Loading...
City Council Minutes 06-12-1989MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, June 12, 1989 - 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Ken Maus, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen, Shirley Anderson, Fran Fair Members Absent: None 2. Approval of minutes. Motion made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Shirley Anderson, to approve the minutes of the special meeting held May 19, 1989. Voting in favor of the motion was Ken Maus, Dan Blonigen, Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith. Voting to abstain: Fran Fair. Motion made by Fran Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held May 22, 1989. 3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints. John Simola requested Council direction with regards to special requests submitted by an owner of a 4-plex with regards to the recycling program. It was the request of the owner that the City not require distribution of individual containers to each household within the 4-plex that this individual owns. It was the desire of the petitioner to utilize one set of 90 -gallon containers rather than requiring each household to have individual recycling containers. According to the petitioner, his ability to manage the waste coming from the 4-plex units would be enhanced if he were required to utilize fewer, larger containers. John Simola noted that the individual petitioning is the owner of the 4-plex units and occupies the structures as well. As caretaker of the 4-plex units, he is responsible for managing the garbage collection process. Dan Blonigen suggested that requiring that this individual utilize individual containers might not be reasonable. Ken Maus noted that the City wants to be flexible in the administration of its recycling program. Under this particular situation, it is possible that we could make an exception to the rule that individual households within 4-plexes must have its own set of containers. The fact that there is a person designated in this situation to maintain the recycling program for this group of 4-plexes provides a reasonable assurance that recycling will occur. Fran Fair suggested that the existing program be maintained on a 60 -day trial period and that no variances at this time be granted. It was also her view that by not requiring that individual households recycle, the City loses control in terms of monitoring recycling participation. After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair to maintain the program 60 days and re-evaluate this situation after 60 days. Motion died for lack of a second. -1- Council Minutes - 6/12/89 Motion was made by Dan Blonigen to grant a 60 -day variance, after which the situation will be re-evaluated. Special consideration is given in this situation because the owner of the 4-plex units occupies one of the units and is responsible for policing the garbage and recyclable materials generated by the 4-plexes he owns and operates. Voting in favor: Dan Blonigen, Shirley Anderson, Ken Maus, Warren Smith. Opposed: Fran Fair. 4. Continue public hearing on assessing project 81-1 - Edgar Klucas. City Administrator, Rick Wolfsteller, informed Council that the League of Minnesota Cities has indicated that the City may only assess a project based on the cost of the project at the time the project was completed. He also noted that the City has the option of charging the then going interest rate at the time the project was completed. After discussion, a motion was made by Dan Blonigen and seconded by Warren Smith to assess the Edgar Klucas property the sum of $31,026.31 and to assess the Meadows Second Addition portion of the project the amount of $6,179.92. The interest rate shall reflect the 1981 rate and term. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 89-19. 5. Consideration of bond sale for street improvement projects 89-02 and 89-03. Robert Thistle of Springsted, Inc., was in attendance and outlined a recommendation on the sale of the bonds that will be used for financing the Mississippi Drive reconstruction and Oakwood Industrial Park overlay. A total bond issuance amount equals $245,000. The proposed bond issue would be supported by the ad valorem taxes and special assessments of approximately 22 percent of project cost for Mississippi Drive and 50 percent of project cost for Oakwood Industrial Park. Mayor Maus asked what the bond rating would be for this bond issue. Mr. Thistle stated that the bond issue would have the current rating of which is A. After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, to approve a resolution authorizing the sale of said bonds necessary to finance the Mississippi Drive reconstruction and Oakwood Industrial Park overlay projects. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 89-17. 6. Consideration of a resolution authorizing the sale of bonds for Tax Increment District 1-2 (elderly housing project). Administrator Wolfsteller informed Council that the HRA will be completing a transfer of property in Block 51 to Broadway Square Limited Partnership on Wednesday, June 14, for the construction of the elderly housing project. The HRA has acquired four parcels of property over the past year in Block 51 and has recently modified the tax increment district budget allowing the project to proceed. Wolfsteller went on to inform Council that the timing is right for this bond issuance, as it can be completed in conjunction with the sale of bonds for the Mississippi -2- Council Minutes - 6/12/89 Drive and Oakwood Industrial Park improvements. Combining the bond issuance will result in a lower net cost to the City. Robert Thistle of Springsted, Inc., noted that the bond issuance amount for this particular project is $260,000. Bonds sold for this project are revenue bonds and, therefore, not tax exempt, which results in an expected interest rate of 9.5 percent. After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, to adopt a resolution authorizing the sale of bonds for Tax Increment District 1-2 (elderly housing project). Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 89-18. 7. Consideration of relinquishing pledge agreement with HRA regarding excess TIF revenue. Administrator Wolfsteller explained that a few of the present tax increment projects are generating more tax increment revenues than originally anticipated. He went on to explain that although most of these projects require bond issues or other financing loans initiated, in some cases revenues are exceeding our debt service requirements annually. He noted that in some of the bond issues, the HRA has agreed to pledge for the debt service on three bond issues 105 percent of the next three payment dates or 1-1/2 years in advance before there is considered any surplus revenue. He went on by saying that this certainly is added protection for each bond issue; however, there is no legal requirement or necessity to have the HRA pledge more than two debt service payments in advance. In effect, on three of the current bond issues, an extra 50 percent is being required to be held in reserve before any funds are available for HRA use on other projects. Wolfsteller noted that by relinquishing the pledge agreement, there is a very good likelihood that in the future sufficient reserves will be available to be used by the HRA on a tax increment project or other lawful purpose, thus avoiding additional tax levies or bond issuance cost. For this reason, staff recommends that this pledge agreement be modified to correspond with requirements of normal tax increment financing bond issues. Ken Maus noted that relinquishing this pledge agreement will provide the reserve funds necessary to operate HRA activities without the added expense of issuing bonds. He also noted that this action will reduce the likelihood that the HRA will need to exercise its authority to levy for financing of HRA activities. Ken Maus also noted that the logic at the time of bond issuance to require the pledge agreement made sense. The current logic to relinquish the pledge agreement now that funds are available and the bond issues are secure also makes sense. After discussion, motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Fran Fair, to adopt a resolution modifying the pledge agreements for the three bond issues affecting properties 1985 (Raindance), 1987A (Construction 5), and 1987B (NAWCO). The modifications would then mend the requirements of the bond issuance to match normal requirements for bond issues which require a reserve equal to the next year's annual payments. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 89-20. 3 Council Minutes - 6/12/89 8. Consideration of request by abutting property owner to lease the balance of undeveloped Linn Street. After discussion, it was determined that the proposed use of the undeveloped portion of Linn Street by Mr. Eisele is not inconsistent with current City policy regarding use of undeveloped streets by adjoining property owners. Therefore, it was determined that a lease agreement would not be necessary and that Mr. Eisele would be allowed to use the property so long as it is used in a manner compatible with existing City policy. Eisele was informed that the undeveloped street that his property abutts represents the boundary between a residential zone and commercial zone. He was informed that no commercial usage of the undeveloped portion of Linn Street would be allowed without first obtaining proper approvals. After discussion, motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Shirley Anderson, to allow Eisele to use undeveloped Linn Street in a manner consistent with City policy regarding use of undeveloped streets by abutting property owners. In addition, Eisele is granted permission to install a fence on Linn Street and that the fence must meet all City setback requirements. Motion carried unanimously. 9. Consideration of advertisement for bids for garbage collection services for the City of Monticello. Public Works Director, John Simola, noted that negotiations with the existing hauler have failed and that the City staff is recommending that the Council advertise for bids for garbage collection services for the City of Monticello. At this point in the meeting, Council discussed the potential contract specifications. It was the consensus of Council that the specifications should include two alternatives for pickup, one including a once per week pickup and the other including a twice per week pickup. Ken Maus noted that home businesses should be monitored for placing business related debris in with home garbage pickup materials. After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, to authorize advertising for bids for garbage collection services for the City of Monticello. The bid specifications should include the following: Cost of once per week and twice per week pickup. It should provide for payment of escalating landfill disposal cost. It should change from disposal by the cubic yard to disposal by the ton. Contract specification should change from six cans per household per pickup to two to three cans per household per pickup. And the specification should include three separate leaf pickups per year. Motion carried unanimously. 10. Consideration of letter of interest to Wright County for supplying nitrogen for the proposed Wright County solid waste composting facility. John Simola reviewed the ongoing problem of finding a method of disposing waste created by the City treatment plant. He went on to describe the potential of utilizing the Wright County solid waste composting facility 0 11. Council Minutes - 6/12/89 as a disposal site for City waste. The cost of this disposal would amount to 1.1 cents to 4.5 cents per gallon. Simola requested Council input regarding this method of disposal of City waste water sludge. Simola also noted that the City is working at finding property suitable for application and disposal of sludge. Fran Fair asked how long a typical site could last. John Simola noted that the City would need 200 acres and that such a site would last at least 60 years. Dan Blonigen noted that prior to making a commitment to the County, the City would have to look at the cost of providing the County with the sludge versus the cost of applying the sludge to land that the City might lease or purchase. Fran Fair mentioned that maybe the City could look at a combination of methods of disposal of the material. Warren Smith asked how many gallons per year does the City produce. Simola noted that 500,000 gallons of sludge is produced by the City per year. After discussion, motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Fran Fair, to resolve the continuing problem of sludge disposal by 1) continuing to work with the Township and local farmers in establishing sites suitable for application of sludge; 2) respond to Wright County with a letter of interest in the program so long as the disposal cost does not exceed 2.5 cents per gallon, with the City committing no more than 300,000 gallons per year; and 3) the City should continue to seek out possible purchase of land within the city limits and outisde the city limits for application of sludge material. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration of City policy regarding distribution and maintenance of water pressure reducing valve. Public Works Director Simola noted that the installation of the new water storage facility will create an expected boost in water pressure between 25 and 27 PSI. This pressure increase will be conducted in small incremental increases that will provide the City with an opportunity to monitor the effect of the increase in pressure on City water mains and individual water services. Simola noted that a policy needs to be established for providing water pressure reducing valves for City residents. After Simola's presentation, a discussion ensued. Dan Blonigen was concerned that in some areas there will be water pressure higher than the capacity of the pressure valves on water heaters. Fran Fair noted that under this policy, an individual with a home that might qualify for a pressure reducing valve is not required to obtain a valve. She asked if the City will be liable if an individual that qualifies for the program does not actually purchase and install a valve. John Simola responded by saying that the City would not be liable because we will be providing adequate information regarding potential 5 Council Minutes - 6/12/89 problem and solution. At this point, a discussion ensued regarding installation of valves for homes that do not qualify or appear to be at risk for having water pressure related problems. Motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Fran Fair, to adopt the policies as outlined. Voting in favor of the policies as outlined: Fran Fair, Warren Smith. Opposed: Ken Maus, Dan Blonigen, Shirley Anderson. Motion made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Shirley Anderson, to adopt the policies as outlined with the addition of City provision of replacement parts for valves purchased and installed by homeowners with homes that are not considered at risk for water pressure related problems. Motion includes the following policies: 1. The City would offer to any resident whose maximum water pressure as determined by the City Engineer is expected to exceed 60 PSI and whose home was built prior to 1965 a water pressure reducing valve, a pressure gauge, and meter connection fitting for the purpose of reducing the pressure in the home. 2. That the City would provide installation instructions and maintenance instructions for installing the valves, which would include the recommendation for checking the pressure relief protection on the hot water heater. 3. That the City would provide spare parts or replacement valves, either rebuilt or new, to all residents who have installed one of our valves in their home. That we will continue to provide these valves and parts as long as they are needed but will provide no replacement or maintenance labor. 4. That the City of Monticello recommends that the valve be installed by a professional plumber. If the homeowner does hire a professional, the City of Monticello would pay $25 toward the installation cost. 5. That the City of Monticello does not warranty that these valves on occasion may not fail and that it is the homeowner's responsibility to maintain these valves. The City recommends that outdated, questionable plumbing systems be replaced to ensure no leaks. 6. That the existing ordinance remain in force in regard to the homeowner being responsible for maintenance and repair of the entire water service from the street main to the home and that, however, for a period of one year after the water system reaches maximum pressure, the City will provide or pay for at its option street restoration necessary for water service repair or replacement. 7. Homeowners that wish to install valves in homes that are not considered at risk for water pressure problems must purchase and install valves at their cost. The City would provide spare parts or replacement valves, either rebuilt or new, to all residents who have installed one of our valves in their home. We will continue to provide these valves and parts as long as they are needed but will provide no replacement or maintenance labor. L Council Minutes - 6/12/89 12. Consideration of repaving senior citizen park the resurfacing of the Holker parking lot. 13. I lot in conjunction with John Simola described the inter -relationship between the Holker parking lot and the senior citizens parking area. He noted that in order for the senior citizens to park next to the senior building, vehicles must pass over the Holker parking area. In addition, a parking area utilized by the Holker development includes City right-of-way along Cedar. Mayor Maus noted that the seniors citizen users have cooperated by parking in their areas and that the developer has been cooperative by providing access to the property for senior parking. The Mayor voiced his hope that this cooperative arrangement would continue. Shirley Anderson asked if seniors would be able to park along the back of the Holker building. Mr. Holker said no, the parking area in the back of the office building is necessary for the tenants of the building and that seniors would not be able to park there. After discussion, motion was made by Shirley Anderson, seconded by Dan Blonigen, to approve City payment of a portion of the repaving cost associated with the paving of the Holker property not to exceed $1,750 and should meet the specifications of the quote provided to the City. The repaving cost should be based on the cost to repave the area used for parking along the Cedar Street boulevard and also should include the cost to pave the parking area used by seniors directly adjacent to the senior citizen center. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration of granting annual approval for municipal licenses. Motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Fran Fair, to approve municipal liquor licenses for the following organizations: Intoxicating Liquor, On -sale (Fee $3,300) Renewals 1. 2. 3. 4. Monticello Liquor, Inc. Silver Fox Joyner's Lanes Stuart Hoglund - Comfort Inn Intoxicating Liquor, On -sale, Sunday (Fee $200 - set by Statute) Renewals 1. Monticello Liquor, Inc. 2. Silver Fox 3. Joyner's Lanes 4. VFW Club 5. American Legion Club 6. Comfort Inn 7 Council Minutes - 6/12/89 Non -Intoxicating Malt, On -sale (Fee $250) 1. Rod and Gun 2. Pizza Factory 3. Country Club Non -Intoxicating Malt, Off -sale (Fee $75.00) Renewals 1. Monticello Liquor 2. Riverroad Plaza 3. Maus Foods 4. River Terrace 5. Tom Thumb 6. Holiday 7. Plaza Car Wash Wine/3.2 Beer Combination, On -sale (Fee $450) RAnAwal 1. Dino's Deli Set-up License (Fee $250) 1. Country Club 2. Rod & Gun Club Licenses (Fee - set by Statute) 1. V.F.W. - $500 (membership ) 2. American Legion - $650 (membership ) Bingo, Temporary (Fee $20) 1. St. Henry's Fall Festival - September 16 & 17 Gambling, Temporary ($20 per device) 1. St. Henry's Fall Festival - $60 - September 16 & 17 Motion carried unanimously. On a related matter, Dan Blonigen mentioned concerns regarding noise at the Legion Club. He requested that staff send a letter to the Legion Club requesting that the noise level be kept at a reasonable level. 14. Consideration of approving gambling licenses - VFW and Legion Club. Council reviewed the license applications and reviewed the financial reports. Since no opposition was forthcoming from Council regarding these licenses, information was received only with no action taken. Council Minutes - 6/12/89 15. Consideration of requirements for testing of sanitary sewer and water services from the property lines of the home. Public Works Director, John Simola, reported to Council that he is recommending that the City require testing of sanitary sewer and water services prior to allowing occupancy of newly built homes. He noted that the individuals to benefit most from the testing will be future owners of the property. Pressure testing of the water service lines should add no additional cost to the homeowner whatsoever. Pressure testing of the sanitary sewer line could add slightly to the cost due to the addition of a cleanout or by the small delay the contractor would encounter to make the final connection at the property line after the air test is performed. Ken Maus asked if there were other cities that require this testing procedure. John Simola indicated that there are other cities that require testing of sanitary sewer and water services. After discussion, motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Shirley Anderson, to require testing of newly constructed sanitary sewer and water services. Such policy is to take effect 30 days after publication of notification of policy. If no objections are received regarding the policy, the program will be initiated upon expiration of the 30 -day notification period. Motion passed unanimously. 16. Consideration of ordinance amendment which would allow limited expansion of a non -conforming use (residences) in a B-4 District. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed the proposed ordinance amendment which would allow the expansion of a residential structure in the B-4 (regional business) zone. Such expansion may not constitute more than 50 percent of estimated market value. O'Neill informed Council that the Planning Commission recommended approval of this amendment, as it is consistent with the municipal Comprehensive Plan and consistent with the character and geography of the area. The amendment will also not depreciate the value of adjoining lands. In making its decision, it was the view of the Planning Commission that allowing limited expansion of residential uses in the B-4 zone will not significantly inhibit the transition of this land from residential to B-4 uses. Warren Smith suggested that the amendment include wording that limits the number of times that a residential structure can be expanded to 50 percent of its original value. Smith recommended that a structure be only allowed to expand once from the date of the inception of this ordinance amendment. Mayor Maus suggested that the City adopt an administrative procedure to follow when a residential structure makes application for expansion of a residential use. Maus suggested that adjoining owners of commercial property be notified of the impending expansion and be given the opportunity to negotiate the purchase of the residential property prior to further investments in said property. After discussion, motion was made by Warren Smith, and seconded by Shirley Anderson, to adopt an amendment to Section 3-1[J] of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance which would allow expansion of residential E Council Minutes - 6/12/89 structures in the B-4 district provided that the value of expansion does not constitute more than 50 percent of market value of existing structure and provided all setbacks associated with residential structure expansion must meet R-1 yard requirements, and provided that residential structure may be expanded to only once after the date of June 12, 1989, and after a 30 -day notification period has expired. Notice of plans for expansion to be provided to all adjoining property owners and to the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Motion carried unanimously. SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 176. 17. Consideration of advertising for bids for annual sealcoating project. After discussion, motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Fran Fair, to advertise for the annual sealcoating project. Motion carried unanimously. 18. Consideration of establishment of land use zone for Evergreens Subdivision Outlots A and B. After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Shirley Anderson, to rezone Outlots A and B of the Evergreens from agricultural usage to PZM usage based on the finding that 1) potential negative impacts of allowable uses in the PZM zone can be mitigated through the conditional use permit; 2) multi -family development could occur under PZM regulations which allows the developer some flexibility in developing the property for commercial or residential use; 3) the PZM zoning allows development of retail businesses that have a limited market area which, when allowed, will not significantly detract from the Comprehensive Plan goal of centralizing regional and highway business activity. Motion carried unanimously. SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 176A. 19. Consideration of replacing air dryer at the waste water treatment plant. After discussion, motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Fran Fair, to authorize replacement of the Pure Air cleaner with a larger, more dependable unit at a cost of $3,700. Motion passed unanimously. 20. Assistant Administrator O'Neill presented the results of the community goal setting session conducted at the special meeting of the City Council June 5, 1989. Council received the report and took no formal action. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, of 'O'Neill Assistant Administrator 10