~. ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~.-P_
,~.(~~~~~
~ ~ p~.;::Cv- 17~4A/<'-. $E--
~+~~~~·~f
¡A/i2- ,:'~~ ~~ ~l~_ ~ ~~
/7 ~/-fAH-. 5c ~aa7'
f1/¡¿~~~ ~~
~.,"~~ ~~~~ ~~~4-P- ~ ~ ~
.µ~L5/ ~- .~~-~~~ ~
ß~..r--~j ....-iZ-u_ ~ ~'f/' r~ a-'"Z2-- ~ .
. ¿_g:!;-u/~" - ¿:;r ~ ¿;7
r~ -
JJ -"~ L ~ (j) ~ / ({': c/O
~ ß~ /6.90
d~XJ!-e.&- 11.95
¢Yh,9F
5~ .~~ ~ ~ -u-e.... ~ ~ c?V--
(/U./Z.- ~~. ~ :%';76'.?5 4'<~.~
/
~.~~~ T¡é~~~ßÞ- ~~
~.........c,¿~ c..&.Æ___ Þ~./'~-L- a:::r ;? ¿'? - / è7 -y ð'"''L-
. ./
29/- /6f?~
__/ d I .
/ /...,t~./'X_/":"" ~ . ~ ,
~~ '{-. ¡/t/a;r-"- ~L
02002 Weslwood Professional Services. Inc.
I I I
I I I I I <.!: ., / / ':'¡'.s'->-" "-
I : I I I ~ I ?\~~¡:--' / ^ ~4'4'~ '- - -
I I 2 I ,-, I ,_ / / " . .5'0l'"-4. - -
,~ / / ),- STREET
I / / '--
I - //
'E: -' / L.
I '-' / ...I'~ ~
,oj' J I
_ J .-..1' ,,-,, I \ ., A,,~
" "'" "'-'~'I""
\ 2 I"
~O ~
2-
~
~
'1
I
I _
I
I .
.,
I
I . -
,::J
I
I
I
I
I
I '
I
i 8
I -
,
; I
,
: ,~'::2 .....
-t;JA/;Æ..,f;'TR£€ r
_,,,n
2 ~
------
\
ì
,
I ,-_....-....-.........---..,
. . _ 6.ct~.....I_.oIIII:1.......1.tIHCI9Co\I'I ~
'~_Westwood Professional ServiCes, IRe. A>CHI1IICr_............_.._ .__ -. . '!WI
~, 3701 12th St.No<1h.Ste.206 ~-_....... Dole --
St. Cloud, MN 563Q3 000<b<0 'lW1
. Phone:=-Fax:320-2S3-8737 Tunothy _ """'" NJ1
D.œ:: IJDeme No. 12239 hcont Dnwfu br/date
Final Plat - Liberty Pointe, Rick Poplinski: Rick Poplin ski of Viking Development approached the Council .
requesting Final Plat for Liberty Pointe. Weyrens reported that minor changes have been made to the
plat since the Council approved the Preliminary Plat. Based on the recomme'ndation of the City Engineer
the following changes were made to the preliminary plat:
1. 1 yth Avenue SE - The name of the street has been changed to Constitution
Drive. The name was changed since the road is curvilinear and assigning one
continuous street name will alleviate problems associated with changing a street
name at a curve. Weyrens reported that City Staff has reviewed the name
change and it was the consensus of public safety staff that renaming the street
was in the best interest of the City.
e
.
/'l/f y~ Ä -.. .-,
JL~~· :) (;t')_J
/' ;"rh- /
. I Attachment: Yes or No I
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: July 12, 2004
Engineering Joe Bettendorf
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
AGENDA ITEM
Field Street Corridoe Study RFP
PREVIOUS ACTION
City Council reviewed a draft of the scope of work.
. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION
For review only.
FISCAL IMPACT
None
COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS
We need to finn up a selection committee to review proposals and conduct interviews. RFP states that
selection committee will be made up of Mayor, City Council, Administrator, City Engineer, and APO
rep. Contact restricted to Administrator by email. Proposals are due August 6. Reviewproposals and
short-list 2 or 3 finns week of August 9. Conduct interviews week of August 23. City Council to approve
selection September 2.
.
G:\sccv\pers\bett\BLANK REQ FOR COUNCIL ACTION,doc
Date Task Responsible Person
7/12/04 Complete RFP and issue to Joe Bettendorf ·
interested parties.
7/12/04 Send copy of State standard Joe Bettendorf
contract language to Tom
Jovanovich for review
7/13/04 Issue RFP to interested finns. Judy Weyrens
7/13/04 -7/23/04 Prepare city contract format to be Tom Jovonavich
used in negotiating agreement with
selected firm.
7/13/04 - 8/2/04 Respond to questions from firms Judy Weyrens with support
within 2-day turnaround. from Joe Bettendorf and
Tom Jovanovich
7/15/04 City Council meeting - Review Joe Bettendorf
final RFP and remind Council that
all questions from firms are to go to
Judy Weyrens by email. Discuss
Selection Committee and Advisory
Committee.
7/26/04 Issue contract format to firms Judy Weyrens
responding to RFP
7/26/04 - 8/5/04 Establish Field Street Corridor Judy Weyrens and Joe
Advisory Committee. Meetings will Bettendorf to pull together
be public and open to interested for City Council approval. ·
citizens.
8/2/04 Last day for firms to submit Judy Weyrens -
questions to Judy Weyrens by
email.
8/6/04 Proposals due at noon. Judy Weyrens
8/9/04 - 8/13/04 Review proposals and short-list 2 Judy Weyrens
or 3 firms for interview
8/16/04 Notify short-listed firms of Judy Weyrens
interviews scheduled for week of
8/23/04
9/2/04 Approve selection (subject to Mayor and Council
Mn/Dot concurrence) and authorize
Mayor and Administrator to
complete contracting process.
9/3/04 Norify Mn/Dot of selection for Pre- Judy Weyrens
award Audit review.
I 9/15/04 Complete contracting process. Judy Weyrens with support
I from Tom Jovonavich
I 9/16/04 - 9/30/04 Firm up schedule, set first meeting Judy Weyrens and selected
I
! of advisory committee, consultant.
·
. I U, / V... V .;) "'AÃ. "'...u ......~4JU.l ",bH
~ ST JOSEPH ~OO2
Substitute met/Iuds of environmcntl111'eview c&;
~
.
Audits. Subpart 8 provides 'that the board chair may ask the RGU at Failures to conform to the original assumptions or tb implement the mit-
any time for a status report 01'1 development progress in the area and on ígation plan void the status of the AUAR as a substitute form of review,
mitigation plan implementation. This provision allows the board to which means that individual projects are then subject to FAW and EIS
î investigate any allegations of procedural abuse, to make sure that requirements.
agreed upon mitigation is being implemented and to make sure that .
development is consistent with review assumptions.
i
ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW PROCESS
. RGU ORD(RS AUAR
I
I varies
,
I
I DRAFT DOCUMENT
I DISTRIBUTED FOR
I COMMENTS
I
I 30 days plus IS calendtzr days
I
I optional extension
I Ii:
I := COMMENT PERIOD ENDS
I .§
. Ii I1llries -
I
16-
I~
I~ RGU RfVlm AND
DISiRlBUTfS RNAl
DOCUMENT'
10 working daysJrom receipt
DISPUTE RESOLVED
REVlffl ADEQUATE
~.
.' tONblTIONALlY ADEQUATE RGU REVISES REVIEW
,
.
BnvironmeTZJal Quality Board atMinnesota Planning 17
07/02104 09: 57 FAX 320 229 4301 SEH -7 ST JOSEPH 141 003
Mhmesota Rule 4410.3610 Page 3 of 6
Subp. 5. Procedures for review. The procedures in i terns A .
to H must be used for review under this part.
A. The RGU shall prepare a draft enviromnental
analysis document addressing each of the development scenarios
selected under subpart 2 using the standard content and format
provided by the EQB under subpart 4. The draft document must be
distributed and noticed in accordance with part 4410. ~_?,9..0 .
B. Reviewers shall have 30 days fram the date of
notice of availability of the draft environmental analysis in
the EQB MOnitor to submit written comments to the RGU.
Reviewers that are governmental units shall be granted a 15-day
extension by the RGU upon a written request for goad cause. A
copy of the request must be sent to the EQB.
Comments must address the accuracy and completeness ofth~
information provided in the draft analysis, potential impacts
that warrant further analysis, further information that may be
required in order to secure permits for specific projects in the
future, and mitiga~ion measures or proceduras necessary to
prevent significant environmental impacts wi~hin ~he area when
actual development occurs.
Gove~ental units shall also state in their comments
whether or not they wish to be notified by the RGU upon receipt
of applications for specific development projects within the
~a. .
C. The RGU' shall revise the environmental analysis
document based on comments received during the comment period.
The RGU shall include in the document a section specifically
responding to each timely, substantive comment received ~hat
indicates in what way the comment has been addressed. If the
RGU believes a request for additional analysis is unreasonable,
it may ,consult with the EQB chair before responding to the
comment.
The RGU shall include in the document a plan for mitigation
specifying the mitigation measures that will be impos~d upon
future development within the area in order to avoid or mitigate
potential environmental impacts. The plan shall contain a
description of how each mitigation measure will be implemented,
including a description of the involvement of other agencies, if
appropriate.
D. The RGU shall distribute the revised environmental <Ç...¡.,.~ t t:'"í...... o-.e
analysis docùffient in the s~ne manner as the draft document and 0
also tIT c:u~y persons who commented on the draft doc'Unlent and to . ~~
the EQB"'"'štaff. State agencies and the Metropolitan Council of t::....~CA.,z-s.
the ~ ties have ten days from the date of receipt of the " \D etc.-y S .þ.
revised document to file an objection to the doc'UII\ent with the ,M.te. oÞj"<-ch~
RGU. A copy of any letter of objection must be filed with the
EQB staff. An objection may be filed only if the agency filing
the o~jection has evidence that the revised document contains .
inaccurate or incomplete information relevant to the
identification and mitigation of potentially significant
environmental impacts or that the proposed plan for mitigation
will be inadequate to prevent potentially significant
http://www.re.visorJeg.state.mn.us/arule/441 0/361 O.html 7/212004
Ullu.../U4 U9:5/ ¥AA 320229 4301 SEH -7 ST JOSEPH ~OO4
Minnesota Rule 4410.3610 ,Page 4 of6
environmental impacts from occurring.
. E. Unless an objection is filed in accordance with
item D, the RGU shall adopt the revised environmental analysis .
ì ç, VlD o~~c,+-, 'ý\..s
document and the plan for mitigation at its fi~st regularly -
scheduled meeting helã 15 or more days after the distribution of 'R0L1 +C 0. o-p+
the revised document. The RGU shall submit evidence of the vJ- f\-IL -f f' ~j'
adoption of the document and plan for rnitigationto the EQB ~ C C:; bY rY' IJYE.
staff and all agencies that have stated that they wish to be J.A. 5 ~ ¿.; s-l .
informed of any future projects within the area as part of their i>~ ~yt¿¡ d.oG-U~
comments on the draft environmental analysis document- The EQB
shall publish a notice of the adoption of the documents and the sv-I".~-t
completion of the review process in the EQB Monitor. - RbI)
~'V{~ l:.<.., b..{"
Upon adoption of the environmental analysis document and a... J "e'¡' (n"\ tv
the plan for mitigation, residential, commercial, warehousing, ~626.
and light industrial projects and associated infrastructure
within the area that are consistent with the assumptions of the
doc'lJIneIlt and that: comply with the plan for mitigation are exempt
from review under parts 4410.1100. to ~410_1700 and 4410.2100 to
4410.2800. , t~)Þ
(!{¡'1(.;·1~ p.
F. If an objection is filed with the RGU in >f. e)AuII'. bÞ yt'-
accordance with item D, within five days of receipt of the ,'(ldf r:Y\~ S J
objection the RGU shall consult with the objecting agency about
the issues raised in the objection and shall advise the EQB . kv ~f ;;p
staff of its proposed response to the objection- At the request #~J (¡t.; l' '" '1
of the RGU, the objecting agency, the EQB staff, and any other J;c~t~~J
affected agency shall meet with the RGU as soon as practicable
. to attempt to resolve the issues raised in the objection. O'oJ., ~
~ ø tV~5'¡11
Within ~O days after receipt of the objection the RGU shall G ~ suP! ¿J-'
suÞmit a written response to the objecting agency and theEQB ¡1lJ'~1) #~
chair. The response shall address each of the issues raised in
the objection. The RGU may address an issue by either revising f.pt~.r
the environmental analysis document or plan for mitigation, or
by explaining why it believes that the ißsue is not relevant to
the identification and mitigation of potent:ia1ly significant
enviromnental impacts.
G. Within five days of receipt of theRGU's response
to the objection, the objecting agency shall advise the EQB
chair of whether it accepts the response and withdraws its
objection or continues to object. If the objecting agency
continues to object, the EQB chair shall place the matter on the
agenda of the next regularly scheduled EQB meeting or of a
special meeting.
H- If ~he matter is referred to the EQB under item G,
the EQB shall determine whether the environmental analysis
document and plan for mitigation are adequate, conditionally
adequate, or inadequate. If the EQB finds the documents
conditionally adequate or inadequate, the EQB shall specify the
revisions necessary for adequacy_ The EQB shall only find the
documents inadequate if it determines that they contain
. inaccurate or incomplete information necessary to the
identification and mitigation of potentially significan~
environmental impacts or that the proposed plan for mitigation
will be inadequate to prevent the occurrence of potent:ial1y
significant environmental impacts.
.
httn://www .revi~orJep'_~t$lte_mt'UH:/~1'111~/.1A.l O/~h 1 n htm1 Î I?.I?.OM
07/02104 09:58 FAX 320 229 4301 SEH -7 ST JOSEPH 141 005
Minnesota Rule 4410.3610 Page 5 of 6
If the EQB finds the documents adequate or conditionally .
adequate, the RGU shall adopt the documents under item E. If
the documents were found conditionally adequate by the EQB, the
RGU shall first ~evise the documents as directed by the EQB. If
the EQB finds the documents inadequate, the RGU has 30 days to
revise the documents and circulate them for review in accordance
with items D to H.
Subp. 6. Tme limit. Unless an objection is filed under
subpart 5, item D, the RGU shall adopt the environmental
analysis document and plan for mitigation no later than at its
first meeting held more than 120 days after the date on which
¡;,he RGU ordered review under this part. The time limi t may be
extended upon the agreement of all proposers whose project
schedules are affected by the review.
Subp. 7. updating the review. To remain valid as a
substitute form of review, the environmen~al an~lysis document
and the plan for mitigation must be revised if any of the
circumstances in items A ¡;,o H apply.
A. Five years have passed since the RGU adopted the
original environmental analysis docum~~t and plan for mitigation
or the latest revision. This item does not apply if all
development within the area has b~en given final approval by the
RGU.
B. A comprehensive plan amenQffient is proposed that .
would allow an increase in development over the levels assumed
in the environmental analysis document.
C. Total development within the area would exceed the
maximum levels assumed in the environmental analysis document.
D. Development within any subarea delineated in the
environmental analysis document would exceed the maximum levels
assumed for that subarea in the document.
E. A substantial change is proposed in public
facilities intended to service development in the area that may
result in increased adverse impacts on the environment.
F. Development or construction of public facilities
will oCcur on a schedule other than that assumed in the
environmental analysis document Or plan for mitigation so as to
substantially increase the likelihood or magnitude of potential
adverse environmental impacts or to substantially postpone the
implementation of identified mitigation measures.
G. New information demonstrates that important
assumptions or background conditions used in the analysis
presented in the environmental analysis document are
substantially in error and that environmental impacts have
consequently been substantially underestimated.
H. The RGU determines that other substantial changes .
have occurred that may affect the potential for, or magnitude
of, adverse environmental impacts_
httD:/ /WWW.revisor.lC2'.stMe.mn.n,,/::;n11p.144 1 ()/~h 1 n htm 1 '7 I'J f') nfìl1
. ..
M U N ICI PAL
DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.
DATE: June 30, 2004
MEMO TO: Mayor Hosch, City Council Members, City Administrator Weyrens
:tílIF ~~
FROM: Joànne Foust & Cy mith-Strack, Municipal Development Group
RE: Economic Development Activity Report - June, 2004
Municipal Development Group, Inc. has been interacting with a number of prospects throughout the past two
months. Following is a summary of activities that have transpired. If you have any questions on any of
these or other projects, please do not hesitate to contact us at 952-758-7399. A project number has been
assigned to protect the confidentiality of the businesses prospects.
Project 01-E:
This project involves the expansion of a service within the community. MDG has been keeping in touch with
the project contact over the past two years. Interest in various sites has increased over the past few months.
Most recent correspondence occurred on June 23, 2004 and June 28, 2004.
. Project 01-F:
This company has been in contact with the EDA regarding potential sites for a commercial business since
August, 2001.MDG has forwarded the contact ioformation on a number of commercial sites. MDG phoned
the project contact on June 9th and ~-mailed the contact on June 23, 2004.
Project 01-1:
This business originally contacted the City in 2001. In 2002 they noted their project was on-hold. The
company most recently contacted MDG on June 18, 2004 requesting information on available commercial
sites in the City. MDG forwarded the info. The company is researching sites in St. Joseph and area cities. A
follow-up call was placed on June 23,2004.
Project 01-J:
The developer contacted the City in the fall of 2001 regarding the development of a commercial subdivision.
Since that time the company and EDA representatives have remained in contact. The developer has
constructed a commercial lease facility and has commercial lease space available. MDG last followed up
, with the Developer on June 2nd at which time they noted they have substantial interest in the commercial
lease space. MDG, Inc. also forwarded information on the remaining commercial land to a business
prospect on June 18,2004.
Project 02-E:
In 2002 this com¡;>any expressed interest in approximately 1 acre of land for an industrial use for an
expansion from another community. The woject was put on hold in 2003. MDG most recently followed up
with the company representative on June 9 h and June 23, 2004.
Project 02-L:
This business constructed a facility in Buettner Business Park for their operations, along with lease space for
. other tenants. They secured a new tenant in a 4,000 square foot portion of the building earlier this year and
noted on June 23, 2004 that they have interest in the remaining 4,000 square feet.
EDA Monthly Project Report - June 2004 Page 1
Project 02·R:
This company recently purchased land in Buettner Business Park for the construction of a facility in 2005. ·
MDG most recently corresponded with the business contact on June 2nd and June 23, 2004.
Project 02·AA:
This business purchased land in Buettner Business Park earlier this year. They are starting building and site
plans for proposed construction in the summer/fall of 2004. MDG followed-up with the contact and/or his
builder most recently on June 2nd, June 9th and June 23rd.
Project 03-A:
These developers are interested in a large highway commercial development in an area not yet annexed into
the CitYt. MDG has been working with them over the past few years. Additional follow up contact occurred on
June 9 h, 18th and 23rd. The developers intend to request plat approval in 2004 with construction in 2005.
Project 03-R:
This prospect contacted the City in the summer of 2003 inquiring about vacant industrial acreage. MDG
forwarded information and continues to remain in contact with the prospect. MDG, Inc. last followed up on via
phone on June 2nd and June 4, 2004.
Project 03-5:
This project involves the possible expansion of the industrial acreage in the community. MDG has been
working with the property owners on the project since August of 2003. MDG has been in contact with the
property owners and City Engineer. Project activity occurred on June 4th, 7'h, 16th, 23rd and 30th.
Project 03-T:
This project includes a commercial and residential component. The contact originally inquired about available
sites in October 2003. MDG most recently left a message regarding the status of the project on June 23,
2004.
Project 03-U: ·
Inquiry forwarded to MDG on October 1, 2003 regarding a potential commercial development in St. Joseph.
MDG followed up last occurred on June 9, 2004.
Project 04·B:
This builder contacted the city in March of 2004 regarding availability of industrial lots in the city and financial
programs to assist with a project. The builder was in the process of purchasing a lot in Buetter Business Park
in May of 2004. MDG last followed up with the contact and left a message on June 23, 2004.
Project 04-D:
MDG contacted the owner of industrial acreage within the corporate limits regarding interest in re-subdividing
and marketing industrial lots. The property owner expressed an interest in possibly re-subdividing, MDG
continues to follow up with the project representative and City Engineer regarding the WOject, with the latest
follow up on June 7'h, a meeting on June 9th and follow up correspondence on June 16 hand 23rd. MDG met
with project representatives on June 30th,
Project 04·E:
This prospect contacted MDG in April of 2004 regarding demographic and economic development data for
St. Joseph. The prospect is considering a leasing commercial retail space in the community. Most recent
correspondence with the contact was on June 9, 2004.
Project 04·F:
This prospect contacted MDG in M'ay of 2004 regarding commercial lease space in the downtown area.
MDG met with the prospect several times in May and most recently corresponded on June 2nd, June 16th and
June 30th.
·
EDA Monthly Project Report - June 2004 Page 2
Project 04-H: ,
. MDG met with a representative on May 26' 2004 regarding a building in the downtown. Most recent follow-up
occurred on June glh and June 23, 2004. .
Project 04-1:
A representative from a local real estate firm contacted the City on June 23rd to request information on
available commercial parcels. MDG prepared and em ailed information. MDG followed up via phone on June
30lh to verify receipt of information and update information on a small amount of office rental space.
Project 04-L:
This project involves the rossible expansion of a local facility. Discussion with the building owner occurred
on June glh and June 28t .
Other Projects:
MDG completed capital project/equipment review and submitted it to the City Administrator in conjunction
with capital improvement program planning.
MDG will be completing TIF reports within the next month.
First half TIF payments expected to be distributed in July.
EDA Meeting Synopsis:
The EDA met in regular session on June 16,2004. The agenda included an update on the EDA's quest to
assist in making additional urban industrial lots available. The EDA also discussed the referral of business
leads to the township industrial park in the event available local resources were exhausted. The EDA agreed
not to deviate from current policy which is to exhaust municipal resources and in the event a successful
alternative is not available within the City to forward the lead to the St. Cloud Area Economic Development
Partnership for distribution regionally. The EDA also reviewed legislative changes/proposed changes which
. potentially impact economic development within the community.
.
EDA Monthly Project Report - June 2004 Page 3