Loading...
City Council Minutes 01-26-1987MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, January 26, 1987 - 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen Members Absent: None. 2. Approval of Minutes. Councilmember Dan Blonigen requested that the minutes for item number five be amended to indicate that he had abstained from the vote. Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held January 12, 1987, with the change in voting on item number five being corrected. 3. Additional Agenda Item. Councilmember Bill Fair requested that an additional agenda item be added under new business to discuss the Senior Citizen Center position and how it relates to the City government. Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, and unanimously carried to place this item under new business as 8A. 4. A Public Hearing on a Proposal to Issue Commercial Development Current Refunding Bonds for Monticello Medical Facilities Company. A representative from Juran & Moody, bond consultants for the Medical Facilities Company, was present to request preliminary approval of allowing the Medical Facilities project to refinance Industrial Revenue Bonds that were originally issued in 1981. The original bonds were sold in the amount of $1,300,000 at an average coupon rate of 14.84 percent for the purpose of building the Medical Facilities Clinic adjacent to the hospital. Currently the owners are able to refinance the original bond issue at a lower interest rate and require the City's approval to do so. The City's bond counsel and financial consultants indicate no difficulty with the refunding proposal. As a result, motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, and unanimously carried to adopt a resolution granting preliminary approval to the issuance of the refunding bonds. See Resolution 87-2. 5. A Public Hearing on a Proposal to Amend the Finance Plan and Budget for Tax Increment District #5, Construction Five Addition. The original Tax Increment Plan for the Construction Five Addition contained a proposal to erect an 18 -unit apartment building (now -1- Council Minutes - 1/26/87 completed) and a 25,000 sq ft office/warehouse. The estimated tax increment generated by these two structures would have been enough to finance a $390,000 bond to allow for public improvements such as sewer, water, storm sewer, and streets. The developer is now proposing and has received approval from the City Council for a 24 -unit and a 30 -unit apartment building within the District. The tax increment projected from these two multiple housing structures would be sufficient to pay for a $490,000 construction project. The proposed improvements would include sanitary sewer extended along Lauring Lane from Washington to Fallon and down Fallon Avenue to serve both existing properties owned by Malones and the Rand property. Water would also be extended along Lauring Lane from Washington to Fallon and would be looped around Fallon. As part of the Tax Increment Financing Law, if a finance plan or budget for the district is changed, a public hearing is required. The HRA has recently approved and adopted the amended budget and finance plan based on the new apartment structures being built within the district; and since the Wright County Auditor's office has 30 days to respond to the amended tax increment plan, the City Administrator noted that the public hearing should be continued for an additional 30 days to allow for any response from other government authorities. In the meantime, the City Administrator noted that the plans and specifications for the improvements could be approved at the next Council meeting and advertisement for bids could also be approved February 9. By consensus, the public hearing on the amendment of the finance plan and budget for Tax Increment District #5 was continued until February 9. 6. Consideration of Adopting a Position of Zoning Administrator/Planner. Recently, the City Council requested that the staff prepare an in-depth evaluation on whether or not it would be beneficial for the City to add a Zoning Administrator/Planner position to help eliminate the work load of the present Building Official/Zoning Administrator. Statistical information was presented to the Council indicating the approximate hours being spent by the Building Official/Zoning Administrator on building permit related duties, planning and zoning duties, along with assessing obligations. Mayor Grimsmo noted that when the present Building Inspector was hired, the City was primarily looking for a certified assessor that would be able to entirely review the City's parcels and re-evaluate and correct market valuations for tax purposes. Mr. Grimsmo noted that over the past few years, the Building Inspector has completed this work and that possibly to eliminate some of his duties in regards to assessing, possibly the City could return to using the County Assessor for the future. Mayor Grimsmo also questioned whether the City is currently large enough to support its own City Planner and felt that currently the City has a good relationship with its consulting planner. -2- Council Minutes - 1/26/87 Councilmember Bill Fair noted that although the City has been entirely reviewed in regard to assessing, assessment evaluation is an on-going activity; and if the City returns to using the services of Wright County for this purpose, he would like to know what the cost of this service would be. In regards to using a consulting planner, Mr. Fair felt that some of the primary duties of a staff planner would be to review and regulate enforcement of the City's present ordinance regulations and the day to day activities associated with development which would not seem appropriate to refer to a consultant. Councilmember Blonigen felt the City should evaluate the possibility of relieving assessing duties from the Building Inspector's position and that this may give him enough time to do the other duties the City expects but currently didn't feel the City needs its own full time planner on staff. Councilmember Fran Fair noted that originally the discussion on the possibility of a full-time planner was instituted not only to relieve the present Building Inspector of extra duties but felt a full-time planner would be needed in the future in regards to the annexation procedures currently being considered and the potential growth that will occur. Ms. Fair also noted that there are probably jobs and duties that are not currently being done because the time is not available and felt a full-time planner would also provide more direction and support to the Planning Commission. Mayor Grimsmo, in regards to annexation, felt the City should continue using consultants who are familiar with the city's past history and that a new staff planner may not be familiar with past trends and the city in general. Administrator Eidem indicated that he would be able to get the cost of returning to Wright County for assessing within the City by the next Council meeting. As a result, a motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, and unanimously carried to continue consideration of this item until the February 9 Council meeting to enable more information to be supplied on the cost of returning to the County for assessing. -3- Council Minutes - 1/26/87 7. Consideration of an Application for a Conditional Use Permit to Dispense Automotive Fuel Incidental to a Principal Use. At the January 13 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission recommended that the Council grant approval to the issuance of a conditional use permit for the purpose of allowing dispensing of automotive fuel incidental to a principal use, namely, a convenience store. A convenience store was proposed by Mr. Tom Holthaus at the old site of Charlie's West Liquor Lounge/Supper Club. The site in question existed as a legal non -conforming use grandfathered in when annexation occurred, and City ordinances do allow that this non -conforming use could be lessened by converting the structure to a convenience store. The conditional use permit was required not for the convenience store principal use, but to allow for dispensing of automotive fuel as part of the new use. At the public hearing held before the Planning Commission, substantial public opposition was expressed concerning lighting, increased traffic, and increased child pedestrian traffic because of its location near an elementary school. The Planning Commission, after conclusion of the public hearing, recommended the approval of a conditional use permit for dispensing of motor fuels be allowed provided certain conditions were attached, including a detailed landscaping and screening plan, hard surfacing of the parking lot area with proper curb and gutter, a maximum of four fuel dispensing pumps be allowed, no dispensing of fuels for trucks exceeding one ton, and hours of operation not to exceed 5 a.m. to 11 p.m. daily. Prior to the City Council meeting, area residents opposed to the development submitted a petition to the Environmental Quality Board requesting that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet be completed on this project. The petitioners indicated they felt the project may have a significant harmful effect on the environment through runoff, leakage, spillage, seepage or other forms of transfer of contaminants from this project to the Mississippi River. The City of Monticello was notified by the Environmental Quality Board that the petition was received, and the Board named the City of Monticello as the Responsible Governmental Unit. The Responsible Governmental Unit has the requirement of evaluating the petition to determine if the necessary evidence was presented that demonstrates the project may have potential for significant environmental effects. City Administrator Eidem informed the Council that at this meeting the issue of the conditional use request for dispensing of motor fuels should not be considered at this time, but the main responsibility of the Council would be to decide whether enough evidence was presented by the petitioners to require an Environmental Assessment Worksheet; or if not, the petition should be rejected. Mr. Eidem noted that if the Council's decision was to reject the petition, the conditional use request should be tabled for approximately 30 days to allow for any party to appeal the Council's decision. -4- Council Minutes - 1/26/87 Mr. Tom Holthaus briefly explained to the Council the proposed development and a representative from Bennett Petroleum Company briefly explained to the Council how fuel tanks would be installed at the project. The representative noted that many new safety features are incorporated into underground storage tanks and that the State regulates the type of tanks that can be installed in certain soil conditions. Mr. Bennett noted that the area in question is quite sandy and very suitable for this type of installation and that new methods such as double wall construction and leak detectors, along with monitoring wells, can be installed as extra precautions. In addition, he noted that the tanks now being installed are epoxy coated and rust protected and monitored by a cathodic system which indicates whether or not rusting is occurring in a tank. Mr. Myron Haldy, representing the petitioners, again voted their opinion that possible environmental hazards could occur with the site located near the Mississippi River. Mr. Haldy also noted that previous Council action has been to turn down requests for multiple housing in R-1 zones and felt that a gas station which is normally required in a B-3 commercial zone should, therefore, not be considered anywhere close to a conforming use in a residential area. Mr. Haldy also referred to two other recent spills or leaks within the city and felt that the risk was too great to allow additional underground storage tanks. Mayor Grimsmo questioned which two other leaks had occurred, and it was determined that actual tank leakage had not been determined but that a Standard Station in downtown Monticello had some contaminated soil from 20-30 years worth of ground surface spillage. The second site noted was the new Fire Hall site, which did have some contaminated soil that was removed prior to the Fire Hall construction. This contamination was also probably caused from years of use as a bulk oil storage facility. Councilmember Bill Fair also noted that previous Council action to deny multiple family housing in an R-1 zone involved a vacant piece of property and did not have to contend with an existing non -conforming use that is being altered as in this case. Councilmember Fran Fair acknowledged the concerns of the petitioners but questioned whether the City Council should be requiring a developer to prepare an EAW for a project when other similar projects have occurred and had never been required to prepare an EAW. Councilmember Bill Fair noted that he did not feel this project could be considered any more dangerous because of this location than any other similar type project in Monticello. He noted that almost the entire City drains eventually into the Mississippi River and didn't feel the site location in question is anymore unique than any other area within the City. He also noted that the petition refers to mainly speculations about possible hazards that could occur because of the development and that no real hard facts are presented to indicate this project is unique. Councilmember Blonigen and Fran Fair, based on the information presented, agreed that the petition did not merit an EAW. Councilmember Warren Smith noted that the Council should consider the petition seriously but also agreed that he could not find any proof submitted by the petitioners that this project is unique and will cause environmental hazards or that the noise levels, traffic, or any other concerns would justify an EAW in this development. Mayor Grimsmo concurred -5- Council Minutes - 1/26/87 with other Council members and noted that traffic volume in the area shouldn't increase because of the convenience store being located there over a lounge/tavern or even additional single family housing. He noted that the potential users of a convenience store would probably be local residents in that area and that the traffic shouldn't increase because of customers from other areas. After thoroughly discussing the petition received, motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, and unanimously carried to deny the petition on the grounds that the petition failed to present material evidence that would demonstrate because of its nature or location of the project that the project has potential for significant environmental effects. The petition concerning the environmental effects was highly speculative, did not demonstrate how or why the nature or location of this project was unique to consider the provisions of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet, and that the EPA and State Fire Marshal regulate tank installation which should mitigate any potential significant environmental effects. In addition, a motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to continue the conditional use request for the dispensing of automotive fuels until March 23, 1987, Council meeting to allow for 30 day period for an appeal to be filed in District Court pertaining to this project. 8. Consideration of Authorizing Final Payment on City Hall Ceiling Resurfacing. Lindberg Painting and Decorating has recently completed the interior sealing of the roof decking and beams in the City Hall and requested final payment be approved on the project. Staff members noted that when the finish was applied with an airless sprayer, a lot of overspray occurred on furniture, desks, registers, electrical fixtures, along with windows and blinds, etc. Mr. Lindberg has attempted to clean this up but has currently not finished the project, and the staff recommended that until the clean up is completed, final payment should not be made. It was also noted that if Mr. Lindberg is unable to complete the clean up, the City may have to consider an outside firm to finish the clean up procedures. City Administrator suggested that the Council give Lindberg Decorating an opportunity to finish their clean up work before considering other alternatives. Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, and unanimously carried not to authorize final payment at this time but to allow Lindberg's to attempt to clean the City Hall area first. 9. Consideration of Senior Citizen Center Director's Position. Recently, the City Council has discussed the position of Senior Citizen Center Director and whether the position is a part-time or full-time so Council Minutes - 1/26/87 staff position. Because of the recent comparable worth study, if it is determined that the Senior Citizen Center Director is a full-time staff position, a substantial adjustment in salary would have to be made to comply with the law. Councilmember Bill Fair felt the Council should clarify what its total relationship is to the Senior Citizens program and whether the Director works for the City or the Senior Citizen Center. Mr. Fair noted that no policy has ever been established by a previous Council as to whether the City considers the Senior Citizen Center another department of the City or whether past history has only shown that the City government provides some support financially. It was his opinion that if the City is to consider it an actual department and the Director's position as a supervisor, more accountability of not only the Director but the entire Senior Citizen's Center, needs to be established. He noted that it was his opinion the Senior Citizen Center has always been an autonomous service organization and not a branch of city government; and if the City is to consider it a branch, the Council would be involved in more policy making and staffing determinations which could result in limiting services at the Center or charging fees if necessary. The Senior Citizen Center currently has its own Board of Directors who, in Mr. Fair's opinion, are more capable of defining the role and duties of the Director and how the Center is operated. It was suggested by Mr. Fair that the City continue to provide some financial support to the Center as it has during the past, but not to consider the Center a branch of city government requiring more regulations than currently exist. Councilmember Fran Fair noted that the discussion has nothing to do with the present Director's performance but cautioned that if it is considered a branch of city government, the City would have to have much more control over the activities that take place at the Center along with the possibility of setting hours and limiting membership, etc. Senior Citizen Center member, Marie Peterson, briefly informed the Council of how the Center was established and how the Board of Directors was set up and approved by the City Council. Center member, Leo Nelson, requested that the Council consider a joint meeting with the Senior Board to study the issue and determine what alternatives would be available. It was also noted by the City Administrator that other communities who participated with Monticello in the comparable worth study did not have any Senior Citizen Center Director positions that were evaluated. The only other community that has a full-time director was St. Cloud. Mayor Grimsmo recommended that the Council meet with the Senior Citizen Center Board prior to the next Council meeting; and as a result, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, and unanimously carried to have a special meeting at 6:30 p.m., February 9, 1987, OFM Council Minutes - 1/26/87 to discuss with the Senior Citizen Board the role of the Senior Citizen Center and how it relates to the city government. Councilmember Bill Fair and Warren Smith will meet with the Senior Citizen Board prior to the special meeting to explain the options and alternatives available if it is determined the Center is a branch of government. 10. Status Report, PSG. Wastewater Treatment Plant Manager, Steve Sunt, reviewed with the Council the November and December 1986 operations report on the Wastewater Treatment Plant contract. Mr. Sunt noted that the operational cost of the Wastewater Treatment Plant looked favorable at this time, and they are currently under budget which may result in a rebate to the City at the end of the contract period. After further discussion, the report was accepted as presented. 11. Consideration of Bills for the Month of January. Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, and unanimously carried to approve the bills for the month of January as presented, except for Check #23732 for Lindberg Paint & Decorating. 12. Appointment to Joint Airport Commission. Administrator Eidem noted that the recently adopted Joint Airport Commission consisting of the City of Monticello and the City of Big Lake has been established and that two members should be appointed to the Commission. It was recommended that the City Administrator and Economic Development Director, 011ie Koropchak, be appointed members of this Commission. Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to appoint 011ie Koropchak and Tom Eidem as the City's representatives to the Joint Airport Commission recently established. Rick Wolfste 'ler Assistant Administrator