Loading...
06-10-1980 CCMV MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 1980 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Westlund called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M., with the following mem- bers present: Aldermen Lueneburg, Gruenhagen and Beatty, in addition to Mayor Westlund. Absent: Alderman Peterson. Also present: Administrative Assistant Plotz and City Attorney Schantzen. 2. INVOCATION In the absence of a pastor, there was a time of silent prayer. 3. MINUTES The minutes of the Special Meeting of February 21, 1980; Regular Meeting of May 27, 1980; Special Meetings of May 23, 1980 and June 4, 1980, and June 6, 1980 were ap- proved as presented upon motion by Alderman Lueneburg, seconded by Alderman Beatty and carried unanimously. 4. PUBLIC HEARING - 8:00 P.M. (a) DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 4, DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN Mayor Westlund opened the hearing at 8:08 P.M. and read Publication No. 2295, Notice of Public Hearing on Development District Number 4. The Mayor commented that the proposed Development District Number 4 had cre- ated many questions in people's minds. The purpose of the hearing was to try to answer the questions, as well as listen to comments from the audience. He explained that District Number 4 was preventive maintenance to save the downtown business district from deterioration. The district would provide a means of financing off-street parking in Hutchinson. Area Number 4 rev- enues would be used for off-street parking only. The original proposal was for $2 million, with one-half the cost or $1 mil- lion to come from the revenues of the shopping center south of town for the off-street parking project. The remaining $1 million would be assessed di- rectly to the downtown property owners. A public hearing would have to be held on the assessments. To date it has not been held so the City does not know the reaction of the downtown to this project. The Development District Number 4 proposal was presented to the Planning Commission, School Board and County Commissioners. The County Commissioners were opposed to the project, and the Planning Commission objected to it. The School Board took no action on the matter. NO COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 10, 1980 The City Council decided an alternative proposal of $1.5 million should be considered, with $1 million to be assessed to the downtown property owners of the central business district and $500,000 from the proposed shopping development south of town. It was felt that if the business people pay for their parking, the City should do likewise since it occupies 20-25% of the downtown district. The City's assessment would amount to $500,000. Mayor Westlund reported he had met with the County Commissioners again to- day and presented the amended Development District Number 4 Plan. He felt the County should not oppose the tax increment method of financing the off- street project inasmuch as Hutchinson represents 30% of McLeod County. Also, the City of Hutchinson has its own law system and park system but still pays 60% toward county law enforcement and county parks. Mr. "Tip" Mills, Editor of The Hutchinson Leader, stated he favored the tax increment district and the use of the money for off-street parking. He felt the downtown needed all the help it could get. Since the shopping center south of town is posing a threat to the downtown, he felt it would be justice for it to provide the revenue for parking downtown. Also, he favored the downtown businessmen paying for their own parking. He further commented that he agreed with the comments about the City paying its share of tax revenues to the county. Mayor Westlund asked Clarence Simonowicz of C.R.S. & Associates to explain the Tax Increment Finance Plan. Consultant Simonowicz reiterated that the Development District Program/Tax Increment Finance Plan had been distributed to the school district, county and City boards. Since then, several changes were suggested by the attorneys and others. As previously stated by the Mayor, the project would be modified by reducing the amount to $1,500,000, with a limit of $500,000 of the incre- ment to come from Area Number 4 for the City's share, and the remainfing'amount to be assessed to the property owners in the downtown area. When the parking assessment bond was paid off, the district would self-destruct and normal pro- cedures would resume. The money from the district would be utilized for an off-street parking project. If the school district, county or City had a referendum to build a new facility within their jurisdiction, the City may enter into a special agreement to rebate back to them any additional taxes levied for debt service on referendum approved bond issues. Mr. Gayle Wick raised a question on page 36 of the Tax Increment Finance Plan book regarding the tax increments being available for bond retirement or De- velopment District use for a 25 year period. He then stated that since changes had been made in the proposal, the public hearing would have to be held again. He pointed out the members of the City Council change over the years, so the City should be careful that this plan is what they want before going into the project. The plans need to be solid, and look at what the tax increment is doing. Hutchinson doesn't need disrupted parking lots and crooked streets like downtown Willmar, but rather a shopping area that is conducive for peo- ple to go downtown. -2- COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 10, 1980 Mr. Simonowicz stated the project would have up to 25 years for capturing the expense, and tax increment bonds would be used. A limit would be set that the City could not go beyond unless another public hearing was held and the amount changed. No more than $500,000 would be paid off from the tax increment in Area Number 4. He further commented the purpose of the pub- lic hearing was for the public to review and comment on the proposal. Changes can be made in the proposal, and the City Council could act on it at this hearing. Mr. Wick inquired about the administrative expense. He was told by Con- sultant Simonowicz that none were cited in the plan. Mr. Jim DeMeyer stated there seemed to be confusion of items to be resolved and those to proceed with. It appeared there had been some thought and con- sideration given to modification to express the purpose of the project, which was somewhat acceptable. It is a trying situation to work out parking for downtown so the City must be careful so that the goals and aims have a pur- pose. Mr. DeMeyer remarked on the previous plan versus the present plan and the overlapping of use. He then inquired about the intent of a project for the S & L Building since part of that area is designated as a parking lot. He further commented he had received a phone call from George Schmidt, attorney for Developers Diversified, and he would like to review any changes in the plan. Mr. Simonowicz responded that if a project went in where there was proposed parking, that area would have to be replaced with another site. Mayor Westlund called on County Commissioner Clifford Popp for comments on the amended plan. Mr. Popp responded that this was a new proposal from that presented to the County Commissioners at their meeting on May 13, 1980. No action was taken by the Commissioners following the presentation today. Ac- tion was taken on the first proposal, which was unfavorable. Administrative Assistant Plotz introduced Mr. Bill Fahey, a financial con- sultant from Ehlers & Associates, and explained that Mr. Fahey had reviewed the plan and had been in contact with the Dorsey law firm regarding it. Mr. Fahey stated the question was whether or not government should partici- pate in parking lots. Parking meters have been on the down fall. Tax in- crement is a very reasonable source for revenue to strengthen the downtown. -3- COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 10, 1980 Mr. Fahey stated he had reviewed the plan and felt it was in order. There was no doubt there was tax money. If tax dollars go into a program, it is tax dollars. He felt the shopping center project was a reasonable source of increment revenue. Mr. Gayle Wick asked if Mr. Fahey represented the City and wanted to know if he had any financial interest in the project. He further stated these are general revenue bonds and the debts go back to the tax payers. Mr. Fahey responded the proposal makes use of the 459 Statute. It allows the building and construction of parking facilities, and the City must assess at least 50% of the cost. The $500,000 would be levied in the form of taxes. Each year they will cancel the levy when they sold the bonds. It is a mat- ter in which the tax dollars are derived. Mr. Wick asked what tax increment means. Mr. Fahey explained the tax increment financing. Mr. Wick responded that the shopping center was not creating tax increment. The project creates the tax, this is the true meaning of tax increment. Mr. Fahey answered that District Number 4 was a real tax increment district out of economic reasons. Mr. Wick commented the persons on Main Street are just like the old home owners; when the time comes for improvement, the businessmen will do it on their own. The City has to expand out; you can't keep it all on Main Street. There is natural growth. This project will destroy buildings and tax property instead of creating taxes. Mr. Orlin Henke asked who had made the decision to go ahead with the down- town parking. Mayor Westlund responded it was the Downtown Development District Advisory Board. Mr. Henke then asked what would happen if the downtown businessmen did not want to pay for this project. Mayor Westlund commented that in the latter part of July a public hearing would be held, and the assessment would be discussed. Mr. Jim Brodd commented that 50% has to be blighted. Consultant Simonowicz responded that the tax increment district can fall into one of three areas: redevelopment, housing or economic development— The evelopment—The total of the four areas have been determined to be a redevelopment area within the plan with a life time of_up to 25 years. -4- COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 10, 1980 Jim Brodd asked if District Number 4 was considered a blighted area. Mr. Simonowicz answered it was in its present condition. Mr. Duane Dickey commented he had searched for the meaning of tax increment financing. He remembered hearing that if the shopping center went in, the downtown would fail. He questioned how the City could take property that is now creating taxes and pay big prices for the land. Then take it off the tax rolls and clean up the lots. There are not increasing taxes in the down- town area but rather decreasing taxes. There must be an increase some place. Mr. Fahey agreed the concept that the downtown is decreasing in value is probably correct. However, activity within all the districts will increase the value, and the City will get taxable property. There is going to be a special assessment hearing for parking improvements downtown. When the assess- ments are certified, they will be part of the cash flow to make up the improve- ments. Mr. Fahey stated the improvement has to be put into shape before the details are worked out. Mr. Lee Bahr asked about the special assessments. Mr. Fahey explained that tax increment comes from taxes paid; it does not cause any new taxes. Alderman Beatty addressed himself to Mr. Wick's comments. He stated he had gone through the law on tax increment financing. Also, he was the one who had made the comment that two shopping centers could not work in Hutchinson. Mr. Beatty has been involved on the Downtown Advisory Board, and he has looked at the plan. The tax base of the downtown would suffer somewhat by the im- pact of the Hutchinson Mall. Therefore, it is time for the City to recognize the fact that empty buildings do not generate revenue. They need to consider a means of providing parking to keep the downtown going. Alderman Gruenhagen stated he wasn't sure what the big rush was to include District Number 4 into the tax increment district. There aren't too many actual business owners on the downtown board. Before establishing the dis- trict, he would like to hold a hearing with all the downtown businessmen or property owners present to give their opinion. He wanted to know how many are willing to pay for parking. Mr. Gruenhagen felt the City was depriving the tax payers of tax money from the new shopping center. He was in agree- ment with using blighted areas, but he could not see how a new area could be put on a tax increment. In considering the proposed parking lot, $1,500,000 property value would be destroyed, land resurfaced and owned by the City. Then the City would have to maintain it. This costs money. Since the fig- ures and plan have been changed, it should go back to the Planning Commission for another review. He felt action should be tabled until more clear-cut answers were available and a hearing for the business people had been held. -5- COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 10, 1980 Alderman Lueneburg stated the comments seem to imply that the proposed shop- ping center would give the downtown free parking. This is not true. In the past, all kinds of formulas had been worked out, and nothing ever developed. One-third of the project cost can be assessed to the tax increment district, with the other two-thirds coming from the downtown property owners. This provides an opportunity for the City to capture some money to pay their share of the project. If the City were to pay its own expense, it would be put on general taxes. If the City does not pay its share, the downtown parking will never be. The City must protect the tax base. The plan is not ideal, but it is a matter of compromise. The Council is trying to come to an intelli- gent decision. Mayor Westlund commented on holding the public hearing first. He had thought about having the assessment hearing prior to the public hearing, but the law states it must be done prior to the issuance of a building permit. Inasmuch as Developers Diversified would be making application for a permit sometime in July, it was felt the public hearing must be first. Mr. Gayle Wick asked who pays for old homes being fixed up -- those who own them. If he were in the downtown area, he would want tax money, too. The businessmen were taking advantage of a program that is available. However, this district will be in existence for a long time. Perhaps the Council is creating a tool for future use by anyone who wants to use it for some other purpose. The motion was made by Alderman Beatty to close the hearing at 9:30 P.M. The motion was seconded by Alderman Lueneburg and unanimously carried. Alderman Gruenhagen made the motion to table the item until the next regular Council meeting on June 24, 1980 in order for the Planning Commission to re- view the amended plan and the Developers Diversified's attorney to review the plan, and to be completed before July 1, 1980. The motion died for lack of a second. It was moved by Alderman Lueneburg that Development District Number 4 plan be adopted as amended. Seconded by Alderman Beatty, the motion carried, with Aldermen Lueneburg and Beatty and Mayor Westlund voting aye, and Alderman Gruenhagen voting nay. 5. COMMUNICATIONS, REQUESTS AND PETITIONS (a) CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR REDUCED TRASH AND REFUSE RATES: 1.LORRAINE WRIGHT 6. MABEL WELLING 2. LETTIE S. PETERSON 7. EMMA LAKE 3. MRS. EDNA NASS 8. GEORGE A. SKORPIK 4. ARTHUR WENDORFF 9. HUGO KUESTER 5. EDNA KLUENDER Im COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 10, 1980 After discussion, the motion was made by Alderman Gruenhagen, seconded by Alderman Lueneburg and carried unanimously, to approve the request for re- duced trash and refuse rates by the afore -named individuals. (b) CONSIDERATION OF PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT ON SHADY RIDGE ROAD Mayor Westlund stated a petition was received for curb and gutter improve- ments on Shady Ridge Road. In the past there had been opposition to the improvement project so the work was not done. Now it is up for considera- tion again. Alderman Peterson had submitted a memorandum expressing his favorable opinion on the matter. It was the City Engineer's recommendation to add this item to the City's 1981 improvement projects. Mayor Westlund commented the request had been presented too late for the 1980 improvement projects since the improvement projects and bonds had al- ready been let. It will, however, be placed on the 1981 project list, and a public hearing would be held at the time of the other hearings for 1981 projects. Marlene (Mrs. Bruce) Ericson of 456 Shady Ridge Road stated she had gone around with the petition for signature. There were several others who want the improvements but did not sign the petition. There is an existing water problem on her side of the street. They realized nothing would be done this year, but they would like to have a hearing date set for 1981. (c) CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST BY VINEYARD METHODIST CHURCH FOR LAOTIAN FAMILY TO PLANT GARDEN ON HIGH RISE PROPERTY Administrative Assistant Plotz explained the Laotian family who has recently moved to Hutchinson would like permission to plant a garden on the property of the proposed high rise site. There is a site already in existence, and they would like to use it until August. After discussion, the motion was made by Alderman Lueneburg, seconded by Alderman Beatty and unanimously carried, to approve the Laotian family plant- ing a garden on high rise property. 6. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (a) ORDINANCE NO. 11/80 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 464 CONCERNING ZONING REGULATIONS IN THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON AND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP Following discussion, it was moved by Alderman Lueneburg, seconded by Alder- man Gruenhagen and unanimously carried, to waive the second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 600 entitled An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 464 Concerning Zoning Regulations In the City of Hutchinson and the Official Zoning Map. -7- COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 10, 1980 (b) RESOLUTION NO. 6546 - RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE RELEASE OF 1980 LAWCON FUNDS AND TO RESTORE THE 1981 LAWCON FUNDING LEVEL After discussion, the motion was made by Alderman Lueneburg, seconded by Alderman Beatty and carried unanimously, to waive reading and adopt Resolu- tion No. 6546 entitled Resolution Requesting the Release of 1980 LAWCON Funds and To Restore the 1981 LAWCON Funding Level. (c) RESOLUTION NO. 6547 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO HUTCHINSON POST 96, AMERICAN LEGION Mayor Westlund expressed his appreciation on behalf of the City to the Amer- ican Legion, Post 96, for constructing a shelter at the Legion Memorial Park near the Oakland Cemetery. He then read Resolution No. 6547. Following discussion, it was moved by Alderman Gruenhagen, seconded by Alder- man Beatty and carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 6547 entitled Resolution of Appreciation to Hutchinson Post 96, American Legion. 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS (a) BUILDING OFFICIAL'S MONTHLY REPORT - MAY 1980 There being no discussion, the report was ordered by the Mayor to be received for filing. (b) MINUTES OF "SENIORS ACTIVITY CENTER" ADVISORY BOARD DATED MAY 6, 1980 There being no discussion, the minutes were ordered by the Mayor to be received for filing. (c) MINUTES OF HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION DATED APRIL 15, 1980 There being no discussion, the minutes were ordered by the Mayor to be received for filing. (d) MINUTES OF PARK AND RECREATION BOARD DATED APRIL 2, 1980 AND MAY 7, 1980 There being no discussion, the minutes were ordered by the Mayor to be received for filing. (e) MINUTES OF DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD DATED APRIL 22, 1980 AND MAY 6, 1980 There being no discussion, the minutes were ordered by the Mdyor to be received for filing. COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 10, 1980 (f) MINUTES OF CIVIC ARENA BOARD DATED MAY 21, 1980 Mayor Westlund reported that the last meeting of the Civic Arena Board would be held on June 18, 1980. The Board will be dissolved, and the Civic Arena will be placed under the jurisdiction of the Park and Recreation Board. The minutes were ordered by the Mayor to be received for filing. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (a) CONSIDERATION OF AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 464 CONCERNING PARKING REGU- LATIONS WITH FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION (DEFERRED MAY 27, 1980) Following discussion, it was moved by Alderman Beatty, seconded by Alderman Gruenhagen and carried unanimously, to waive the first reading of Ordinance No. 12/80 and set second reading for June 24, 1980. (b) CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAL PERMIT FOR USE OF BOULEVARD BY SWANKE MOTORS, INC. FOR DISPLAY OF VEHICLES (DEFERRED MAY 27, 1980) Mayor Westlund reported the Chief of Police had given a recommendation of ap- proval to the request by Swanke Motor to display new vehicles on Jefferson Street directly east of the body shop and continuing south to the main build- ing. He further commented on the ways in which special permit requests have been reviewed in the past and exceptions that have been made when dealers have asked for special use of the boulevard. Mr. Arle Schlecht, of Plowman's, stated that in the Leader it indicated this item had already been approved. He couldn't see using the tax payers' property for commercial property. Other dealers would like to have the same privilege, and he didn't understand why the Council approved of this type of thing. Mr. Schlecht had been in the same position as Mr. Swanke, but he wasn't allowed to use the boulevard so he didn't feel someone else should have this advantage. Also, displaying vehicles on the street would be using seven parking spaces on the east side of the street that would take away from other businesses, ie., the Elks. Following discussion, the motion was made by Alderman Gruenhagen to reject the request for parking cars on the boulevard or use of street and refrain from parking in spaces for Elks use. Seconded by Alderman Beatty, the motion unani- mously carried. (c) CONSIDERATION OF AWARDING BID FOR ELECTRICAL GENERATOR AND TRANSFER SWITCHES (BID PACKAGE A) FOR HUTCHINSON COMMUNITY HOSPITAL This item was withdrawn from the Agenda until the June 24, 1980 Council meeting. COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 10, 1980 (d) CONSIDERATION OF AWARDING BIDS FOR: 1) LETTING NO. 1 2) LETTING NO. 2 3) LETTING NO. 3 4) LETTING NO. 4 5) STREET MAINTENANCE MATERIAL City Engineer/Public Works Director Priebe recommended awarding bids to the following: Letting No. 1 - James W. Hanson Const. Co. Letting No. 2 - Progressive Cont., Inc. Letting No. 3 - Juul Contracting Co. Letting No. 4 - Juul Contracting Co. Street Maint. Material - L. N. Sickels Co. $255,991.00 - Base Bid & Alt. A 344,806.35 25,533.00 11,695.70 19,395.00 After discussion, Alderman Lueneburg made the motion to award bids as recom- mended by the City Engineer. The motion was seconded by Alderman Gruenhagen and unanimously carried. (See attached page for insert) (e) CONSIDERATION OF AWARDING BID FOR 1980 IMPROVEMENT BONDS The bids for the $900,000 Improvement Bonds of 1980 were opened this after- noon, and it was the recommendation of the City Attorney and Mr. Steven Matt- son of Juran & Moody, Inc. that the bid be awarded to First National Bank of Minneapolis at a purchase price of $889,200.00, total interest cost of $355- 860.00 and net interest rate of 6.083%. Following discussion, it was moved by Alderman Gruenhagen, seconded by Alder- man Lueneburg and carried unanimously, to award the bid for 1980 Improvement Bonds to First National Bank of Minneapolis. Alderman Gruenhagen made the motion to waive reading and adopt Resolution No. 6549 entitled Resolution Relating to $900,000 Improvement Bonds of 1980; Awarding the Sale Thereof. The motion was seconded by Alderman Lueneburg and unanimously carried. The motion was made by Alderman Gruenhagen, seconded by Alderman Lueneburg and carried unanimously, to waive reading and adopt Resolution No. 6550 en- titled Resolution Relating to $900,000 Improvement Bonds of 1980; Fixing Form and Details, Providing for Execution and Delivery Thereof and Security There- for and Levying Taxes for Payment Thereof. -10- COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 10, 1980 It was moved by Alderman Lueneburg, seconded by Alderman Gruenhagen and car- ried unanimously, to waive reading and adopt Resolution No. 6560 entitled Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Project 80-01, 80-03, 80-07 and 80-08 (Letting No. 1). It was moved by Alderman Lueneburg, seconded by Alderman Gruenhagen, and car- ried unanimously to waive reading and adopt Resolution No. 6561 entitled Reso- lution Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Project 80-02 and 80-04 (Let- ting No. 2). It was moved by Alderman Lueneburg, seconded by Alderman Gruenhagen and car- ried unanimously, to waive reading and adopt Resolution No. 6562 entitled Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Project 80-05 (Letting No. 3). It was moved by Alderman Lueneburg, seconded by Alderman Gruenhagen and car- ried unanimously, to waive reading and adopt Resolution No. 6563 entitled Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Project 80-06 (Letting No. 4). -10-1/2- COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 10, 1980 9. NEW BUSINESS (a) CONSIDERATION OF SOLICITING BIDS FOR REMOVAL OR DEMOLITION OF PROPERTY Administrative Assistant Plotz reported there are three buildings owned by the City which should be considered for removal or demolition; namely, the house at 65 Second Avenue N.E., the First National Bank Warehouse at 45 Second Avenue, and the house at 25 Franklin Street North. Two of the properties involve the agreement with the LAWCON program, and the third property is the house purchased from Hazel Baseman on contract for deed. Mrs. Baseman has consented to the demolition of the house with a continuation of the contract for deed. The Building Official inspected the house at 25 Franklin Street North and recommended demolition based on the condition of the structure. Also, Mr. Plotz mentioned the North Star Service Station has been acquired by the City. The former owner has been given the right to use the property until September 1, 1980, with the understanding the City must give a 30 -day notice if the property is needed prior to that date. It was recommended by Mr. Plotz that an August 1, 1980 bid opening date be set for the three properties mentioned to allow adequate time for the renters to relocate. After discussion, it was the consensus of the Council that the North Star Service Station, located at 205 Main Street North, also be included with the bids for removal or demolition, with the stipulation of a September 1, 1980 date. The motion was made by Alderman Gruenhagen, seconded by Alderman Lueneburg and carried unanimously, to solicit bids for the removal or demolition of the four above -stated properties, with an August 1, 1980 bid opening. (b) CONSIDERATION OF CHANGING CITY COUNCIL MEETING TIME TO 8:00 P.M. ON JUNE 24, 1980 A city-wide referendum election on a new fire/police station will be held on June 24, 1980; therefore, it will be necessary to begin the Council meeting at a later time. It was moved by Alderman Gruenhagen, seconded by Alderman Beatty and unani- mously carried, to approve the change in City Council meeting time to 8:00 P.M. on June 24, 1980. (c) CONSIDERATION OF SWIMMING INSTRUCTOR REPLACEMENT Following discussion, Alderman Gruenhagen moved to approve the employment of Tamie Moehring as a swimming instructor replacement. The motion was seconded by Alderman Beatty and unanimously carried. sire COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 10, 1980 (d) CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION FOR RETAIL "ON -SALE" NON -INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR LICENSE BY STREET RODS UNLIMITED After discussion, the motion was made by Alderman Beatty to approve the ap- plication for an "On -Sale" Non -Intoxicating Malt Liquor License by Street Rods Unlimited and issue said license. Seconded by Alderman Lueneburg, the motion carried unanimously. (e) CONSIDERATION OF REPAIR TO BLUFF STREET BRIDGE The City Engineer/Public Works Director Priebe reported Miller, Miller and Mac had submitted an estimate of $756.00 for repair of the bridge over the Crow River at Bluff Street. Following discussion, it was moved by Alderman Gruenhagen to approve the re- pair work on the Bluff Street Bridge by Miller, Miller and Mac, and to sub- mit the claim to the insurance company. The motion was seconded by Alderman Beatty and unanimously carried. (f) CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT OF DOUG MEIER AS MOTOR POOL SUPERVISOR, EFFECTIVE JUNE 30, 1980 The Motor Pool Supervisor is a new position in the City, and after inter- views were conducted Doug Meier was chosen for appointment. It was moved by Alderman Beatty, seconded by Alderman Gruenhagen and carried unanimously, to approve the appointment of Doug Meier as Motor Pool Supervisor. (g) CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT OF PENNY KLITZKE AS RECREATION SUPERVISOR, EFFECTIVE JULY 28, 1980 After discussion, the motion was made by Alderman Gruenhagen, seconded by Alderman Lueneburg and carried unanimously, to approve the appointment of Penny Klitzke as Recreation Supervisor. (h) CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZATION TO FILL POSITION OF PARK AND RECREATION SECRETARY, EFFECTIVE JULY 7, 1980 Following discussion, Alderman Lueneburg moved to approve filling the posi- tion of Park and Recreation Secretary and advertise for said opening. The motion was seconded by Alderman Gruenhagen and carried unanimously. (i) CONSIDERATION OF INSTALLING VENTILATION FANS IN PUMP HOUSES Administrative Assistant Plotz reported he had reviewed the problem in the pump houses. The motors over heat and stop pumping. It has been recommended by the engineers of the motor company that ventilation fans be installed to resolve the problem. Two proposals were received to do this work, and it is recommended that Quade's quotation in the amount of $1,785.00 be approved. -12- COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 10, 1980 After discussion, it was moved by Alderman Lueneburg, seconded by Alderman Gruenhagen and unanimously carried, to approve the installation of ventila- tion fans by Quade's. (j) CONSIDERATION OF ACQUISITION OF D. A. WESLOH PROPERTY (35 SECOND AVENUE N.E.) Administrative Assistant Plotz reported the last parcel to be acquired under the 1979 LAWCON (Parks) Grant would be the rental house at 35 Second Avenue Northeast. The property has been appraised at $25,000, and the owner((D. A. Wesloh) has verbally consented to selling the property at this price. He would also be eligible for a $2,500 relocation claim. The City Attorney would prepare the purchase agreement and complete the transaction. Following discussion, the motion was made by Alderman Lueneburg to approve the acquisition of the D. A. Wesloh property. Seconded by Alderman Beatty, the motion carried unanimously. (k) CONSIDERATION OF AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 6325 FOR ADJUSTMENT IN LENGTH OF FENCE ON EAST PROPERTY LINE Administrative Assistant Plotz explained the Conditional Use Permit for a PUD in Albert's First Addition which was approved on April 24, 1979 specified a privacy fence along the east property line of Lot 7 in Albert's First Addi- tion. One of the adjacent property owners, Ron Pribyl, has objected to the fence along his property line. He has, therefore, circulated a petition with signatures of all the other property owners in the area, with the exception of one individual, requesting the fence to begin at the northwest corner of the house on Lot 1, Block 2, Loren's Second Addition rather than South Grade Road. In addition, the Bob Ringstroms and Dan Natvigs want the fence installed as soon as possible. After discussion, it was agreed the fence length would be reduced beginning at 30" height from the rear line of the house on Lot 1, Block 2, Loren's Sec- ond Addition and graduate to 48", then to 6' height at point where it reaches the north line of said Lot 1; continue at 6' of height until the fence reaches a point of 25' south from the house on Lot 6; then go to 4' and to 30" at point at rear line of house on Lot 6, Block 2, Loren's Second Addition. The installation of the fence would be completed within a 30 -day period from the adoption of the amended Resolution No. 6548. The motion was made by Alderman Beatty to amend Resolution No. 6325 by reduc- ing the length of the fence so it would begin at the rear of the house on Lot 1, Block 2, Loren's Second Addition and continue to the rear of the house on Lot 6, Block 2, Loren's Second Addition, with a 30 -day period to complete the installation of the fence. The motion was seconded by Alderman Lueneburg and carried unanimously. -13- COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 10, 1980 It was moved by Alderman Beatty, seconded by Alderman Lueneburg and unani- mously carried, to waive reading and adopt Resolution No. 6548 entitled Reso- lution Amending Resolution No. 6325, Granting Conditional Use Permit Under Section 6.07, C-5 of Zoning Ordinance No. 464 for Amendment To and Extension of PUD. (1) CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT BOARD: 1.) MOTION TO MAKE MODIFICATION OF PARKING PROGRAM BE REDUCED TO $1,500,000 WITH A LIMIT OF $500,000 OF INCREMENT FROM AREA 4 FOR CITY'S SHARE AND REMAINDER AMOUNT ASSESSED TO BUSINESSES 2.) AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH TAXING JURISDICTION TO REBATE BACK TO THEM ANY ADDITIONAL TAXES LEVIED FOR DEBT SERVICE ON REFERENDUM APPROVED BOND ISSUES Mayor Westlund stated these recommendations had been covered in the Public Hearing. (m) CONSIDERATION OF EMPLOYMENT OF MERLE MEECE AS WATER -WASTEWATER UTILITY WORKER After discussion, the motion was made by Alderman Beatty, seconded by Alder- man Gruenhagen and carried unanimously, to approve the employment of Merle Meece as water -wastewater utility worker. (n) CONSIDERATION OF TEMPORARY SIGN PERMIT FOR HARDEE'S Mr. Joe Hichler, Manager of Hardee's, appeared before the Council and requested a temporary sign permit for a period of 30 days, beginning June 14, 1980. The sign would be a durable cloth banner attached to a wood frame 20' long and 3' wide, advertising "Breakfast." It would be fastened to the west side of the mansard roof wall of Hardee's. It was the recommendation of the Building Official to approve the temporary sign, with the stipulation that the sign installation, construction and fas- tening be done in a manner so as not to create a safety factor, and call for an inspection following installation and payment of the sign permit fee. Following discussion, Alderman Beatty moved to approve the temporary sign permit for Hardee's. Seconded by Alderman Lueneburg, the motion unanimously carried. (o) CONSIDERATION OF SURMOUNTABLE CURB Mr. Duane Dickey, President of DuMax, Inc., commented that he had discussed a new design of surmountable curb with the City Engineer. He pointed out there is a savings of cost on this type of curb since it doesn't have to be taken out for driveway openings. -14- COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 10, 1980 After discussion, it was moved by Alderman Gruenhagen to table the matter until the next meeting when the City Engineer would be present to answer questions. Seconded by Alderman Beatty, the motion carried unanimously. 10. MISCELLANEOUS (a) COMMUNICATIONS FROM CLERK -ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT Administrative Assistant Plotz informed the Council the date of June 24, 1980 had been established for businessmen to schedule an appointment to meet with Jim Junker and Council members to discuss commercial refuse billing prob- lems. The first appointment will begin at 10:00 A.M. and continue through the day. (b) COMMUNICATIONS FROM ARCHITECT JOHN KORNGIEBEL Architect John Korngiebel presented a drawing of the proposed fire/police station to be located on Washington and Hassan. He pointed out additional parking had been added to the plan for 8 and 10 spaces. The building will be one-story, with a partial unfinished basement. The cost of the facility will be $1,500,000. Mr. Korngiebel reported the material was ready for the brochures, and the handouts would be available the following week. Mr. Brad Emans, Chairman of the Building Committee for the Firemen, reported there would be an organizational meeting on June 11, 1980. There will also be telephone solicitation and door-to-door campaigning. The Chief of Police will be doing some speaking on the referendum. The Fire Chief has been work- ing with the Architect to get material ready for the printer, and there will be a series of promotions in the newspaper and several interviews. (c) COMMUNICATIONS FROM JIM HEIKES Consultant Clarence Simonowicz reported on a meeting held with Jim Heikes,re- cent owner of Hardware Hank, regarding relocation aid if the fire/police sta- tion referendum passes and the proposed site is acquired. Mr. Heikes stated he had three requests of the City: 1) the right to continue occupancy of the current hardware store until satisfactory new quarters are found, 2) state aid in relocation expense, and 3) a reasonable rent differ- ential for a period of up to two years, not to exceed 50%. He asked for a decision by noon on Monday, June 16, 1980. The Council was informed by Mr. Simonowicz that the City was obligated under state law to reimburse the moving expenses and, in residential cases, can pay a rent differential, but none was provided for commercial properties. Mayor Westlund stated the Council would have to give consideration to these requests. A special meeting of the Council was scheduled for June 16, 1980 at 9:30 A.M. to discuss this matter. -15- COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 10, 1980 (d) COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITY ATTORNEY The City Attorney reported he had a new contract from RCM for the repair of the entire bridge deck in the amount of $149,000.00. It would require the signature of the Mayor and City Clerk. 11. CLAIMS. APPROPRIATIONS AND CONTRACT PAYMENTS (a) VERIFIED CLAIMS It was moved by Alderman Lueneburg, seconded by Alderman Beatty and unani- mously carried, to approve the verified claims and authorize payment from the appropriate funds. 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned at 10:25 P.M. upon motion by Alderman Gruenhagen, seconded by Alderman Lueneburg and unanimously carried. -16-