Loading...
02-10-2004 CCM MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10,2004 1. CALL TO ORDER - 5:30 P.M. Mayor Marlin Torgerson called the meeting to order. Members present were Jim Haugen, Kay Peterson, Bill Arndt, and Casey Stotts. Others present were Ken Merrill, Finance Director; Marc Sebora, City Attorney; and John Rodeberg, Director of Engineering and Public Works. 2. INVOCATION - Reverend Greg Nelson, Bethlehem United Methodist 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PRESENTATION BY THE HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL TO RANDY DEVRIES IN RECOGNITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO CREEKSIDE SOIL PRESENTATION BY THE HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL TO JEFF HAAG IN RECOGNITION OF HIS SERVICE ON THE HUTCINSON EDA BOARD 4. MINUTES (a) REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 27,2004 Minutes were approved as presented 5. CONSENT AGENDA (a) REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS 1. HUTCHINSON UTILITIES FINANCIAL REPORT FOR DECEMBER 2003 2. HUTCHINSON HOSPITAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR DECEMBER 2003 3. HUTCHINSON PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 17, 2003 4. PARKS, RECREATION & COMMUNITY EDUCATION ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 1, 2003 5. PARKS, RECREATION & COMMUNITY EDUCATION ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES FOR JANUARY 5, 2004 6. BUILDING DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT FOR JANUARY 2004 7. BID OPENING MINUTES FOR PURCHASE OF FOUR ISUZU NPR CAB/CHASSIS FROM JANUARY 26,2004 8. FIRE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT FOR JANUARY 2004 (b) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 1. ORDINANCE NO. 04-367 - CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON FOR A PROPERTY TO BE REZONED FROM Rl TO R2 LOCATED AT 1245 ROBERTS ROAD SOUTHWEST (SECOND READING AND ADOPTION) 2. RESOLUTION NO. 12340 - RESOLUTION FOR PURCHASE 3. RESOLUTION NO. 12341 - RELEASING PLEDGED SECURITIES FROM BREMER BANK N.A., HUTCHINSON, MN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 10, 2004 (c) CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF SHORT-TERM GAMBLING LICENSE FOR THE 3M CLUB FOR APRRIL24, 2004 (d) CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF REAPPOINTMENT TO JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD BILL ARNDT (e) CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENT TO HUTCHINSON AREA HEAL TH CARE BOARD BERNIE KNUTSON (f) CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR ISLAND VIEW HEIGHTS SIXTH ADDITION Motion by Council Member Peterson, second by Council Member Stotts, to approve consent agenda as presented. Motion carried unanimously. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 6:00 P.M. 7. COMMUNICATIONS, REQUESTS AND PETITIONS 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS (a) CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WELLS FARGO LETTER OF CREDIT, SURETY BOND, AND CITY OF HUTCHINSON/CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS ORGANIC MATERIALS CONTRACT Marc Sebora, City Attorney, explained the request for approval of the letter of credit, the surety bond, and the contract. The City of Hutchinson competed with other entities in its proposal for providing organic yard waste, leaves, and other organic street sweeping materials removal for the City of Minneapolis. The City of Minneapolis will be paying the City of Hutchinson about $3.2 million over the next five years for this service. The City of Minneapolis will be taking this organic waste to a facility in North Minneapolis where the City of Hutchinson Compost FacIlity will pick up the organic waste and bring it to the Creekside Facility. Those materials will be tested to ensure they are safe for Creekside's composting process. Along with the contract, the City of Minneapolis requires from all of its contractors a surety bond to ensure performance of contract. The cost of that bond is $115,000 to be spread over the next five years. In order to obtain the surety bond the City needed to get a letter of credit, which will be obtained from Wells Fargo. The cost of that is $35,000 over the next five years. Approval is requested on these three items so that the City can start fulfilling its obligation to the City of Minneapolis and to obtain the materials needed for the compost site to produce the Creekside Products. Ken Merrill, Finance Director, added that the City will be escrowing $1 million with the bank that will reduce the amount charged per year as long council approves. Council Member Arndt asked if the City of Minneapolis would be required to have a bond? Mr. Sebora explained that the contract is currently worded, the City of Minneapolis does not need to have a bond because we are contracting with them. The City of Minneapolis has taken the position that under their City's policy we are treated the same as any other contractor with the City of Minneapolis. The bond is in place to ensure that the City of Hutchinson performs the duties required in the contract. If the City of Hutchinson does not 2 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 10, 2004 perform all the duties, then the City of Minneapolis would need to go elsewhere for those services (the bond is to cover those expenses). Mayor Torgerson asked if it is a normal procedure for the contract to be signed a year after the City started performing the organic waste removal. Mr. Sebora commented that it was not necessarily normal but due to circumstances was necessary. In the City's proposal to Minneapolis, the City of Hutchinson said that it would take Minneapolis's orgamc waste starting last year. Once Minneapolis awarded the City with the contract, the City wanted to show in good faith that it would keep up with the presented proposal. A big time consumer in this process was ensuring that the City could get the bond needed at a more reasonable price. The bond needed to be extended over five years, which was unusual (bonds are usually only for about year). The Mayor asked Steve Madson to comment on the organic waste pick-up last year. Mr. Madson stated that the City of Minneapolis was quite happy with the service provided. There were many glitches. The amount of organic waste was about double what the Compost Site was expecting. Even with the glitches, everything went well. Council Member Arndt asked if the Compost Site could handle more tonnage if there was a year with significant increase. Mr. Madson explained that the City is being paid by tonnage from Minneapolis and that the Compost Site could handle the increase. Council Member Peterson asked if there is a minimum amount of yard waste the City of Minneapolis has to pay for and is it an exclusive contract? Mr. Sebora said there is not a provision in the contract for a minimum about of organic waste but the City of Minneapolis has to give us all their organic waste, the City of Hutchinson is the exclusive contractor. Motion by Council Member Peterson, second by Council Member Arndt, to approve Wells Fargo Letter of Credit, Surety Bond, and City of Hutchinson/City of Minneapolis Organic Materials Contract. Motion carried unanimously. (b) CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF CITY OF HUTCHINSON FIVE YEAR CAPITAL PLAN (2004 - 2008) Ken Merrill, Finance Director, explained the five year capital plan. This five year plan shows all the capital expenses over $10,000. This plan shows the department, the priority, and the funding sources of each expense. This is just a plan, not an approval of those plans. It helps the City plan for the future, looking at what the needs are and how those needs will be funded. John Rodeberg, Director of Engineering and Public Works, state that all the projects all on the plan but not all of the projects will be funded by the city. For example, some of the projects will be funded federally, some will be funded by the state, others from private sources, as well as other sources. Council Member Peterson emphasized that this is Just a plan and each item will still need to be approved by the council individually. Mayor Torgerson further explained that the priorities and dollars of each item may be changed, moved, or removed as needed. Motion by Council Member Haugen, second by Council Member Stotts, to approve City of Hutchinson Five Year Capital Plan (2004 - 2008). Motion carried unanimously. (c) CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF PROCUREMENT OF DEBAGGING MACHINE Steve Madson updated the council on the information he and Doug Johnson received on the Scarab Leaf Deb agger. After reviewing the unit, it was not what the Compost Site needed. The machine was too big and offered options that the Compost Site already has. Mr. Madson and Mr. Johnson worked with the Scarab staff to design a scaled down piece machine that would meet the needs of the Compost Site better. The price of this machine would be about $92,000. This machine would significantly reduce the cost of managing the 3 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 10, 2004 Minneapolis organic waste. The machine would also eliminate all the plastic bags that are currently a problem at the Compost Site. Mr. Madson and Mr. Johnson asked about financing options with Scarab. The financing options would be to either to lease or purchase the machine. The lease option is $1,800 a month for five years with a $1 buyout option at end of lease. The Mayor asked if there was a warranty to ensure the machine performed to expectation and Council Member Haugen asked if, since this is a prototype, will there be a clause to ensure that the company will make modification as needed. Mr. Madson stated that he would work with Mr. Sebora to ensure there was a clause in the contract that included machine maintenance and performance would be included in the price. Council Member Peterson asked for clarification about whether the City will be leasing or purchasing the machine. Mr. Merrill stated that the City was currently looking at the financing option but he was not sure if the City would finance through Scarab or find better financing source. Mayor Torgerson asked how long it would take to get this machine operational. Mr. Madson replied that it would take about 45 days. Motion by Council Member Arndt, second by Council Member Haugen, to approve Procurement of Debagging Machine. Motion carried unanimously. (d) CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTING BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING FOR MAY 13,2004 AT 4:30 P.M. Motion by Council Member Peterson, second by Council Member Haugen, to approve Setting Board of Equalization Meeting for May 13, 2004 at 4:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. (e) CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF ROBERTS PARK FIELD SPONSORSHIP PROGRAM DolfMoon, PRCE Director, discussed the recommendation made by the Parks Department to purchase sun shelters for the Roberts Park Facility. The sun shelters will be paid for by the four sponsors that have advertisements on the fences (Citizens Bank, First Federal, McCormick's, and Country Kitchen). The Parks Department will collect $6,000 a year for the next five years. Mr. Moon requested that the council to approve a $20,000 expenditure from the Parks Dedication Fund for the sun shelters now. Then, as the annual sponsorship funds were received ($30,000), it would be put back into the Parks Dedication Fund. Mr. Moon also brought pictures and material examples of the sun shelters. There is very little relief from the fun at Roberts Field and these canopies will offer protection from the sun as well as protection to the spectators from the balls. The shelter is 30' X 40'. It will be a hip roof structure. Council Member Arndt asked how wind resistant are the sun shelters? Mr. Moon explained that they are resistant to 80 miles per hour. The shelters are a screen material so the wind can go through them. That also means that the rain will go through the material as well. The shelter is mainly just shield from the players from the sun. The shelter is not permanent, it will come off in September and be put back in April but the steel frame that holds the shelter is permanent. Council Member Peterson commented that she was glad to see the sponsorship again. Motion by Council Member Peterson, second by Council Member Arndt, to approve Roberts Park Field Sponsorship Program. Motion carried unanimously. (f) CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF ADVERTISING FOR SALE OF PROPERTY John Rodeberg, Director of Engineering and Public Works, discussed the property. When 4 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 10, 2004 the City extended School Road from Golf Course Road North to North High Drive, the City purchased a piece of property from the county (a triangular parcel). Where that meets Golf Course Road, there are a number of remnant parcels. The property to the south east of School Road was given back to the owner who had dedicated the School Road right of way (several acres) as part of the original arrangement with him. In order to get the road at the needed 90 degree angle, the City was left with a triangular area. Originally, the City was going to put a pond there but the pond ultimately had to go on the other side of the road. The property does have storm sewer and wetlands that go off the end of the road. The City split the property in two in the final plat. The parcel to the north includes a trail connection in that development. Ifit is sold, this property will be unbuildable due to wetlands, trail, storm sewer, etc. There has been some interest from the adj oining land owner to have that land as part of his. Which would be a good since the City would no longer need to maintain that property and there is no value other than easements to run utilities. On the other side there is a piece of parcel that is potentially buildable. There is no sanitary, sewer, or water main service to that property. The City would advertise for bids for both properties with a minimum value. Mr. Rodeberg will work with Marc to set limits regarding buildability. With the one property, the question is how much the buyer should pay for assessments III getting the water back in order to make it a feasible home. The City is still working on that question. The best thing for the City would be to sell the properties so someone else is maintaining the properties, right now it is just a cost to the CIty. Part of the selling price of the north property would be maintaining the trail and landscaping would be the responsibility of the buyer. Long term replacement of the trail would be the City's resl?onsibility. Once the bids are received, the bids and limitations would need to be revIewed and approved by the council. The City looked at the property for public use but the property is not big enough have a public building. It is too small and in a bad location for a park. Council Member Arndt asked where roflid access would be for that road and Mr. Rodenberg confirmed it would only be from 131 Avenue cul-de-sac. Motion by Council Member Peterson, second by Council Member Stotts, to approve Advertising for Sale of Property. Motion carried unanimously. 10. MISCELLANEOUS (a) COMMUNICATIONS 1. FOLLOW-UP ON JANUARY VISIONARY WORKSHOP SESSION Tom Kloss, IT Director, discussed the Visionary Workshop rating spreadsheet. Gary Plotz, City Administrator, added several comments to the spreadsheet. Mr. Kloss discussed the scoring changes. Council Member Peterson's numbers are now included in the totals. Another change to the spreadsheet is the addition of the total number of voters column. This column will help weigh out the importance of the votes. Mr. Plotz will discuss the rating spreadsheet more at the next meeting 2. COMMUNICATION FROM COUNCIL MEMBER BILL ARNDT Mr. Niesen is going the to event center to bag food for hungry on Wednesday, February 11,2004 from 2:00 - 8:00 p.m. Council Member Arndt recommended that if anyone had time, they could come to the event center to see what Mr. Niesen is doing for the world hungry and help bag food. 3. COMMUNICATION FROM COUNCIL MEMBER KAY PETERSON Ms. Peterson reminded the council and public about the combined HRA Board and City Council meeting on February 17,2004 at 8:30 a.m. 5 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 10, 2004 4. COMMUNICATION FROM COUNCIL MEMBER CASEY STOTTS (a) Council Member Stotts asked Julie Wi schnack, Director of Planning, Zoning, and Building, to discuss the proposed questionnaire on the Planning, Zoning, and Building Department. Ms. Wi schnack had several questions for the Council. 1) Should she proceed with the proposed questionnaire and mailing and, if so, is the proposed mailing list acceptable. 2) Would there be a letter from the City Council accompanying the mailIng. 3) Would the Planning Commission members compile the results (there is a Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, February 17,2004, where this could be discussed). 4) Finally, what is the expected time frame. Mayor Torgerson asked what would be the cost of the survey? Ms. Wi schnack explained that the City would include a self stamped envelope so about $500 for a 700 piece mailing. The mayor recommended following the Excellence Process used a couple of years ago to see ifthere is a way the City can better serve the community since the CIty is here to serve the public. Ms. Wi schnack commented that the questionnaire is easy to follow and should not take long to complete. The mayor recommended that Ms. Wi schnack proceed with the questionnaire. He also recommended that, if a letter is included, it should come from the Planning Commission. The council makes decisions based mainly on what the opinions and decisions of the Planning Commission, they do most of the work surrounding the applications. The questionnaire should be started soon so the information can be compiled and reviewed before building season starts. Ms. Wi schnack added that the mailing list is ready so the questionnaire could go out at anytime but should probably wait until after the planning commission appoints a committee. She also recommended only giving two weeks for the questionnaire to be completed and returned to the Planmng Commission. Ms. Wi schnack said there did not need to be a letter if not wanted. Time frame should be soon. Wait to mail until after the planning commission appoints commi ttee. Council Member Haugen asked Ms. Wi schnack if there were additional questions she would like on the survey. She commented that it would depend on what the council wanted. There could certainly be a more detailed survey. If the council is just looking for some interaction with people, this is a good survey. Mr. Haugen also requested that the wording on the survey be changed a little (the "if no, why?" to "comment please") so the council can get general feedback both good and bad. Council Member Peterson added that the council could get more involved depending on results of this survey. Council Member Stotts would like to see a typed report given to a Planning Commission subcommittee (consisting of three members) to review and then that subcommittee would report findings to the council. (b) Council Member Stotts has contacted about 50% of the restaurant in Hutchinson regarding the smoking issue. Some people would like to see the City take the step forward to stop smokIng in eating establishments. Some people want the City to continue as it is now and leave it up to the owner of the restaurant. The comments are all over the board. Some of the restaurant owners have said that they would like to see this done but they do not want to do it on their own because they are afraid that they will lose too much business. Mr. Stotts and Terry Davis, Hutchinson Leader, will be getting opinions from the local restaurant owners and publishing 6 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 10, 2004 them in paper. Mr. Stotts will be following up with the restaurants that made changes three years ago and find out the results of those changes. Also, would also like to talk to owners that are thinking about making changes in the future or are going to buy a machine that will help with the smoke. (c) Mr. Stotts was contacted by Steve Cook regarding the consent agenda. Mr. Stotts informed the public that the council agenda is put out the Friday before the council meeting. If anyone has any questions or concerns regarding the consent agenda, they should contact a member of the council. The councIl member can then pull the item for discussion. The mayor added that the City Council has an open policy (anyone from the city can address the council) because the City Council believes they are there to provide a service. As far as the consent agenda is concerned, it does come out in advance so anyone can ask the City Council to pull it out for separate action. It would not be appropriate for the public to ask for something to be pulled from the consent agenda during the meeting since they can get the agenda in advance and talk to a council member about that item. The public can ask for clarification before or after the meeting but it would be very disruptive to do it during the meeting. (d) Council Member Stotts asked Steve Madson to confirm that he will be at the first council meeting in March to discuss the Compost Facility budget and upcoming milestones. 5. COMMUNICATION FROM FINANCE DIRECTOR KEN MERRILL Mr. Merrill, Finance Director, asked if the council would be available on February 24, 2004 at 4: 15 for a workshop regarding new water plant. Council Member Arndt and Peterson would not be able to make that time. Mr. Merrill will look for new date so everyone can be there. The mayor asked that the City start providing information to the public about the importance of building this new water plant so they can better understand the cost and need. Mr. Rodeberg commented that this one of the reasons for the workshop. Mr. Rodeberg also invited Council Member Stotts and Arndt to come to the City Center to meet with Staff to get the information about the water plant that was already provided to the other council members. 6. COMMUNICATION FROM MAYOR TORGERSON Mayor read one paragraph from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency regarding the Compliance Monitoring Survey that the State did on Hutchinson's waste water treatment plant. "The City is commended for the efforts to keep its sanitary infrastructure in good working order. Mr. De Vries and hi s staff are doing an excell ent job of operating and maintaining the City's wastewater treatment system. Similarly, the joint efforts of Mr. Rodeberg and WWTP staff to maintain compliance by industrial users with their respective city permits and ordinance are highly commended. The efforts by Ms. Graham is assisting the city of Glenco WWTP laboratory facility to come into compliance also deserve recongnition". The mayor commends the staff for their work. 11. CLAIMS, APPROPRIATIONS AND CONTRACT PAYMENTS Motion by Council Member Peterson, second by Council Member Stotts to approve claims, appropriations, and contract payments. 12. ADJOURN With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m. 7