Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016 [01] Jan 12 January 4, 2016 Page 1 of 6 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the City Council for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session on Monday, January 4, 2016 at 6:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall, opening the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance. Members Present: Mayor Rick Schultz, Councilors: Dale Wick, Matt Killam, Renee Symanietz, Bob Loso. Administrator Judy Weyrens. Citv Representatives: City Engineer Randy Sabart, Finance Director Lori Bartlett, Public Works Director Terry Thene, Police Chief Joel Klein, City Attorney Tom Jovanovich. Others Present: Logan Gruber, Margaret Wurm, Nina Lascaski, Margy Hughes, Ellen Wahlstrom, Alex Walk, Brad Sinn, Tom Mathews, Sue Palmer, Thomas Johnstone, Dan Rassier, Ray Meyer, Jackie Meyer, Anne Meyer, AI Keller, Tyler Keller, St. Schueler Theresa Kotsmith, Dan Kotsmith, Lisa Meyer, Andy Rennecke, Jessica Rennecke, Nancy Ebel, Steve Frank, Kevin Kluesner, Tim Hymens, Jerome Salzer, Preston Euerle, Tom Peck. Public Comments Aaenda Apqroval: Loso made a motion to approve the agenda; seconded by Symanietz and passed unanimously. Consent Aaenda: Loso made a motion to approve the consent agenda.The motion was seconded by Wick and passed unanimously. a. Minutes-approved the minutes of December 21, 2015 b. Bills Payabie-approved payment of check numbers 050031-050089, Payroll EFT #001142-001146 and Accounts Payables EFT#001715-001717. c. PERA Resolution—authorized the Mayor and Administrator to execute Resolution 2016- 001 acknowledging the hiring of Celeste Walz and Daniel Pfannenstein as part time police officers. d. Transfers—authorized transfers for the 2015 financial year. e. Donations—accepted the following donations: Dean Schenk$500.00 for Police Training Supp�ies Government Center: Tom Peck, HMA Architects, approached the Council to present the Council with the proposed Government Center site plan. The facility committee has been meeting over the past couple of months and have recommended the Council accept the site plan, placing the facility that was designed in 2013 on the Colts Academy property as it abuts College Avenue South and Baker St E. Peck stated there were two changes to the 2013 project; adding two sally ports to the police garage and expanding the police garage to six stalls. The Committee spent considerable time to assure that the space meets the needs for today and in the future. They concluded that as the City grows the Administration can expand into the multipurpose room and the police can expand in the admin area. Peck add that the discussion for future use include the possibility of adding additional square footage at this time, but decided that it was cost prohibitive and future needs have been accommodated. Schultz thanked the committee members for their time and dedication and feels the building will accommodate the city for years to come. Killam questioned what security measures are going to be implemented into the building. Peck stated the Police area is separate from both the public and City Offices. The building will have key card access and the cards will be programmed controlling access points. Wick questioned if the original construction documents from the 2014 design can be used to reduce additional costs. Peck stated they are using what they can. Some of the documents will not be able to be used due to the few changes that have been made. Preston Euerle, RA Morton, approached the Council thanking everyone for their assistance in the government center process. Initially the bid for the government center took place in February 2014 and January 4, 2016 Page 2 of 6 the budget was$4.5 Million. The bids came in under budget and a lot of local contractors took interest. The current budget is$4.9 million. The increase accounts for the additions of square footages to the police garages and sally ports, the site is larger with more parking spots resulting in additional curb and gutter. Lastly, there is inflation in construction prices since 2014. Like the bidding in 2014, there is the potential to include alternates in the bidding process. Euerle anticipates the project will see local bidders as contractors prefer to stay close to home. It is anticipated that the project will be ready for bid in early to mid-February with the bid opening 30 days later in March. Wick made a motion authorizing the HMA to prepare the final bid documents for the proposed Government Center and authorizing the publication soliciting bids. The motion was seconded by Symanietz and passed unanimously. New Business: Loso expressed concern for the amount of resources spent on the new warming house and requested a summary of expenditures, including amount of staff hours versus donations received. Weyrens stated the meeting to continue the discussion of utility rates will be held during a workshop on January 28�h at 6:00 PM. Wick made a motion to recess the meeting at 6:20 PM.The motion was seconded by Schultr and passed unanimously. Mayor Schulz reconvened the meeting at 6:30 PM Public Hearing 2016 Proposed Fie/d Sfreet—Hearinp on Improvements:Mayor Schultz opened the public hearing and stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider the merits of constructing a new easUwest corridor that has previously been referred to as Field Street. Mayor Schultz stated the hearing will start with a presentation by the City Engineer followed by comments from the public. When the public hearing is closed the Council will discuss the projects and comments received. At this time he turned the floor over to City Engineer Randy Sabart. Sabart stated when a City proposed to construct a project that will be financed with assessments and bonding, the process is prescribed by MN Statute 429. The hearing at this time is the first of two required hearings. The hearing at this time is to discuss the merits of the project and determine the need. While the City is required to present projected costs, the meeting at this time wiN not focus on assessmer�ts as final costs have not been determined. The second required hearing is to present the assessments. At this time Sabart presented a project location map showing the proposed street alignment which includes an easUwest collector street from College Avenue to 7'h Avenue with a future connection to 16tn and 20th Avenue. Sabart stated that the City has been discussing the proposed corridor for many years and the proposed alignment is included in many City documents to include the Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Plan. In addition, the City applied for and received funding to study placement for the corridor. The corridor proposed at this meeting matches the 2011 adopted final alignment. Sabart stated that when Graceview Estates was developed, a transportation study was completed and illustrated a proposed east/west corridor on the southern edge of thee development. Therefore, in 2003 the City purchased needed right-of-way from the College of St. Benedict and required the developer of Graceview Estates to dedicate the needed right-of-way along the entire southern boundary. With that being said, the council wanted to take into account two geometric alternatives when considering the construction of Field Street. Option 1 is the Parkway Concept and Option 2 is the Non-Parkway Concept. The street would be urban design which includes concrete curb and gutter as well as storm sewer and treatment. January 4, 2016 Page 3 of 6 Option 1 —Parkway: The concept includes an 18 foot wide center median with 9 feet on each side of the median, 14 foot driving lane, 8 feet allocated for parking, 10 foot boulevards, and a 10 foot pedestrian trail along the north side. On the south side there would be a 6 foot sidewalk. Street improvements for this option are estimated at$1,553,000 for street and $367,265 for drainage &storm sewer. Sabart noted that due to the population of St. Joseph, the City is eligible for State Aid funding. The city receives about $150,000 a year from the State. The construction of Field Street is eligible for state aid funding. Option 2—Non Parkway: Concept 2 includes the minimum street section the City could build in order to still be eligible for state aid funds. It includes two 12 foot driving lanes, two 8 foot parking lanes and larger sections of greenspace on both sides of the streets. Estimated costs are$1,262,205 for streets and $365,405 for drainage&storm sewer. Depending on the option decided by the Council, the street lighting will vary. Options for lighting include: cobra, teardrop, acorn and a combination of teardrop and acorn. Sanitary sewer and water main includes installation of a 12 inch trunk water main as well as a 10 inch PVC sanitary sewer main with an estimated cost for Option#1 is$2,999,440 and $2,483,970 for Option #2. Sabart stated the with regard to financing the project, it is anticipated that a portion would be assessed to impacted property owners and a portion would be deferred. A deferred assessment would not become due and payable until the property develops or 30 years, whichever comes first. Sabart presented a preliminary schedule showing the completion of the project coming in fall of 2017. Schultz opened the public hearing. Margy Hughes, 128 Ab/e Courh. Hughes questioned if the large northern natural gas lines will impact the project. Sabart stated the project will have to work around the gas line. Hughes questioned if additional development is anticipated in the Graceview area. Weyrens stated that the plat entitled Graceview Estates has two are three undeveloped outlots that would accommodate single family and multiple family dwellings. Hughes expressed concerns that Graceview is going to be the only development benefitting from project, questioning the need. Weyrens stated the City has been planning for the east/west corridor and starting purchasing the needed right of way in 2003. The discussion for the road indicated that it would relieve pressure in the ' Graceview development along with providing access for further development. Jerome Sa/zer, J&T Salzer Farms: Salzer stated he is concerned about the holding pond proposed on Meyer's property. Salzer stated that he rents the property for agricultural purposes and questioned the need to utilize farmland for storm water detention. Salzer also questioned the need for a sidewalk on the south side as there are no houses on that side and there won't be for quite some time. Sabart stated the City wanted to illustrate the pedestrian aspect of the road, adding that the sidewalk could be listed as a future improvement constructing as development occurs. Regarding the holding pond, Sabart understands the concern with creating more ponds; however, based on MN Statues all development must include storm water management. The proposed project will consider constructing a holding pond on either side and will be determined on the field survey and the proposed CSB development. While there are some holding ponds near the proposed Field Street alignment, those were created for the Graceview development and developers do not create holding pond for additional capacity. Therefore, the existing hold ponds are not proposed to be utilized. Andy Rennecke, 402 Elena Lane: Rennecke stated his family moved to St. Joseph a couple of years ago and were surprised when they received the notice of the proposed Field Street Construction. Rennecke added that he a{ong with his four neighbors will be directly affected by construction of the road as it abuts ( January 4, 2016 Page 4 of 6 their backyards. Rennecke stated he would like the Council to contemplate the following four items when deliberating the merits of the project: 1) in his opinion there are currently no traffic issues in his neighborhood; 2)the safety impact for children and pedestrians; 3)the amount of noise and air pollution that would occur as a result of constructing Field Street; and 4)the affect the road will have on their homes' market values. Rennecke's wife Jessica questioned how far the sidewalk would be from their property line. Sabart stated that the trail would be offset 1 foot from the property line; however there would be 21 feet between the property line and where the curbing for the road begins. Rennecke respects the City for wanting to expand and develop, however does not feel it is the right time. Sue Palmer, VP of Finance, College of St. Benedict: Palmer stated the college is not in favor of the proposed road and questioned the fact that the right of way was purchased after the Graceview addition was platted. Palmer added that in her opinion other people are paying for the road that only benefits the Graceview development. Dan Rassier, Rassier questioned why the construction of Field Street is needed. Sabart stated that the City has previously identified the road as a need and the road is part of the City State Aid network. The City receives funding each year that can only be used for State Aid eligible roads. The City has been reserving the funds until sufficient funds were available to complete a project. At this time the City has sufficient funds and are also at risk of the State reducing the annual amount due to the holdings of the City. The City currently is holding approximately$ 1.4 M which is the threshold where the State starts looking at reducing the aid as they surmise that you don't need the funds. The funds can only be used to reconstruct or maintain other roads that are on the State Aid system. Sabart added that the roads eiigible for State Aid tend to be those with higher traffic volumes. Rassier stated that he hopes the City will take into account the safety of those neighboring property owners as well as hold developers accountable for any roads built within their developments. Rassier further stated that in his opinion the City made a mistake with the road in Liberty Point and they should take care in designing roads. Weyrens stated that the road in Liberty Pointe was a private road built by the developer that is now under the City's control. It was a decision that was made by the Council at that time. When that Road was developed, it was common practice to allow private roads. It has been since the housing decline that City's no longer allow private roads and St. Joseph has revised their Ordinance to prohibit private roads. Schultz stated those were decisions made in the past and the City has been working with the residents to improve the situation. Lisa Meyer, 27— 17�h Ave: Meyer approached the council on behalf of one of her friends that lives on Ellie Court. Meyer questioned whether the state aid funds would go away if the City continues to grow and bank the funds. She also questioned the proposed speed limit for the new corridor. Sabart stated that State Aid is provided to cities with a population of 5,000 or greater so the City will continue to receive State Aid. The funds, however, can only be spent on roads identified as State Aid Roads and the State Aid System limits the amount of road miles for each City. Eligible roads are those designated as collector or high traffic roads. Meyer suggested having a map with the state aid eligible roads put on the website for people to go to. Sabart stated the City became eligible for state aid funding in 2000 or 2001 when its population went over 5000. Regarding speed limits, the road will be designed for 40-45 MPH traffic, but signs will more than likely be 30 MPH. Sabart further stated that the City receives approximately$ 148,000 per year in State Aid Funds and the City has been banking for the past years accumulating a balance nearing$ 1.5 M. The State starts penalizing communities when the banked balance exceeds$ 1.5 M;therefore, if the City does not use the funds, additional funds are in jeopardy. Sabart again reiterated that the funds can only be used on designated streets for qualifying expenditures; neighborhood roads are not applicable. A/Keller, Elite Development:Keller stated he is the developer of Graceview Estates 4 and believes the City as weA as residents benefit from new developments. Keller added that the City will continue to grow and the Council is trying to be proactive with building additional roads. Keller stated another purpose of building new roads is to eliminate spot developments where there is township land that is surrounded by January 4, 2016 Page 5 of 6 properties receiving city services. The proposed road will also benefit the developable property south of the corridor, all the way to Kennedy School. As far has his proposed development, Keller stated that he is responsible for the portion of the road as it impacts his proposed development and the City benefits from receiving the completed road and extended utilities. Tim Hymens: Hymens approached as a landowner in the area. Hymens stated that he as well as his neighbors have no plans to develop their land and questioned whether the deferment of the road assessment goes on forever if the property is not developed. Sabart stated typically deferments are for 30 years based on MN Statute. Hymens speculated that the idea for the construction of Field Street is coming from the possible development of the Walz property. Hymen added that had the developer not come forward, there would not have been a hearing. Weyrens clarified that the Field Street has been in the planning stage for many years. In 2014 the Council decided to advance the project for 2016. After the City started the feasibility report a developer did come forward for a potential development that would be served by Field Street. The road section the developer would need is not illustrated on the exhibits as he would be responsible for the portion of road section for his development. The City had planned to start the first section of Field Street in 2016 as part of the budget process, long before the developer approached the City. Hughes questioned what would happen if the land does not develop. Hughes stated, in her opinion, the road is not a need for the City at this time. Dan Kotsmith, 406 E/ena Lane: Kotsmith expressed concern for the value of his home. He stated that he talked to a realtor who indicated the proposed road could reduce his market value 5—25%. He questioned if the City has completed a market value impact analysis on affected properties. City Attorney Tom Jovanovich stated that the City does not rely on realtors to determine the impact of a road project. The proposed project does not include such an analysis and is not common. Steve Frank, 606 Birch St W: Frank stated that while he is not directly impacted by the proposed corridor he questions the need for the road. If the proposed road is being constructed to accommodate additional single family dwellings, it will be a losing proposition for the City. People tend to rationalize that building additional homes will add revenue to the City; however it will not. The cost of providing services to and average priced home is more than the tax revenue received. Frank further stated that he does not know of time the City Council has turned down a project. He is thankful that the Council has put the Aquatic Center on the back burner. Frank stated after speaking with other City residents, there are many people that have no idea what the Council is doing. Frank added that he finds the Council close minded and frustrated that the Administrator does not even live in the City. Frank finds there is emptiness for new ideas as there is no turnover in the Council/Administration. He acknowledges that all the Council members are good people, but in his opinion, they have do not make room for new ideas. Anne Meyer, Meyer Farm, spoke on behalf of her parents, Ray and Jackie Meyer. She stated that her parents own the property south of the proposed road. The property is currentiy used as agricultural tand and her parents do not intend on developing the property. She questioned if the road is being proposed to accommodate a developer, if so is the developer responsible for the costs, and how the corridor alignment was determined. Weyrens stated that the location for the proposed corridor was developed in 2002 when Graceview Estates was developed. In addition the City was part of a study that determined the location for Field Street and the proposed alignment is consistent with the adopted 2011 plan. Weyrens reiterated that the City started the planning process before the developer came forward and he will be responsible for the section of the corridor as it abuts his development. Kevin Kluesner, 29645—95�h Ave: Kluesner questioned the amount of State Aid the City is holding and how much the city would lose if they do not draw down the funds. Sabart stated the City has$1.4 million. Each year, the allocation the City receives changes. It is estimated that in 2016, the City would receive $144,520. If the City does not spend the funds, then the amount allocated each year will decrease. January 4, 2016 Page 6 of 6 Kluesner suggested waiting on the construction of Field Street as the amount of$1.4 million will not be forfeited if the funds are not utilized. Jerome Salzer, J&T Salzer Farms questioned how the costs will be assessed to the property owners. Sabart stated that while this meeting is not to determine assessments, the financing will include deferred assessment for the agricultural land, assessments for developed property and the creation of a trunk charge for future properties that will benefit from utility extension. Sabart clarified that the residentiaf homes on Elena Lane will not be assessed as the City could not prove benefit from a street in the back yard as they will not access Field Street and have a street they are responsible for in the front yard. As no one else present wished to speak, Schultz closed the public hearing. Symanietz stated that she lives in Graceview Estates and supports the construction of Field Street so that a second ingress/egress is available for the residents in Graceview. She sees that road as a safety need for the residents as if there is an accident on either 4`h Ave or Elena Lane, there is only one way out. She further stated that she purchased her home before she was elected to the City Council and was aware of the proposed road; the information was available. Wick questioned the financing of the project as it relates to State Aid Funds. Sabart stated that the State Aid funds will be used for the City costs to construct Field Street. State Aid funds can only be used for street costs; therefore the utility costs could not be included. Killam stated that constructing the road would relieve traffic of some of the other east/west streets; therefore he supports the construction of the corridor. Loso made a motion authorizing the Mayor and Administrator to execute resolution 2016-002 Ordering Improvement and Preparation of Plans for the 2016 Field Street Improvements.The motion was seconded by Symanietz and passed unanimously. Adiourn: Symanietz made a motion to adjourn at 8:10 PM; seconded by Loso and passed unanimously by those present. � Ju We ns A inistrator