Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09.05.89 Council Minutes MINUTES COUNCIL MEETING REGULAR SEPTEMBER 5, 1989 1. Mayor Kuchera called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Kuchera, Mayer, McKnight, Sprute, Galler. Members Absent: None. Also Present: Administrator Thompson, Attorney Grannis. 2. MOTION by McKnight, second by Mayer to approve the agenda with the following changes: a. Remove item llc- School/Conference Request - Police - from Consent Agenda. b. Remove item lld - School/Conference Request - Police - from Consent Agenda. c. Remove item 11e - Capital Outlay Request - Administration - from Consent Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. MOTION by Mayer, second by McKnight to approve the minutes of the August 16, 1989 special meeting. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. MOTION by Sprute, second by Galler to approve the minutes of the August 21, 1989 regular meeting. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. Tom Jensen addressed the Council regarding the proposed maintenance project on his sidewalk on Oak Street. Mr. Jensen stated that it was his understanding that the City was only going to patch in areas, and not replace the entire block. Mr. Jensen stated that the sidewalk should not be "piecemealed" but should be entirely replaced. General Services Superintendent Tom Kaldunski stated that he preferred to do it that way, but he was following the budget guidelines and sidewalk inventory report approved by the Council, and did not have sufficient 'funds to replace an entire block, which would cost approximately $5,000 per side. Mr. Kaldunski added that if the entire block was replaced, he would classify that as an improvement which should be assessed. Mr. Kaldunski noted that he had recommended sidewalks be replaced when the street was improved in 1986. Mr. Jensen stated that he was lead to believe that it was part of the 1986 improvement project, and that if it took assessments to replace the entire block, then the City should pursue that method rather than just replacing sections. Councilmember Sprute asked why the curbs were being cut. Mr. Kaldunski stated that, per State Law, handicapped ramps had to be installed when sidewalks were replaced. Councilmember Sprute stated that he agreed with Mr. Jensen, and because the present sidewalk consisted of small blocks, it could no~be patched adequately. Councilmember Sprute added that the City had set aside '~~750 for sidewalk repair and adding $1,250 would be enough to repair the entire side. Mr. Kaldunski stated that it would mean the south side of the street could not be repaired, which was also in poor shape. Councilmember Sprute noted that the south side had previously been replaced, and the north was worse, and also, that the north side carried more traffic. 6. Mayor Kuchera opened a public hearing at 7:30 P.M. to consider the proposed stormwater utility. The hearing was continued until later in the evening. Minutes - 9/5/89 - Page 2 7. Mayor Kuchera asked where the City would get the additional $1,250. Finance Director Henneke stated that it would probably have to come out of contingency. Mr. Kaldunski recommended that if the Council was planning to complete the north side, they should also complete the south side, which,would cost approximately $1,250. Councilmember Galler stated that he felt replacing the entire north side constituted an improvement and should be assessed. Mr. Kaldunski stated that based on the discussion of the Council, he would revise the sidewalk inventory report, and shift the emphasis away from spot repairs. Councilmember Mayer noted that Mr. Kaldunski was following the direction given to him by the Council, and that the Council should reexamine its thinking towards sidewalk repair. MOTION by Mayer, second by Kuchera to replace the entire sidewalk on the north side of Oak Street between Division and First Streets and to fund the difference between the budgeted amount and replacement costs from contingency. VOTING FOR: Kuchera, Mayer, McKnight. AGAINST: Galler. ABSTAIN: Sprute. MOTION CARRIED. 8. Mayor Kuchera opened the public hearing to consider the proposed stormwater utility. Finance Director Henneke gave a brief summary of the surface water problems in Farmington, and the various funding options to correct the problems. Mr. Henneke stated that after lengthy consideration, the Council had focused on the stormwater utility as the most equitable way to pay for the major share of the projects. Mr. Henneke added that staff had proposed a fee of $5.00 per quarter per single family residential equivalent, with different uses paying according to parcel size and runoff co-efficient. Superintendent of General Services Kaldunski outlined the various proposed projects. The following testimony was given: Tom Jensen: Have you calculated how much the $5.00 LEC will generate? It will generate approximately $70,000 annually before credits. Wayne Henneke: Tom Jensen: Will that be sufficient to do all the projects? We will borrow funds to do the projects. It depends on how aggressive the Council gets. Will the Southeast Area project take care of the problem at 6th and Ash? Wayne Henneke: Don Wilson: Tom Kaldunski: Yes. We are working with the Vermillion River Management Board to construct the project, which should take place in 1991 or 1992. This utility will help the whole City. It is not just Henderson Addition which has the water problems. I have Council to adopt the utility sign by approximately 65 old part of the City. (Mrs. MacEnany read the letter.) I have received various calls on the matter, but none in opposition. MOTION by McKnight, second by Sprute to close the hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Mary MacEnany: a letter encouraging the residents throughout the Tom Kaldunski: 9. Councilmember Galler asked if there were any other alternatives to charge tax exempt property. Administrator Thompson stated that the Council could assess, but as noted previously, it was hard to prove benefit. Mr. Thompson added that the City would most likely continue to assess laterals where direct benefit can be proven. Councilmember Galler asked how often the rates would be reviewed. Mr. Henneke stated that they would be reviewed annually or when any major project was ordered. Councilmember Sprute stated that he was originally opposed to the fee because it was, in effect, another tax, but it appears there is little the City can do about its problems unless it implements some device to raise revenues. Administrator Minutes - 9/5/89 - Page 3 Thompson stated that the Council should retain flexibility when implementing the ordinance, because there were always going to be exceptions to the rule. Council- member Mayer stated that he had concerns regarding the credit policy and if the City would be requiring too much information for owners of small parcels. Mr. Kaldunski noted that the policy listed information the City may require, and that the credit would probably only be applied to larger parcels. MOTION by McKnight, second by Mayer to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 089-221 establishing a Stormwater Utility. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 10. MOTION by Galler, second by McKnight to approve the Stormwater Utility Policies. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 11. It was the consensus of the Council to table action on the Rosebriar Plat (Lots 1-10, Block 18) until the City received the revised plat. 12. The Council next considered the Reisinger Excavation Permit which was denied at the last Council meeting. Administrator Thompson explained that Mr. Reisinger had not attended the hearing due to a misunderstanding. Attorney Grannis stated that since the permit was unanimously denied, any Council member could bring the matter back for reconsideration. Mr. Grannis stated that the Council had the option of a) refusing to reconsider, b) rescinding the action and tabling the matter for further review, or c) rescinding the action and approving the permit. A lengthy discussion followed regarding the use of the driveway and property. Mr. Reisinger explained the driveway was necessary to provide access for farm machinery through the wetlands. Mr. Reisinger stated that it was intended for agricultural purposes only. Concern was expressed regarding safeguards to protect the wetlands. Admini- strator Thompson read the 6 conditions recommended in the City Engineer's memo dated August '4, 1989. MOTION by Galler, second by Kuchera to rescind the action of August 21, 1989 relating to the permit. VOTING FOR: Mayer, McKnight, Kuchera, Galler. AGAINST: Sprute. MOTION CARRIED. 13. MOTION by Galler, second by McKnight to approve the grading/excavating permit by Reisinger Excavating at 20225 Akin Road, contingent upon the applicant complying with the 6 conditions outlined in the City Engineer's memo dated August 4, 1989. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 14. Financial Consultant Jerry Shannon presented the financial impact of the proposed $1.1 million public works facility on City taxes as outlined in his September 5, 1989 report. Mr. Shannon noted the impact would be approximately $13 on an $80,000 home. Mr. Shannon gave suggestions regarding a referendum. A lengthy discussion followed regarding the setting of a referendum. MOTION by Mayer, second by McKnight to direct staff to prepare a resolution calling for a referendum and a timetable. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 15. City Engineer Kaldunski presented the following bids on the Flagstaff Avenue Bridge Replacement project: Firm Landwehr Heavy Moving Brown and Cris, Inc. J.P. Norex Rice Lake Contracting Part A Part B Total $ 57,950.00 88,400.00 104,941.00 97,815.00 $22,097.00 37,385.00 35,826.00 40,337.50 $ 80,047.00 125,785.00 140,772.00 138,152.50 Mr. Kaldunski stated he had researched the low bidder and recommended the bid be Minutes - 9/5/89 - Page 4 awarded to Landwehr Heavy Moving contingent upon the City obtaining the required easements and MSA funding. MOTION by Galler, second by Sprute to adopt RESOLUTION NO. R73-89 awarding the contract to Landwehr Heavy Moving for $80,047.00 for replacement of the Flagstaff Bridges south of TH 50 contingent upon the City receiving MSA funding and the necessary easements. APIF, MOTION CARRIED . 16. It was the consensus of the Council to delay projects 89-1, 89-3 and 89-14 until 1990 as recommended in the Administrator's memo dated August 31, 1989. 17. The Council next held a lengthy discussion regarding Elm Street. The major dispute was the effect of restricting parking on Elm Street on local businesses, and possibly shifting the problem elsewhere. MOTION by Galler, second by McKnight to direct staff to contact the owners of Hardees and Tom Thumb for their input. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 18. MOTION by Sprute, second by Mayer to conduct the Administrator's annual evaluation per recommendation in the Administrator's memo dated September 26, 1989 using form "B". APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 19. Finance Director Henneke presented the 1990 Operating Budget. MOTION by Kuchera, second by Sprute to accept the 1990 Operating Budget. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. It was the consensus of the C~il~~~t budget work session dates at the September 13, 1989 special meeting. 20. MOTION by Sprute, second by McKnight to approve a capital outlay request by the Fire Department to purchase a handheld radio for $778 and a budget adjustment transferring $317 from Fire Department Supplies to Equipment. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 21. MOTION by Galler, second by McKnight to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: a. Approve School/Conference Request - Senior Center. b. Approve Jerry Wacker as a permanent full time employee. c. Approve a Capital Outlay Request for Public Works - Snow Plow Sanding and Painting. d. Approve payment of the bills as submitted. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 22. Councilmember Galler requested a clarification of the funding for the Police Department School/Conference Request. Finance Director Henneke explained that the County would reimburse the City. MOTION by Galler, second by Sprute to approve the two Police Department School/Conference Requests as presented. APIF, MOTION CARRIED . 23. Councilmember Mayer asked if the City would require shelving and installation costs for the proposed recording system. Administrative Assistant Finstuen explained that the system would be stored in the closet adjacent to the Council Chambers and there would be some installation costs. MOTION by Mayer, second by McKnight to approve the Capital Outlay Request for a recording system. APIF, MOTION CARRIED . Minutes - 9/5/89 - Page 5 24. The following items were discussed during roundtable: a. Two planned trips to resource recovery facilities. b. New garbage truck has been received by the City. c. Either fill in or fence the hole across from the Middle School. 25. MOTION by Sprute, second by Kuchera to adjourn at 11:15 P.M. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, {"Z ~7::- Administrator Approved q-/6 -1/1 .- ~iP lJJ cU-.. ~ .. c:;