Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998 [06] Jun 04 I , . I Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the City Council for the City of st. Joseph met in regular session Thursday, June 04, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. in the St. Joseph City Hall. I Page 3329' Members Present: Mayor Kenneth J. Hiemenz. Councilors Bob Loso, Cory Ehlert, Mary Niedenfuer, Ken Twit. Deputy Clerk Judy Weyrens. others Present: City Attomey John Scherer, City Engineer Joe Bettendorf, Public Works Director Dick Taufen, Fire Chief Dave Theisen, Rick Heid, Bob Herges, Charles Cushing, Carol Cushing, Chris Govem, Norm Gregerson, AI Greig, Mike Deutz, Patrol Officer Virginia Guslin, Jim Graeve, Ellen Wahlstrom, Dan Stangler, Margie Kalla, AI Kalla Evidentiarv Hearino 310 Old Hiohwav 52: _Mayor Hiemenz stated that the owners of 310 Old I Highway 52 were notified ofa potential noise violation and have requested an evidentiary i hearing. As such the bearing will be recorded and all persons wishing to speak will be required to' use the microphone. The hearing will consist of two phases: 1) Presentation of information so the Council can make a determination if a noise violation occurred; 2) If itis determined a noise violation occurred, the Council will consider possible sanctions. Mayor Hiemenz informed those present ofthe procedure of the hearing and turned the hearing over to City Attorney John Scherer. I I Scherer stated that as a notary public he will administer an oath to all witnesses and called Virginia Gustin as the first witness. Through questioning, Scherer established the following: Virginia, (Jean), Gustin was the Officer on Duty for the City of St. Joseph on May 15, 1998. At approximately 1 :18 a.m. Gustin received from dispatch an anonymous loud music complaint at 310 Old Highway 52. Gustin clarified that she was alone in the marked squad car when dispatched to said address. Upon arriving at the property she opened the car window and could hear laughter, loud music and screaming coming from said property. 'Upon walking to the front door she met three males who let her into the house at which time she found a tenant. Gustin stated that a citation was issued to the tenants present for noise as well as a citation for violation ofthe Keg Ordinance. Gustin further stated that the noise could clearly be heard from down the street and was loud enough to disturn the peace of the neighborlhood. Scherer stated that he has no further questions for Officer Gustin and questioned ifthe property owners wished to call any witnesses or make any comments. I Norm Gregerson stated that he and AI Greig are the property owners at 310 Old Highway 52. He stated that for the past two weeks he has been approaching adjoining property owners and I tenants in an effort to determine the location of the complainant. He stated that during his discussion with property owners no one indicated there was a problem Wllh noise other than that of dogs. At this time Gregerson called Chris Govem, tenant, as a witness. Upon being sworn in, Govem offered the following testimony: Govem stated that he is a tenant i at 310 Old Highway 52. On the evening ofthe alleged violation he returned home from downtown, at approximately 1:10 a.m. He stated he walked into the apartment and found several individuals i in the living room and hallway. It was his observation that within the apartment the TV or stereo was not playing so he was not concemed with the noise level. He stated that while he was talking to the individuals in the apartment, he was approached by the Officer and questioned if Govern was a resident and asked the remaining people to leave. The Officer stated that she had been dispatched on an anonymous complaint of noise and she would also be citing him for violation of the Keg Ordinance. Govem stated that his residence is the first of seven (7) college rental units and it was his opinion that due to the time of night the noise could have come from outside as residents are retuming home from downtown. Scherer questioned Govem and established the following: Govem was inside the apartment when Officer Gustin arrived and was unaware of what activity was taking place outside or the extent of noise outside. Further Govem clalified that there was not a mass' of people walking June 4, 1 gæ Page 3330 around outside. Scherer clarified that Govern has already pleaded guilty to the citation that was issued and received a monetary fine. I Gregerson clarified that the kegs which were confiscated were from two to four weeks ago and the tenants did not have a party. Scherer stated that the noise anegations do not indicate a party was taking place, rather loud noise was emanating from the property. Gregerson questioned Govem as to location ofthe nearest family dwelling unit to 310 Old Highway 52 at which time Govem responded approximately 200 feet. Govem clarified that when he came home there were approximately 12 t~ 15 people in the apartment and he was not sure as to where the noise complaint came from. The following is a summary of responses to questions posed to Govem by Councilor Ehlert: Seven students are residents of 31 0 Old Highway 52 with 2 rIVing in the 'cove. At the time of the alleged violation the TV or stereo were not playing and Govem was unaware of any screaming. Govem stated that he was cooperative with the Officer and identified who were residents of said apartment. He further stated that he helped the Officer remove the confiscated kegs. At the time of the alleged violation, 2 residents were sleeping and 2 were studying at another site. Upon being questioned by Ehlelt as to procedure followed the evening of the alleged violation, and if all Govems concems were answered, Govem offered the following response: Govem did have some question as to whether or not he should have been required to let the Officers in the house, but he did not ask that question until later. Govem also clarified that the Officer did explain the process to him. The following is a summary of responses to questions posed to Govern by Councilor Loso:. The 1997-98 academic year is the first and only year Govem resided at 310 Old H"lQhway 52. This alleged violation is the first offense he has been involved with. Govem stated there were groups of people walking home at the same time he was, but he was not part of a group. The following is a summary of responses to questions posed to Govern by Councilor Twit: Govem clarified that a gathering did not occur at 310 Old Highway 52 without any of the residents present. The following is a summary of responses to questions posed to Govern by Councilor Niedenfuer: Govem arrived home at approximately 1 :05 a.m. with Officer Gustin beifl!~ dispatched at approximately 1 :18 a.m. Govem stated that he did not recall receiving an information packet from the University regarding guidelines on acceptable behavior or pertinent City Ordinances. I The following is a summary of responses to questions posed to Govern b~ Mayor Hiernenz: The 1997-1998 School year was the first time Govem did not live on campus at SJU. In fact, of the . seven residents only 2 had previously rIVed off campus. Govem again stated that other than an addendum attached to the lease listing the applicable City Ordinances he does not recall receiving any information detailing acceptable behavior while a resident in St. Joseph. At this time Gregerson called Dan Stangler as a witness. Upon being sworn in, Stangler offered the following testimony: Stangler is a resident at 310 Old Highway 52 and was cited by Officer Gustin for violation ofthe Keg Ordinance. He was not issued a noise citation as he was not present when the alleged violation occurred. Scherer clarified and Stang!ler concurred that he arrived after the Officer arrived and was unaware of noise. Upon being swom in, Greig offered the following testimony: As a Landlord it is his intention to cooperate and work with the City t() the best of their ability. He stated they wish to preserve their property and manage it in a responsible manner. At this time Greig read 1the following extraction from Officer Gustin's Police Report: At approximately 0118 hours, Friday, May 15, 1998, I was dispatched to 310 Old Highway 52 for a loud party complaint. Steams County dispatclh stated that the complaint wished to remain anonymous and would not leave a name. I June 4, 1æ8 I I I ¡ Page· 3331 Under oath, Gregerson offered the following testimony: He stated that as ~ property owner he I was concemed from what location the noise complaint was reported. So in an effort to determine the location of the caller, he talked to Doug Pierce with the Steams County Sheriff's Office. At this time Gregerson presented a hand written note from Pierce stating that on May 15,1998 his records do not show any radio transmissions from the Sheriffs Office to the St. Joseph Police . Department between 1 :00 am. and 1 :30 a.m. Gregerson further stated that he does not feel that! his tenants had a party that night as there were no plastic cups strewn on the yard and the grass I was not trampled as-it would be if a party took pface. Scherer offered the following response: He stated that since he was notaware of the note signed by Doug Pierce, he could not comment on the content. However, Scherer stated that it is possible for the calfer to have called the St. Joseph Police Department phone number which is rolled over to Steams County when an Officer1s not on duty. Thistype of call may not be ctassified as a call to the Sheriffs Office, rather one to St. Joseph Police, even though it was relayed from Steams County. Scherer further clarified that on the evening ofthe alleged noise complaint, Deputy Memkeen was called to assist as well as other Officers. The following is a summary of responses to questions posed to Gregerson by Councilor Loso: Loso clarified that Gregerson was searching for the location of the anonymous caller when he approached Steams County. As a landowner his initial question was if the nOise could have come from the 8 pfexes or from traffic walking along Old Highway 52. ! The following is a summary of responses to questions posed to Gregerson by Councilor Ehlert: When Gregerson questioned Pierce at Steams County he only requested the name and number of the caller ofthe party compfaint at which {ime Pierce submitted his statement. Niedenfuer reiterated the importance of informing tenants of pertinent City Ordinances as well as penalties for violation of such Ordinances. Landlords have a responsibility to the community and the tenants. She further stated that it would have been possible for the call to be relayed before 1:00 a.m. Scherer recalled Gustin as a witness reminding her that she is still under oath. The following is-a summary of the testimony established. Officer Gustin was contacted through the radio by Steams County Dispatch of a loud party complaint at 310 Old Highway 52. The call was reported by an anonymous party. Gustin wasin the squad car when the call came in and upon arriving-at 310 Old Highway 52 she could hear screaming and noise. She stated that she had no doubtthat the noiSe was coming from the property located at 310 Old Highway52. Gustin further clarified that people were coming and going and when she approached the property she could see people running out the back door. I i The following is a summary of responses to questions posed to Gustin by Councilor Ehlert. When a call comes into Stearns County there can be a time lapse of when it is relayed to St. Joseph. Steams County Dispatch is responsible for all calls in Steams County and if radio traffic is heavy on a given night there could be a delay in transmission. In the past the relay has been very fast, but she could not guess as to the relay time on the night in question. Gustin further stated that backup arrived around 1 :30 a.m. or shortly thereafter. Upon being questioned if all residents at a party complaint are cited for a noise violation, Gustin responded that it is done at the discretion of the responding Officer. . Gregerson stated that he is not pointing fingers at anyone, but the residence in question does not have a back door. He further stated that he understands that the end of the school year is a stressful time and tie hopes that decisions are not made while on an emotional high. At this time Scherer stated the Council needs to determine if a noise violatiolldid occur based on the testimony presented. Upon Ehlert questioning if the matter could be tabled to further research the statement of Pierce, Scherer stated that the Council needs to act on the information presented at this hearing. If the Council feels there is some question as to the violation, the June 4, 1998 Page 3332 findings should indicate such. Further, any actions taken by the Court system is independent of action taken at this meeting and should not be considered. I Twit stated that in light of the testimony presented, he believes that Offioer Gustin can differentiate between street noise and building noise. Further, based on testimony presented, Govem may not have been home when the noise complaint was reported. Twit stated that it was his opinion that a noise complaint did occur and Officer Gustin did respood to a dispatch by Steams County. He further stated that it is immaterial as to how the complaint was received and the statement submitted by Pierce was too vague. It is his opinion that ai noise violation did occur on May 15, 1998 at Old Highway 52. Ehlert feels that since the tenants have plead guilty in court to the noise violation they were indeed aware of the violation and acknowledged that it did in fact occur. However, he has grave concems with the statement presented by Pierce and would like to resea,rch that matter further. He stated he has reservations in making a decision at this time. Loso concurred with Ehlert and stated that he has unanswered questions regarding the transmission of the call and the statement that the apartment in question has no back door while Officer Gustin offered testimony that people ran out the back door upon her .arrival. Niedenfuer concurred with Twit and stated that as a Council we have to trust that Officer Gustin can differentiate where noise is coming from. Hiemenz stated that he feels there was excessive noise on the evening of May 15,1998 with the only question being how the message was received by the Officer. The more important testimony to Hiemenz was the fact that back up was called and logs will indicate such. Hiemenz concurred the statement of Pierce was vague and if the question was asl.ed differently, a different statement may have been presented. Hiemenz stated that while on one or two of the tenants I were present during the alleged violation, tenants are all responsible. It is his opinion that sufficient evidence was presented to indicate a noise violation did occur on said evening. Scherer clarified that an Officer does not need to wait for a complaint before issuing a noise violation. However, a complaint provides evidence beyond that of the Officer's opinion that the peace has been disturoed. There being no additional testimony, Twit made a motion that sufficient testimony has been provided to determine that a noise violation did occur on Friday, May 15, 1998 at 310 Old Highway 52. Themotion was seconded by Niedenfuer. Ayes: Hiemenz, Loso, Ehlert, Twit, Niedenfuer Nays: None. Motion Carried 5:0:0 Gregerson made the foUowIng statement: He stated that he feels his tenants used good judgement as 12 to 15 people at an indoor gathering does not seem excessive. As landlords they checked for damage and there was none. While the tenants did plead guilty in court, it was part of a plea bargain to prevent the incident from there permanent recond. Gregerson stated that he wishes to be a good neighbor with the City and wants police protection, but feels they are being punished for something they cannot control. Scherer clarified that this noise violation is the first for the 1997-1998 license year for 310 Old Highway 52. Loso made a motion to issue a waming to the property owners of 31 0 Old Highway 52 requesting them to be more conscious of the activities taking place on said property and communicate to the tenants the Ordinances ofthe City and the consequences for violation tht~reof. Further, this motion requests the property owner to reimburse the City for all costs a5!'.ociated with the noise violation. The motion was seconded by Twit. I June 4, 1996 Page 3333 I Discussion: Ehlert questioned Scherer as to the probable legal costs for the hearing, upon which Scherer responded it will be under $200. 00. In the past the administrative expenses reimbursed have been between $ 60 - $90. Ehlert feels that if additional charges are required, the property owners are being penalized for requesting an evidentiary hearing. i Twit stated the costs incurred are not created by the City. Therefore, the fact that they chose to have an evidentiary hearing should not be a financial burden to the City, they should have been aware their would be additional costs. Niedenfuer concuned. Ehlert made a motion to amend the motion to charge the property owners a $100.00 administrative fee. The motion was seconded by Loso. Vote call on amendment: Nays: Ayes: Hiemenz, Ehlert, Loso Twit, Niedenfuer Vote can on amended motion: Ayes: Hiemenz, Ehlert, Loso, Twit, Niedenfuer Nays: None Motion Carried 5:0:0 The hearing was closed at 8:10 p.m. Loso questioned the City Attomey if the Council can receive further information as to the statement by Doug Pierce and the question of the back door. Scherer stated that it would be more prudent to have the Police Chief investigate such and report back to the City Council. I Minutes Mav 21. 1998: After reviewing the minutes and suggested corrections, Twit made a motion to table approval of the minutes until the June 25, 1998 meeting. The minutes should be resubmitted to the Council with the corrections highlighted. The motion was seconded Ehlert. Ayes: Hiemenz, Loso, Ehlert, Twit, Niedenfuer Nays: None. Motion Carried 5:0:0 Consent Aaenda: Loso made a motion to approve the consent agenda as follows; seconded by Ehlert. a. Reimbursement Resolution to allow payments made to the 1998 street Improvement Project to be reimbursed from bond proceeds, when bonds are sold to finance the project. b. Application for payment - Hardrives Inc - 1998 street Improvement Project c. Application for payment - Mid Minnesota, East Minnesota street d. Refuse rate for 3 units or less, Rental units -- $ 15.00 per month, number of units based on number of kitchens. e. Resolution - Fund Balance Policy Discussion: Weyrens clarified that the Reimbursement Resolution allows the City to finance the 1998 Street improvement project through bond proceeds. The resolution is necessary because the City has already incuned and paid costs to the project so the bonds are reimbursement not direct payment. Twit clarifiecfthe rental refuse change has been discussed with the refuse provider who recommend charging units based on kitchens. I Ayes: Hiemenz, Loso, Ehlert, Twit, Niedenfuer Nays: None. Motion Carried 5:0:0 Bills Pavable: Weyrens presented the bills payable. The Council reaffirmed the policy of prior approval for expenditur~s over $1 00.00, which includes the Council. The Council discussed the June 4,1998 Page 3334 VCR purchased for the Cable Access operations. Loeh1ein stated that b~f using the VCR he purchased the meetings can be taped on one tape instead of two, and the less expensive tapes can be used. Loso stated that the camera can provide the same taping ability as the purchased VCR. Twit stated the purchased VCR can function as a backup when ne,eded. Ehlert made a motion to approve the bills, check numbers 25488 - 25527; seconded by Twit. Ayes: Hiemenz, Loso, Ehlert, Twit, Niedef1fuer Nays: None. Motion Carried 5:0:0 I Overtime & Callouts: Twit expressed concem with the amount of holiday time paid out. He stated that after reviewing the romp time and vacation balances he noted that Officers have been able to spend down those hours. However, Holiday balances are still hiØh. Twit stated that it was not the intent of the Council to tum holiday pay into a bonus or premium pay. Hiemenz stated that the City has a financial responsibility and he will discuss the matten'lÏth the Police Chief and report back to the Council. Ehlert made a motion to approve the overtime and caUouts; seconded by Niedenfuer. Ayes: Hiemenz, Loso, Ehlert, Twit, Niedenfuer Nays: None. Motion Carried 5:0:0 Treasurers ReDort: Weyrens presented the April Treasurer's report as well as reports on the status of the Community Sign and Klinefelter Trail obligations. Twit stated that after reviewing the revenues and expenditures for the Community Sign he felt that the expellses of $340.00 per year are nominal enough that the City could absom the cost. The benefit to the organizations and community would exceed the cost. Ehlert concurred and Hiemenz appointed a committee of Ehlert and himself to review the current cost policy and present a revised policy to the Council. Loso stated that the Park Board did not obligate $3,000 per year to fund the Klinefelter Trail. The shortfall of funding is anticipated to come from the remaining development of Pond View Ridge. Ehlert made a motion to accept the Treasurer's Report as presented; seconded by Loso. Ayes-. Hiemenz, Loso, Ehlert, Twit, Niedenfuer Nays: None. Motion Carried 5:0:0 I Public Comments to the Aaenda: Wahlstrom Questioned the proceedings of the evidentiary hearing and why the costs to the City were not recouped. Ehlert darified that he felt that if the property owner were charged all the expenses for the hearing, he would be penalized for requesting an evidentiary hearing. In the past, landowners were not charged the administrative fees when a first violation occurs. Jim Graeve discussed the following: 1) Does not feel the refunding resolution is a good decision, if the City has the money to pay for the improvement they should not bond for such; 2) Questioned the payment for East MN Street; 3) Stated it is his opinion that the landowners of the property cited for the noise violation should have been required to pay the all costs incurred by the City. DeDartment Head Reoorts - Public Works Director. Dick Taufen: T~!Ufen presented the following price Quotes for calcium chloride as requested: Anderson Chemical- $ 16.00/50# bag - $ 640.001l0n delivered Bremix - $ 13.75/50# bag - $ 550.001ton, without delivery Van Waters & Roger - $ 8.00/50# bag - $ 320.001ton plus delÞlery After discussion that calcium chloride is not toxic, Hiemenz made a moti,)n to use calcium chloride on the alleys between Birch Street West and Ash Street West; 1st Avenue NW and College Avenue North. The vendor will be chosen at the discretion oftbe Public Works Director. The motion was seconded by Twit. Ayes: Hiemenz, Loso, Ehlert, Twit, Niedenfuer I June 4, 1998 ! ! I I i Page 3335 Nays: None. Motion Carried 5:0:0 I Niedenfuer questioned the status of alternative safety options for children crossing MN Street near the St. Joseph Lab School. Taufeft stated he is still researching alternatives and will report back to the Council when he has information. Fire Chief Dave Theisen: Theisen presented the Council with the six month activity report of the Fire Department. He reported the Fire Department responded to 116 calls between December 1,1997 and May 31,1998. The call breakdown per jurisdiction is as follows: 58 calls City of St. Joseph; 40 calls St. Joseph Township; 15 Calls St. Wendel Township; 2 Mutual Aid Calls; 1 out of area call. The call breakdown by type is as follows: -87 medical calls; 25 Fire Calls; 4 weather waming signs. After discussing the report, Twit made a motion to accept the six month activity report of the Fire Department as presented; seconded by Ehlert. Ayes: Hiemenz, Loso, Ehlert, Twit, Niedenfuer Nays: None. Motion Carried 5:0:0 I Theisen expressed concem with Mr. Deutz being allowed to speak at the May 21, 1998 Council meeting without being on the agenda. He stated that he would have appreciated the opportunity to be present and respond to Mr. Deutz's questions. Theisen further stated that he is uncertain as to where Deutz received his information, but he is a cerlified Firefighter III with 25 years of experience. Firefighter III is the highest level of accomplishment and requires continuing education and certifications. Theisen encouraged the Council to review his file of courses attended and certifications. As far as the complaint of Mr. Deutz, Theisen stated that he was contacted by a person who had concems with safety in the building and as the Fire Chief it is his responsibility to respond to all complaints. Mr. Deutz requested the identity of the complainant and when I would not tell him he would not deal with the issue. It was at this time that the-State Fire Marshall was called in at the request of Mr. Deutz. Theisen further clarified that at no time did he tell Mr. Deutz that he needed to sprinkle the building or provide a second exit. In an effort to prevent incidents as stated above, Theisen has approached the Planning Commission to request notification of all Industrial and Commercial building permit requests. He stated that it is easier to enforce the Fire Code if it can be implemented in the planning stages. Ehlert apologized on his own behalf and that of the Council for allowing discussion Oft a matter not placed on the agenda. He concurred that Theisen should have had the opportunity to be present. Ehlert stated that he will be more aware of this procedure in the future in an attempt to prevent this type of discussion from happening again. Hiemenz concurred with Ehlert and stated that he was unaware of what Mr. Deutz was approaching the Council for. He too will take measures to prevent this from happening in the future. Citv Enoineer Reoorts: City Engineer Joe Bettendorf discussed with the COuncil the status of the preliminary plat of Pond View 5. He stated that he has been working with the developers, Rick Heid and Bob Herges. The Council needs to determine how the project will proceed. Two options exist: 1) City project, bid through the City: \'/itl:lan escrow account held by the City for all cost incurred; 2) Private project with the Citý:Enwn-eer being the principal engineer.' The City would draft the construction plans and assist with the bid process. . ". . ,..;~ " ,.;i." ,.~< I Herges stated that he would prefer to use the same process for Pond View 5 as the other plats with the exception ofthe City Engineer being the principal engineer. He stated thafheand'Mr. Heid are familiar with the process and feel that they would have more control and be able to . better manage the project if the same process was followed. Herges encouraged the use of the City Engineer as it wouldeleviate- paying two engineers and possibility of conflict arising between engineers. It is his opinion that the problems in Pond View III were a result of having two June 4, 1996 Page 3336 engineers from which to determine accountability. Herges and Bettendolf both concurred that using altemative 2 as stated above would be a positive situation for both the City and developer. Hiemenz questioned Herges as to the status of the outstanding bill for Engineering Services for Pond View In and if they are making arrangements to have the weeds cut on the proposed site for development. Herges stated that he felt he and Heid have met the obligations of the developers agreement and the Engineer fees outstanding are in excess of those listed in the agreement. He further stated that it is his opinion that the outstanding clitarges are for engineering errors. Bettendorf stated that in an attempt to clear up this situation, any further engineering expenses for Pond View In will not be billed. Herges agreed to pay the outstanding invoices as outlined 300ve by the City Engineer. WIIh regard to the weeds, he will contact a local faJrner to disc the lot. I Loso made a motion to develop Pond View 5 with the City Engineer as the Prindpal Engineer and the project bid as a private project, managed by the developers. The project will have one contractor and sub contractors will not be bid separately. Further, this motion authorizes the Mayor and Clerk/Administrator to execute the Developers Agreement pending the approval of the City Engineer and City Attomey. The motion was seconded by Ehlert. Ayes: Hiemenz, Loso, Ehlert, Twit, Niedenfuer Nays: None. Motion Carried 5:0:0 Loso made a motion authoñzing the City Engineerto proceed with the Plans and Specifications for the development of Pond View 5; the motion was seconded by Ehlel1. Ayes: Hiemenz, Loso, Ehlert, Twit, Niedenfuer Nays: None. Motion Carried 5:0:0 Cable Access Concems: Ray Loehlein appeared before the Council to discuss the cable access operations. He stated that he has been responsible for broadcasting the Council meetings and I assisting with the bulletin board. Loehlein presented the Council with thl~ following questions: 1) Will the Cable Commission be re-established; 2) Have the rules and regulations regarding cable access been approved by the City Council; 3) Who is in charge of the cable ope~on; 4) Can a telephone line be connected so the bulletin board can be accessed from a remote location; 5) Have the warranty cards been filed for all the equipment as one piece of equipment does not work; 6) What is the financial condition of the cable access fund and are franchise fees applied to this fund; 7) Is it possible to be paid a fee for broadcasting the meetings and bulletin board; 8) Should the channel be promoted to other media and communities; 9) DOles the City wish to upgrade the software purchased to eliminate known malfunctions; 10) Does the Council have any concems and comments. Mayor Hiemenz extended the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Loso requested that all Board and Commission meetings be broadcast. Niedenfuer thanked Loehlein for all his work and encouraged him to continue. The Council a,greed to discuss issues noted by Loehlein at the next Council meeting. Roth Procertv Purchase: Ehlert presented the findings ofthe Planning COO1/TIission with regards to the proposed purchase of the Roth property. Ehlert stated that after careful consideration the Planning Commission recommended to purchase the property contingent upon the property being designated (or public use only. Further, Ehlert stated that the Township needs to be contacted to determine if they would be interested in the joint purchase if the property were designated for public use only. Ehlert encouraged the Council to give $I. Joseph Township the opportunity to participate in the joint venture. Loso stated that it would make sense for the same property owner to hold title to the Roth property and the adjoining Roske parcel. I Twit stated that in his opinion it does not make good business sense to purchase a parcel of property and restrict the use. Hiemenz concurred and stated that if the City agreed to the provision of the Planning Commission and a City facility was constructed under a lease purchase June 4,1998 Page 3337 I option,1t could not be done with the proposed restriction. Hiemenz further clarified that a future Council cannot be bound by a resolution. Further, as laws change, so may the restrictions. Therefore, Hiemenz stated that the Council cannot guarantee that the land will only be used for public use, even though ~ may be the intent at this time. Niedenfuer requested that the City Council execute a formal document stating that the property will only be used for public use. Tw~ and Hiemenz stated that there is no document greater than that of a motion that the Council could sign. Graeve encouraged the Council to follow the recommendations of the Commission and retain the property for public use only. Ehlert made a motion to approve the purchase of the Roth property based on the following findings otthe Planning Commission: 1) The negotiated price for the sale of the property is reasonable 2) Purchase otthe property is prudent long range planning Approval is contingent upon the following: The property will be used for public use only. This motion also agrees to the purchase with or without participation of St. Joseph Township. The motion was seconded by Niedenfuer. Ayes: Hiemenz, Ehlert, Twit, Niedenfuer Nays: Loso. Motion Carried 4:1:0 Sewer Rate Increase: The Council reviewed the proposed sewer rate increase and requested the information be represented using annual figures. Mavor ReDOrts: 1. The task force regarding the placement of an antenna on the water storage facility met with a representative of Cellular 2000 and then forwarded recommendations to the City Attomey for his review and comment. . He has been made aware of some weed violations and notices have been sent out on May 5 and May 29 to correct the situation. Hiemenz has been appointed to a committee to evaluate the APO director. A vernal complaint regarding the Police Department has been received regarding some activity that took place upon the transfer ottitle forthe 1992 Squad car. The Council will be informed if a formal complaint is filed. I 2. 3. 4. Council Reports Niedenfuer: Reported on a recent APO meeting she attended where the main topic of discussion was the funding available for transportation. Loso: An adult soccer league will begin playing in St. Joseph on the newly developed soccer fields. The league consists of 8 teams ranging in ages from 19 - 23. Loso also wished to thank Schroeder Sports for donating a field striper to be used on the soccer field. I The Fire Board will be meeting once more with regard to a complaint received. Ehlert: The Planning Commission met and discussed the following: 1. Cushing Building Permit: It has been brought to the attention of the Planning Commission that an accessory building which is currently non conforming was granted a building permit. Fred Reber appeared before the Commission to question how the permit could have been issued as it is contrary to the Ordinance. The Planning Commission will further research this matter and report back to the City Council. 2. Authorized building permits to Tamarack for a warehouse and Taco John's for an interior wall. June 4, 1998 Page 3338 3. Nel Pfannenstein requested clarification on a prior Planning Commission action taken to determine if two (2) lots she owns are of buildable size. The Commission will research this matter further and schedule the necessary hearings. The Park Board met and discussed possible funding for construction of a concession stand and bathrooms at Memorial Park. As of this time the Uons have committed to 70% and the Park Soard has committed to 18%, or $ 2,000 per year for 3 years. Sclhneiderwas encouraged to solicit donations from other organizations to provide additional funding. The construction of the Klinefeiter Park Shelter has begun and the Uons are requesting the Council waive the fees for inspections services. Ehlert will contact the Building Official to determine the if he is willing to donate the fee or what the fee would be. 'This matter win be brought back to the Council. Twit: Reminded Councilors of the joint meeting with the EDA on Friday, June 5 at 3:00 p.m. The EDA will also be conducting their monthly meeting after the joint me¡¡ting, canceling the June 8, 1998 meeting. Miscellaneous and Announcement .steams County is conducting public hearings on their proposed Feedlot Ordinance on June 8, June-9, June 16. Hiemenz stated that he will try and attend one of the hearings. Adioum: Twit made a molion to adjoum at 10:45 p.m.; seconded by Loso. Ayes: Hiemenz, Loso, Ehlert, Twit, Niedenfuer Nays: None. Motion Carñed 5:0:0 ( .<4~ udy Weyrens Deputy Clerk June 4,1998 I I I