Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-08-21 CC MIN• • • r 1. 2. • IP COUNCIL CHAMBER Stillwater, Minnesota August 21, 1979 7:30 P. M. REGULAR MEETING The meeting was called to order by President Junker. The Invocation was given by the City Clerk. Present: Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Harry Peterson, Roger Peterson, Powell and Mayor Junker Absent: None Also Present:Finance Director /Coordinator, Kriesel; City Clerk, Schnell; City Attorney, Magnuson; Superintendent of Public Works, Shelton; Public Safety Director, Abrahamson; Director of Parks and Recreation, Blekum; Consulting Engineers, Elliott; Building Official, Snelson Press: Stillwater Evening Gazette - Gilstrom Free Press - Lux WAVN - Gal Larson St. Paul Dispatch - Broede Citizens: Mr. & Mrs. Steven Roettger, Charles Pozzini, Gene Scheusner, William Curtis Clark Nyberg, Steven McCarten, Dr. F. M. Mc Carten, Don Raleigh, James Stevenson, Harold Kimmel, Greg Gerard, Marvel Old, Mrs. Almeda Krueger, Mr. & Mrs. George Schmitt, Bill Murray, Mr. & Mrs. Leo Lohmer, Mrs. Gary Hanson, Ralph Otte, Mr. & Mrs. Paul Halvorson, Mr. & Mrs. Richard Paul, Mr. & Mrs. F. W. Matschina, Burt Johnson, John Fournelle, Roland Kippenhan, Jr., Mr. Bubill, Vicky Long, Mr. Kydd, Mr. & Mrs. William Easton, Kevin Coleman INDIVIDUALS - DELEGATIONS Liquor License transfer for The Harbor - Gene Schleusner appeared along with Clack Nyberg and William A. Curtis, regarding the transfer from Joanne M. Barnett. MR. MAGNUSON stated that the Barnett's will have to release any interest that they have in the license - and that the approval be conditioned upon that release. CHIEF ABRAHAMSON reported that he checked out the three parties and they are all clear. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the Council authorized the transfer of the liquor license for The Harbor to Gene Schleusner, Clark Nyberg and William A. Curtis providing that they provide the City with a waiver or release signed by Joane M. Barnett, Effective September 15, 1979. (all in favor) RICHARD PAUL, 437 Northland Avenue, expressed his concern with a City Park that abuts his property - problems with teenagers playing "hard- ball" on this field and it has caused him problems with threats of breaking of windows in his home because he has chased them out of his garden - he was told by the developer when he moved in here some three years ago that after Orrin Thompson finished with that work that that field would be turned back into a park with trees planted in there - this field is not of a size to become an athletic field. He wanted to how if there was any intention of correcting the use of this park or what type of improvements are being proposed for the area - he was told earler this year that there was going to be playground equipment installed, but Mr. Blekum has no knowledge of same. MR. BLEKUM stated that this is a part of a park - originally it was left open to get accesr ro the Edgewood Ditch - is more than 150 feet deep. COUNCILMAN POWELL felt that if there was a sign put there that only softball would be allowec. in this area, but Mr. Paul felt tht they could also hit a softball pretty far and he also complained about the language that is being used by the kinds that play in the area which is rather offenseive - they also have organized soccer practice there. MR. BLKEUM asked if playground equipment would put a stop to this and MR. PAUL felt that this would be a good idea and he appreciated the pine trees that were planted there - if the City wants to make a ballfield, he requested that there be some type of barrier in the way of a nice looking redwood fence. 367 . • • • • • i • 368 • COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON felt that this should go to the Recreation Commission for their meeting on Thursday so that they could study the matter and make a recommendation. MR. BLEKUM stated that he would have the Recreation Commission take a look at this park on Thursday evening and whatever they recommend will cost money and he will be back to the Council. PETITIONS None August 21, 1979 PUBLIC HEARING This was the day and time for the public hearing on Local Improvement No. 175 for the matting of various streets in the City of Stillwater. Notice of the hearing was published in the Stillwater Evening Gazette, the official newspaper of the City, on August 9 and 16, 1979 and copies were mailed to all property owners proposed to be assessed. The Mayor opened the hearing. MR. ELLIOTT explained the streets to be matted in accordance with his feasibility study on this improvement. He proposed three methods of assessments as follows: OPTION NO. 1 OPTION 112 OPTION $3 Myrtle Street - Main to North Fifth 0 $2.50 $10.23 South Second - Myrtle to Olive 0 $2.50 $10.23 Chestnut - Main to South Third 0 $2.50 $10.23 Rainbow Court, Morningside Drive to West $12.00+ $2.50 + $10.23 + (1) Assessing only the residential street project (2) Using maximum State Aid- assessing the minimum amount of a uniform basis (about $44,000) (3) Using no Municipal State Aid Funds - assessing entire amount equally + plus the individual driveway impovement which are assess on a per lot basis HE CITED AN AVERAGE SITUATION FOR THE MATTING FOR A 600 FOOT BLOCK - 135 FEET DEPTH - the assessment policy in residential areas was to assess only 35% of the sideyards which results in some 47 feet on each side - in commercial areas there are no sideyards given on Commercial lots because of the unusual configuration of the lots - the estimated cost would result in about a $9.00 assessment on a resi- dential lot else where in the City that does not have the Municipal State Aid Benefit. He felt that it would be ideal to assess this uniformally throughout this entire improvement and that the Council did have such a policy for street construc- tion in the past using the average for a typical residential street - a range of at which would not which use a and then assess the future. He made mention of a letter regarding a drainage on Chestnut Street which is a typical problem - this is a separate problem and this should not hold up this surfacing project. (Schmoeckel property at 114 East Chestnut Street). He also made mention of the letter from Robert Anderson regarding the curb at 207 West Myrtle and he will take a look at this also. BERT JOHNSON, 803 Rainbow Court, felt that this was an awful lot of money for a comparably new street - the street definitely needs some work - it gets a lot of water and this was originally a swamp and felt that they were being penalized - the water undermines the driveways- also some of his neighbors feel the same way. JOHN RIURNELLE, 802 Rainbow Court, since he moved there has never driven a car on that street - he enters his garage on Morningside and he carries as much frontage on this street as Bert Johnson. MR. ELLIOTT stated that Rainbow Court shows more distress than any street in that whole area and it is retrievable now it would avoid the reconstruction of the street - there is a lot of patching to be done - this is the narrowest treet in the project, but it has the highest cost per foot - there is unusual problem - there will be substantial assessments as there are some substantial frontages - the $2.50 per front foot is the minimum that could be assessed as the City can only use $44,000 of Municipal State Funds - this $2.50 represents $23,300 divided by the total frontage available for assessments - the maximum that could be assessed would be $10.23 - it is somewhere between the $2.50 and the $10.23 - he said that the Council does not have to decide that this evening, but it would be desirable. These figures are only estimates and he hoped that the Council would act favorably on the project so that a date can be set for receiving bids, because it is late in the season for this type of work. He felt that on Rainbow Court that when the street was originally built by the developer that there should have been more sub -grade work done at that time. r s L • • • • mg • • r • August 21, 1979 COUNCILMAN POWELL sted that at one time the Council established a policy that because a person lived on a State Aid Street that they wouldn t necessarily get their street free -- they would pay the going rate of a street assessment and that also included matting - it was done on Myrtle and Pine Streets - the Council felt at that time that because you were fortunate enough to live on a State Aid street shouldn't necessarily mean that you got your street for free when everyone else had to pay. MAYOR JUNKER felt that if the people on Rainbow Court were charged $10.23 for the short time that street has been in, they have not been given a fair break. QUESTIONS were raised about the fact that if Rainbow Court paid $10.23 they would still be getting a good thal since their street is the most expensive to improve or mat. If the City gives a consideration now, then the next time that streets are matted they would have to be given the same consideration. MR. ELLIOTT stated that when a project is done without State Aid streets then the City has to assess the whole cost and that would at this time be about $9.00 per foot. In order to reduce this figure, the City would have to make sure that there is a State Aid Street on each project. In the Industrial Park they tried to even it out at $4,300 per acre for streets - yet the last street which Mr. Kern had quite an interest in there were no Municipal State Aid streets connected with the improvement of Washington from 63rd to Orleans and the cost if $7,500 per acre and the Council will have to proceed on that basis. QUESTIONS were rasied as to the last time that Myrtle Street was matted and Mr. Shelton stated in 1963 and Mr. Elliott stated that the stress on this street was due to the separation project which they did trench work for the storm sewer work. Discussion was held on the possibility of using $4.00 overall and Mr. Elliott cited what the totals would be for each of the streets involved. MAYOR JUNKER questioned why we could not go $4.00 per foot on all of the projects or streets and COUNCILMAN POWELL stated that we are breaking faith with the people that we charge the full load to - in the past the City has charged a full load of residential street - Myrtle Street was given by the State at no charge and the City assessed the normal street to every property owner as the Council felt at that time it was the policy that because you lived on a street that was designated a State Aid street that you should not necessarily get your street free and the neighbor around the corner paid what the normal charge was - that was a reasonable and fair way to do it - now if the City deviates from that it would be breaking faith with those that were assessed the full load. MAYOR JUNKER felt that we should next year do the same thing - take some regular streets and some State Aid streets and use the funds again. MR. ELLIOTT stated that if the assessments were $4.00, the City could get $23,000 in assessments and then the City could get all of the Municipal State Aid costs - 100% of them and then any excess can then be put in a street restoration fund and can be used for other projects - can be used for sealcoating. MAYOR JUNKER asked about the amount in the State Aid Fund and the Maintenance Fund and Mr. Elliott stated that the selacoating is taken out of the Maintenance Fund which is much smaller. The City receives about $140 each year for State Aid streets. MAYOR JUNKER also questioned why the City is not using the monies that we have on hand and he was informed that the City has been talking about repairing North Second Street with some of this money which is a State Aid street and that cost would be about $125.00 per running foot and the City could assess a portion of it and that the three or four hundred isn't all gravy - it won't be wasted. MR. ELLIOTT stated that the State polices have changed aid that three years ago they would not have allowed the use of State Aid monies for a matting project - reconstruction was the only use that could be done with those funds - he has reviewed this project with the State Engineer and it is an approved project - felt that policies are changing and likewise that the Council policies should change to some degree so long as there are some State monies that can be tapped to help on a matting project. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON felt that the assessment policy can be established at the Assessment Hearing - he, too, would favor using some of the State Aid money to offset the cost of the assessment for everyone - in other cases over the years that the City had street construction the City has taken State Aid funds for State Aid streets and lumped it in the pot more or less and averaged it against other streets which were just residential streets, but that the State Aid funds that the City received for the construction of the streets were lumped and the assessments were based on an average. 369 • • • 370 August 21, 1979 Discussion was held about the improvement of North Second Street and MR. ELLIOTT reminded the Council that they adopted a policy two or three months ago of five projects over the next five years and North Second Street was the first project on the list - the State had required that a five year plan be submitted. It was brought out that the State only participates in the right -of -way improvements and there is a whole area between Second and Third that is not their right -of -way - there should be some work done as far as storm sewers are concerned. COUNCILMAN POWELL ASKED IF THE CITY had State Aid money set aside and the City assesses for a project that money then still only can be used for State Aid streets - it couldn't be used for a storm sewer in connection with North Second Street. MR. ELLIOTT stated that it is his understanding that the City can assess a 100% State Aid Streets and you can also obtain 100% Municipal State Funding for it - the City could sealcoat with that money or build alleys with it and also a storm sewer. COUNCILMAN POWELL stated that if that becomes a problem, then this would be a reasonable way to use the surplus and that everyone pays for the City owned property through these taxes. ROLAND KIPPENHAN, 810 Rainbow Court, felt that the situation on Rainbow Court is an unusual one with a high estimate because of a lot of water damage and some surface erosion - they do not feel they should pay more than a fair share of the matting because they happen to live on a street where there is water damage. MAYOR JUNKER was in favor of $4.00 per foot for this project and possibly next year raise it to $6.00 per foot - he felt that $9.00 per foot was too much for a street that has had a lot of water damage that was not the fault of the home- owners. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON stated that he streets on the project are streets that have had unusual things happen to them over the last several years - if these things would not have happened they probably wouldn't have needed the matting - they could probably have been maintained through a series of sealcoatings and he did not feel that the City should have to do all residential or all State Aid streets at the same time on a project - work the two together. COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON stated that they were talking about what they assess people next year and the year after and he felt that it would be appropriate to arrive at a percentage of the full assessment so this year they would be talking about $10.23 a foot will be the full assessment with no State Aid - if they were to adopt the principle that the City assess at 50% of the full figure so that next year if the rate is $12.00 a foot, the City would assess it at 50% of the $12.00 and then progressively move it up - rather than set a dollar figure. MAYOR JUNKER agreed with that and a citizen stated that if 307, of the streets in the City were State Aid, then everyone could be at 70% of whatever the figure was for each year and this would give a fair ratio, of the State funds. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON stated that the State Aid streets amount to considerably less than 307, - more like 20% and then we are talking about 807, on a $10.23 estimated cost or about $8.00 per foot. COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK questioned if the City would be setting a precedent by doing this and COUNCILMAN POWELL stated that we would be - if the City wants to set a policy concerning matting that is okay -- THE MAYOR CLOSED THE HEARING. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, a resolution was introduced "ORDERING THE FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND DIRECTING THE CLERK TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS ON LOCAL IMPROVEMENT NO. 175 WITH BIDS RETURNABLE ON SEPTEMBER 7, 1979" AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Harry Peterson, Roger Peterson, Powell and Mayor Dunker NAYS - -None (see resolutions) On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the City Finance Officer was instructed that within the next month or month and a half to look into the possibility for establishing an assessment policy on the matting of streets which would take into consideration some use of State Aid Funds if possible. (all in favor) e rit 3 ∎ k I L a • • • 7 • • August 21, 1979 371 r 6 On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, a resolution was introduced "DIRECTING THE CLERK TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT NO. 167, SAID BIDS TO BE RETURNABLE ON SEPTEMBER 7, 1979 AT 11:00 A. M." (Lookout Street) AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Harry Peterson, Roger Peterson, Powell and Mayor Junker NAYS - -None (see resolutions) THE MAYOR DECLARED A RECESS FROM 8:35 to 8:45 P. M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilman Powell, the Council directed that the sewer project on North Harriet Street for Mr. Richard Muller be included with the storm sewer project on South Greeley Street. (all in favor) 2. CABLE TELEVISION -- DON RALEIGH, attorney for Mainline Cable Co. with the shareholders Dr. F. M. McCarten and Steven McCarten and also Bob Burull and Myron Wertz of Telephone & Data Systems, Inc. who will be acquiring some shares in Mainline Cable Co. and to put in the cable system. They appeared here two weeks ago in response to the City's notice to terminate the franchise of Mainline Cable Co. At that time he explained that the delay in completing the Cable T. V. system for the City of Stillwater was brought about by causes beyond a reasonable control of Mainline Cable Co. They also added that Mainline Cable Co. is now ready, willing and able to construct a cable T. V. system in this City and have it 957 completed by September first of 1980 and they are and able to put up a Performance Bond to guarantee completion at that time. They then asked that the City Council terminate the proceedings which were started to terminate the franchise - they asked that the City Council pass a resolution re- affirming the continued existence of that franchise. He believed that if he understood Mr. Magnuson's advice at the time that his advice to the Council was - that they have within theirdiscretion the power to reaffirm the continuing existence of this franchise under the provisions of Section 6 of the Ordinance which provides for excusing a delay in performance for causes beyond a reasonable control of the franchise holder. He felt that Mainline Cable Co. is legally entitled to have their franchise reaffirmed. HAROLD KIMMEL, attorney for Croix Cable Television, stated there is nothing in the records that there was a justifiable delay as far as the construction of this franchise is concerned. The franchisee was warned in 1971, which was two years after the issuance of the franchise, that if they didn't proceed, the Council might terminate their franchise - they came in 1973 and said that there had been problems beyond their control which were now rectified and that they would be in a position to proceed with the construction of this. They still did not do so which is some six years ago - they made no attempt to proceed with this until there was a cancellation. Mr. Raleigh has indicated that Mainline is in a position to proceed - that was not his understanding of this situation - it was his understanding that Mainline is transferring to a rew franchise holder which should require Council approval and that the City Council should be given the choice as to the company that is to build this system. He felt that the City should proceed with competitive bidding for the system and that would be justified by making certain that the City had the best possible company to operate the franchise and the best possible service under the code technology. GREG GERARD, Croix Cable Television, asked the Council to terminate the anti- quated Ordinance NO. 428 and call for new bids so that the City may review what cable television has to offer this community and decide which cable television company can best serve the needs of the community. Cable Television Franchise is a public trust - responsibility which is more than a commercial opportunity. He feels that the citizens of Stillwater have a deep love for their City - they have a Bide that he has been fostered by decades of city management which pride has been re- inforced by the quality of life that is virtually unmatched. For these reasons he believe that the City should have the very highest expectations for its cable television franchise. His company is uniquely qualified to meet these high expectations because it combines strong financial technical programming and operating credentials with management personnel who see cable television as a civic trust. He hoped that he would be given the chance to show the City his proposal - he was not asking for favors - preferential treatment or promises - he only asked that they look and see what the cable industry has to offer - take a fresh start and cancel Ordinance No. 428 - ask for bids and satisfy themselves that the company that the City choses to serve this community is one that is right for Stillwater. • • • • • • 372 August 21, 1979 DON RALEIGH stated that they are not asking for the transfer of this franchise - they are only asking that the Council reaffirm that Mainline Cable Co., as stated last week it is the intent that Mainline Cable Co. the present franchise holders will build the system, the McCartens will continue to hold the shares in that system and Telephone & Data Dystems will also become shareholders in that company - they do not propose a change of franchisee - they are only asking that the existing franchise be reaffirmed. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON felt that it would be wise for the City Attorney to tell the Council what their options are on this - what options are open. DAVID MAGNUSON felt there are essentially two options and that they are quite clear. First, it would be within the Council's discretion as the governing body of the municipality to determine whether the excuses that Mainline has offered are good excuses and that is - their non - compliance is due to reasons beyond their control. If you find that, I think it would be within your discretion to reaffirm the franchise. On the other hand I think it is within your discretion to cancel the franchise and that would trigger the determination by the State Cable Board of the new cable service area and it would compel any new franchise to be done on a com- petitive bidding basis and it would also require a condition to that that any franchise would have to be ratified by the voters as the charter requires this. Even though it does say in the Joint Powers setup, I think conditionally Bayport and Oak Park Heights, just as a point of information have suspended any action on their cancel lation proceedings I think because we were requested to take the lead. COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK asked the City Attorney, if we ought to cancel the present franchise we do have to go to a referendum and a vote of the people which would be on the next year's falltallot or a special election if that • %as correct and he said it was - assuming that the City could send out the invitation to bidders with a return date and do all of that and grant a franchise prior to the next general election - if not you wait until the next year or you have a special election and he thought there was a provision in the rules that you could charge the person who wins the franchise with the cost of conducting that election if it were a special election. MAYOR JUNKER asked if the Council were not to take any action not to suspend or revoke the franchise, they would be able to proceed with cable television at the present time. MR. MAGNUSON stated that there is one more step - they have to get a certification from the State Board - if that is not done, then it is the board's discretion. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON asked why the certification had been gotten and MR. MAGNUSON stated as he saw it that the requirement was not there until 1973. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON then asked Mr. Raleigh why Mainline Cable Co. has not gotten this certification if this was not required until 1973. MR. BURULL responded by stating that as he understood it there was a beginning to give a certification process and it was bogged down and for what reasons he was not sure - probably it falls back again upon the principal reason for not building in the first place which was an economic reason which was outlined in the memo from the communications board in 1977 -78 which talks about the cities in this area, a very low, low pertration for those areas that did have cable - Bloomington had 10% in 1977 and 15% now and the Communications Board spoke very strongly to those economic reasons why there simply were not any cables built into this area - it was just not feasible. If they are encouraged to go on with the franchise here, the certification process would take place immediately on their part, go before the Communications Board with the plan for this City and come to the City first - it would be a plan that would meet their certification procedures - a maximum plan - he felt that it should not take too long as they Council first - are nterestd in cble the 1 Council e either a appro approves disapproves that h directs h the the Mainline Cable Co. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON then asked Steven McCarten about the certification and STEVE MC CARTEN responded that the application for certification had been put in at the time - as to why the State did not respond he could not answer for the State or the Cable Board and did not personally follow up on it until the co company en d of 1978 - the that actually applied fo t that was the certification and apparently M they l w did follow on this. MAYOR JUNKER asked about putting the franchise to the voters and MR. MAGNUSON stated that the procedure is - the charter says that no franchise is effective unless it is approved by the voters - we would prepare an invitation for bids along with specifications - seek the assistance of the Cable Board - based upon these bids that are submitted competively the City would chose the one that gives them the better deal and grant the franchise to them - the same kind, but a little bit different from the one that we gave to the McCarten's and then would have to be ratified before it was effective by the voters. L • a • • • r i 1 • • 0 w August 21, 1979 VICKY LONG, MINNESOTA CABLE T. V. BOARD - stated that she had been in contact with the City Attorney and that the certification process is not a guaranteed process because the franchise was never certified at the State level - the company would have to come in for an interpretation of the rules and at that time it would depend upon what that interpretation was as to whether or not they could he certified. She responded that the McCartens did make application for certificacion, but no action was taken and she did not know the reason since she was not with the Board at that time. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON asked when they normally receive a request for certification, is there some action taken other than just disregarding it - would there be a letter of some sort sent to the petitioner informing them that you were not taking action and that they should do something. MS. LONG - this happened when the Board was first established and they were going through a process of "grandfathering" systems - allowing a certain amount of time for systems to come up to date to the regulations that were just put into effect - it was at that time that this was happening - it wouldn't be the same thing now and would not run into that problem now. According to the records there was contact between the company and the staff people of the board - there were letters back and forth - no request is ever ignored. MAYOR JUNKER asked if the Cable Board has issued any franchises in the State of Minnesota up until now. MS. LONG - the Cable Board does not issue the franchises - there has been quite a bit of activity since the Board was established - they certify franchises that they meet the current standards and this is currently happening all over the state. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON asked since 1973 have there been any systems built within the Metropolitan area and MS. LONG stated that there are several systems operating right now - four systems operating in the southern part of the Twin Cities and two operating within the suburbs of Minneapolis. DON RALEIGH - he has read the statutes regarding regulations pertaining to certification - they believe that they will be able to be certified - no reason why they can't, but since the notice of termination they have come forward now to try to put this together to determine that the proper thing to do is first get the franchise cleared so that they know what they are asking for - statute regulations permit the Cable Board to certify the exist- ing franchise, but after that they have to make sure that they have an existing franchise. In 1973 it just wasnt economically practical to put this together and they were floundering trying to work on it - the Cable Board was newly setup and not functioning as efficiently as now and no one here in the City inquired either it just wasn't a feasible thing and it has just recently become practical and that is why the interest and that is why the Board is functioning now and they believe that it can be done - it is the current economic practicality that makes it important that the franchise not be terminated. QUESTIONS were asked about the number operating in the area and MR. BURULL stated that Bloomington last year had only a 10% penetration and the outcome was that they were sold. Fridley was 15% and they are about 17% today - that is simply not a break -even profitable operation by any measure - it is a lot worse for a community to start and then go broke and have to sit there and have a Council sit around to try to figure out what to do with the wires on the poles and get another buyer in that community that they didn't want in the first place and that is what is happening to some of these systems - there were a lot of systems that were built in the early 70's and there were a lot of systems that went broke in the 70's and those systems that were built within the major market area such as Minneapolis and the Twin Cities absolutely dia to make it. not have a are losing a money - thishreallysbecomeseaf egulatedgmonopoly. they MR. KIMMEL - Mr. Burull suggested that some of the companies have gone broke and that is not the situation as he understands it - one of those companies was Metro Cable T. V. Company which he has referred to which essentially was the holder of 90% to 80% of this franchise at a point, but he said when this franchise was issued there was never any discussion about whether it was going to be profitable - the only discussion was whether it was going to be built - at no point and time did the franchise holder come to the City and ask for relief - in other words to say that this is not a practical situation - we are sorry we came in here and said that we could build it and we can't, they just dropped the issue and he felt that was their point - they dropped the issue - they let it slide - they didn't ask for default they are ih situation and he felt that they , . , °r' '- that the franchise should be cancelled and that they should proceed. He asked Ms. Long that he believe that it was a provision of the State Law that those fran- chises that were issued prior to 1973 had one year to become operational and then after 1973 if they wishes and he understood that the Cable T. V. Board has 373 ` a • • • • • 374 August 21, 1979 not enforced that regulation and MS. LONG responded that there were several commissions that worked on the "grandfathering" process that would allow for certain provisions and that it would take an interpretation of their attorney on such matters. DON RALEIGH stated that there are several sub - divisions in the statutes - under 238.09. Subdivision 5 which states that the Cable Board does have power to certify this franchise. There is mother section that relates to franchies not put into servide for 1973 and he felt that they were the alternative in their opinion. HAROLD KIND EL stated that they may have an alternative, but the point is that the Cable T. V. Board does not have to certify this franchise under the terms of the statutes - they have no guarantee of certification even though the City does not cancel it. DON RALEIGH stated that they don't claim a guarantee, but they do have a right to ask for it - McCarten did not come in here since 1973 and say that we are having trouble putting this together, would you excuse it. He feltthat they rightfully relied on the the terms of the ordinance which provides a cancellation procedure - when the City felt that it was important to find out what the cir- cumstances were, they sent the notice and Mainline Cable Co. responded and they tried to explain and feel that they should have a chance to try to get certified and put this system into effect. On motion of Councilman Harry Peterson, seconded by Councilman Powell, that the Council pass resolution continuing the validity of the existing franchise with Mainline Cable Co. m fl fei DISCUSSION COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON had a phone call from a party who has not been at the Council meetings who indicated some interast in the outcome of what may or may not happen, so it appeared to him there are three basically interested in the Cable T. V. Franchise - we have had this franchise for 11 years with no action taking place during this period of time - in fairness to the people of Stillwater, there are three parties interested in the franchise - he felt that if it were let out for bids you may get a better proposal or a better deal for the citizens. In 1968 the City did not take bids or accept proposals - there was a proposer - the McCartens at that time it was put up for a referendum and it passed, but now there are more people interested and apparently it is profitable now - we could possibly get a better deal if it is put up for bids - felt they would get at least three proposals and did not feel that there would be that much of a delay - 11 years the or so muchldifferencet- and endtup betteropropos that al. COUNCILMAN POWELL withdrew his second go the above motion - he, too, would like to see local people get it, but this really doesn't preclude them from still getting it - he felt that it was proper to look at which might be the best deal for the City so that - of Stillwater it to turn down omebody local, bu t tt and that doesn't is hard preclude them from the bidding process. (There was not another second for Councilman Harry Peterson's motion) COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON made a motion to introduce a resolution "TO TERMINATE ORDINANCE NO. 428 THE CABLE T. V. FRANCHISE ORDINANCE" becuase of the fact that the ordinance has been in effect for eleven years - there has been little or no action taken during this period of time - there has apparently been some interest generated during the last several months which apparently has approximately three potential bidders involved - he felt that it would be to the best interest of the citizens of Stillwater to re- advertise for proposals on the Cable T. V. Franchise to see which of the proposers will present the better deal for the people. COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK seconded the motion. VOTE ON THE MOTION - AYES --3 - Coun c c ileos a n Bo PCouncilmen Harry NAYS - -1 - Mayor Junker ABSTAINED - Councilman Powell ROLL CALL ON THE RESOLUTION - Ayes -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Harry Peterson, Roger Peterson and Powell Nays - -Mayor Junker (see resolutions) • • • • 9 • • • 0 i 6 or August 21, 1979 3. MR. WILLIAM EASTON appeared before the City Council as a representative of the neighbors of the Shelter Home at 306 West Olive Street to express their concerns on the operation of his home. MR. MAGNUSON stated that the Ordinance does not specifically require that residential facilities need a conditional or special use permit - it requires that institutional or rooming houses need conditional use permits, but it doesn't specifically provide that residential facilities need one - it. such cases the Minnesota Statutes provide that if not provided otherwise in local zoning ordinance, that these are permitted uses in multi- family districts which is what this is. MR. EASTON felt that this qualifies as an institutional building or rooming house. This Group Home as it is called is licensed by the State of Minnesota thru the Public Welfare Department under the Public Welfare Licensing Act. The current license was issued effective May 1st of this year - it authorizes the home to have not to exceed 14 children between the ages of 10 and 18 and the home is being operated at the present time on that basis. They have checked to see if the home has complied with the terms of that license - they chose the month of May, 1979 and this indicated that for about two- thirds of that month the home had more than the authorized number of children in residence. The people feel that they are not in compliance with their license and they have concern that the supervisory help there is not adequate to handle the situation. Under the statutes a group home in this situation that is with this number of children is considered multi - residential and it also states that the municipality concerned may require the obtaining of a conditional use permit to operate such a home, if its ordinances does not already permit it. If he understands Mr. Magnuson's opinion correctly, the City's Ordinance does not spcifically authorize such an operation as this - it is use which would ordinarily require a Conditional Use Permit. The purpose of the statutes:is to give a preferred statues to these homes as they serve a public social purpose and they are needed. They simply would like the City to require that Mr. Anderson come in to get a Conditional Use Permit so that the usual procedures may be followed and others maybe heard and Mr. Anderson could state how he is complying with the terms of his license and the terms of the statutes with respect to the number of residents and also with respect to the supervision of them. He stated that the neighbors have talked to Mr. Anderson since the last meeting and also with his attorney, Jim Lammers. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON made reference to a letter received this date from Mr. Lammers regarding the permit for such a home and the staffing and in this letter it stated that the law requires one staff person for each eight residents and at the ¢esent time the facility has seven full time staff people which is far in excess of the minimum requirements. MR. EASTON stated that the principal purpose of coming to the Council is to get the City interested in this matter - they have never been consulted by anybody concerning this matter and felt that this is not fair to the people that live in that area - they feel that if they are required to get a condi- tional use permit, that it would involve the City in the situation and give the people a chance to be heard and also to give them a chance to hear the information from the people who are actually operating the home as to just how they intend to go about doing it. If there were ten or fewer, there are no permits required at all - only the licensing by the State. COUNCILMAN POWELL asked if the City did require a Condit °onal Use Permit and there was a hearing what would be some of the points that would be brought out. MR. EASTON assumed that the conditions laid down should be those designed to provide for the physical safety and the proper supervision of the children living in the home and require that he comply strictly with the terms of any license that is granted to him in the State of Minnesota. MAYOR JUNKER asked if the home has caused any problems and MR. EASTON stated that he had not personally - he has consulted the Police Department and there have been a coupe of incidents that have required the use of the police. GEORGE SCHMITT, 208 West Chestnut, stated that the issue here is when the home started out it was licensed for 8, then up to 10 and it is now up to 14 or 16 and if you were a neighbor you ought to be concerned as you keep adding numbers you are going to have problems. COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK, felt that what the neighbors are really fearing are that he started at 8 as stated and what is stopping him from getting more than the 14 that it was just increased to - what they are fearing that next year at this time they might have 22 or 24 and that is their concern. That is what they are trying to express to us - it is not what is legal. The City would not be the one to specify how these children would be treated inside that home and it would not be up to the City to enfr:ce that. COUNCILMAN POWELL felt that it was proper to require a Conditional Use Permit 375 ° ° • r • • 376 • August 21, 1979 because if he were a neighbor, he certainly would like to know what is going on- he did not feel that the neighbors are going to make it tough - at least they have a right to know and being a representative of all of the people of Still- water it is reasonable that the City would exercise some control - if things are let to go beyond the point where they feel it is proper, then the City would have that control with a Conditional Use Permit - he did not feel that would hurt Dick Anderson one bit - it does say that the City cannot be any more strict than the state requirements provide which protects Mr. Anderson more than it protects the people. COUNCILMAN POWELL moved that the City consider a Conditional use Permit and hold a hearing on the Anderson Shelter Home at 306 West Olive Street on September 11, 1979. COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK seconded the motion. Discussion was held about the policing of the number of residents that are actually living at the home and it was felt that there are problems in enforcing this as we cannot have a policeman up there every night. COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON questioned the police power if the Council holds the hearing and Mr. Anderson does not appear and he does not comply with the regula- tions. MR. MAGNUSON stated that the City can't be more restrictive in the conditions that we impose on this use than we are on any other use within that district - the restrictions imposed on the Conditional Use Permit are normally hours of operation, screening, glare from parking and felt that it was not within their discretion to do that. The Statutes provide that if there are more than 16 kids there that it does not enjoy any statutory protection - the statutes provide a limit of 16 - if it goes beyond 16, the City could possibly shut it down - if it is under 16, it would be dealing with the administrative funtions of the home and did not feel that the City had any business doing that - any condition that the City could impose on there are very limited - there are very few things that they can actually do. If he refuses to attend, the City could bring action against him according to the Deparrment of Public Welfare the considerations involved in granting a license are contigious - they are very aware of what sort of report these license holders have with the community - they want them to get along with their neighbor- hood. COUNCILMAN POWELL asked the City attorney in light of what he had just said, is a motion for a Conditional Use Permit a good motion - is the City doing something reasonable - if the motion would not give the City control - then the motion is not all that good. MR. MAGNUSON stated that legally they could have required that he do this two years go but after he has been operating for almost two years, he felt that it was too late - when somone goes into business based upon an action that the municipality took at that time and a reasonable action, that is a reasonable interpretation of the statutes that the City is bound by that action and can't change your minds. What the Council could do now, he thought, is impose some conditions on him and treat them as a lawful condition and that is what he is as long as the conditions are reasonable and he did not feel that they are going to address all of the cocerns of Council's discretion neighborhood do He felt t that e the t Council e could limit titltor the 16 which is the statute limit. MAYOR JUNKER asked the City Attorney if he could draw up some provisions that he felt that were reasonable and by the next Council meeting present them to the Council and take a look at them and then vote on them instead of having the public hearing and there would be a copy available to every neighbor who • meted to pick up a copy at the City Hall. Councilwoman Bodlovick withdrew her second to the motion and Councilman Powell withdrew his motion for the public hearing on the Shelter Home at 306 West Olive Street. This would be action that the Council would like to have the neighbors look at and then if they think it is fair and the Council does this would be preliminary action to a Conditional Use Permit - if the Council told Mr. Anderson that 16 was his limit, then the need for a Conditional Use Permit would be minimized even more - it establishes something that the neighbors can feel comfortable with. COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON felt that we should not be too much concerned about the numbers as they will be in and out of there before they are caught - he could not help be somewhat sympathetic to the overflow situation - they come and go and he was not opposed to stopping the general overflow. s BIM 1I l • • • • • 4 • 5 g • • August 21, 1979 37I • 0 INDIVIDUALS - DELEGATIONS 1. Mr. W. F. Matschi. , 2412 Driftwood Lane, appeared before the City Council regarding an accident that his five year old son had on a street in Croixwood which was recently sealcoated - and explained the nature of his injuries - he realized that the streets have to be sealcoated, but felt that there must I 0 be a safer material that could be used. MR. SHELTON stated that the rocks that he was complaining about were bigger rocks than the trap -rock - this rock has to stay there one to two weeks to complete the job - he explained that the larger rocks that are in the street do not come out of the trap -rock machine spreader - he felt that some of those larger rocks come off the vacant lots in the area. MAYOR JUNKER ask that Mr. Shelton go out and sweep the street again and that an alternative be looked into for the future. bA W VINO MAYOR JUNKER said these conditions could be drawn up by a week from Friday and could be picked up by Mr. Easton and his neighbors. NEW BUSINESS 1. On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilman Harry Peterson, a resolution was introduced "AUTHORIZING 'NO PARKING' ON NORTH OWENS STREET BY THE STONEBRIDGE SCHOOL ". AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen H. Peterson, R. Peterson, Powell and Mayor Junker NAYS- -None (see resolutions) 2. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, a resolution was introduced "DIRECTING THE PAYMENT OF THE BILLS ". AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen H. Peterson, R. Peterson, Powell, and Mayor Junker NAYS - -None (see resolutions) 2. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, a resolution was introduced "CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL FOR A COMMERCIAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL ACT AUTHORIZING THE PUBLICATION OF A NOTICE OF SAID HEARING ". (Spirit of St. Croix Office Building) AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen H. Peterson, R. Peterson, Powell and Mayor Junker NAYS - -None (see resolutions) 3. STEVEN ROETTGER, 201 West Olive Street, appeared before the City Council regarding the costs for thawing his sewer line - he refused to sign the release and accept the check for $100.00. MR. ELLIOTT explained the location of the sewer line and the problems to the Council. The sewer is only about three feet deep at one point because of the elevation of the house - in the past there was a lot of snow cover in this area and it went into the old sewer line - this has been in since 1971 -72 and the first problem that occurred was one that was related to the fact that the water was left on - a trickle - the water was left on with an agreement with the Water Department and there is not that great difference between tap water in the winter and the freezing temperature - sewage is 50 degrees on an average - he felt that the problem was related to cold tap water which was being used to un into a very shallow sewer - he felt that the solution would be to insulate the water service so that they do not have to leave the water on. (Mr. Roettger indicated that he did insulate the water service and it still freezes up.) Mr. Elliott stated that the other solution would be to dig up the sewer service and insulate it - this would be for a length of about sixty feet. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the Council authorized the payment of $175.00 to Steven Roettger for thawing his sewer and that Mr. Roettger sign an agreement that he not charge the City if the sewer line freezes due to his running the tap water again. (all in favor) 4. KEVIN COLEMAN appeared before the City Council requesting a permit for a Bachelor Party at the Labor Temple on September 7, 1979 from 7:00 P. M. to 1:00 A. M. On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilman Powell, the Council granted permission for the Bachelor Party at the Labor Temple and that the number not exceed fifty people. (all in favor) a • • • mi k • • 378 August 21, 1979 APPLICATIONS On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the following Contractor's Licenses were approved: (all in favor) Steven Daniels General New Route #2, Box 318 -G, Somerset Keller Construction General Renewal 421 Second St., Hudson 54016 A. J. Spanjers Co., Inc. 6351 North Lila Drive, Minneapolis 55430 Masonry & Brick Work Renewal Sweeney Construction General New 11969 Ironwood Ave. N., Stillwater ----On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the Council Das Wurst 312 South MainKStreeO, Still all i in favor - renewal) COMMUNICATIONS From Carl Dale regarding Planning Analysis and Recommendations - proposed Oak Glen (Johnson) subsivision and Comprehensive Municipal Plan of Oak Park Heights. (No action taken) (This information was given to the Council for the Master Planning Meeting to be held on August 27, 1979) From Press On, Inc. to Duane Elliott regarding the Oasis Pond Drainage Plan. Mr. Elliott stated that he is not sure that they can satisfy the request - what they are asking for IS that the pond be maintained as high as possible to aesthetically affect their buildings - they are concerned about the high level because of a hundred year storm. CHIEF ABRAHAMSON had a call from a woman who felt that the pond is rather close to the road and that some kid could fall into it if it got too high. CITY CLERK'S REPORT None CITY COORDINATOR'S REPORT 1. Mr. Kriesel informed the City Council that Blue Cross -Blue Shield rates are increasing and there is an option to go with mandated benefits, the rates are $3,243; if the City signs a waiver the rates are $31.71 for single coverage - for family coverage without the mandated benefits it is $79.75;with the mandated benefits it is $82.45. What this amounts to is about a fifteen hundred dollar increase overall and it amounted to about a one thousand dollar increase if the City signed the waiver. What the waiver does is that any charge over $150.00, the City would have to pick it up. The Council directed that the City should not get involved in that matter. 2. Mr. Kriesel informed the Council that the County Assessor called him last week and stated that he is going to make a recommendation to the Washington County Board to increase the assessment fees to $2.75 per plat which would bring Stillwater's bill up to $13,000. 3. Discussion was held on the pension increase for the Stillwater Fire Relief Association pension from $600.00 to $1,000.00 per month. There would be no cost to the City if it went from $600.00 to $900.00, but if it went to $1,000 then there would be a cost of $5,862.00 to the City, this would be for 1980. MAYOR JUNKER asked that the Council study this until the next regular meeting. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON reminded the Council that every member of the regular Fire Department are members of this assochtion and when they retire and after twenty years as it presently sits they could get a check for $12,000 and he felt that this is additional salary. 4. Mr. Kriesel informed the Council that he has now received the tax figures from the Department of Revenue and he is currently putting the figures together and in about two weeks he will be ready to have Budget meetings - immediately after Labor Day. 0 DR ; • • • • • 1 • • 0 August 21, 1979 r •■ CONSULTING ENGINEER'S REPORT 1. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, a resolution was introduced "ALLOWING USE OF MUNICIPAL STATE FUNDS FOR OFF SYSTEMS WORK ON COUNTY HIGHWAY 23 (CHESTNUT STREET) IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,090.00. AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen H. Peterson, R. Peterson, Powell and Mayor Junker NAYS- -None (see resolutions) 2. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilman Powell, a resolution was introduced AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND THE CITY CLERK TO SIGN THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE FRONTAGE ROAD IMPROVEMENT ON HIGHWAY 212" (The State will pay for the frontage road with the exception of the short piece of Washington Avenue which the City will have to pay from Municipal State Aid Funds - the State will also pay for some of the construction engineering which he was not aware of before when he made his report). 3. MR. ELLIOTT reported to the City Council on the request from the DNR regarding the David Johnson Development and that the local government is requested to respond to. MR. MAGNUSON stated that this is a request from David Johnson to excavate and dredge Brown's Creek. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, Mr. Elliott was directed to prepare a response to the request made to the DNR by David Johnson for his development. (all in favor) 4. On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilman Roger Peterson, the Council instructed Short - Elliott- Hendrickson, Inc. to prepare the assessment roll on Local Improvement No. 157. (all in favor) 5. MR. ELLIOTT reported that the ravine on North Second Street is eroding and is responsible for plugging the inlets to the storm sewer which causes water to go over the prison wall and down onto Muller's property - he checked to see if Soil Conservation Funds are available for work in connection with that and there are no funds this year - maybe next year. There is a similar project in South St.Paul in which they did fund a share of the construction cost - it involves an engineering report - what Mr. Shelton is doing won't stop the debris from going down there - they are trying to keep that inlet from plugging up. The City can't go to the Soil Conservation without some type of study - something that the Council will have to think about. PUBLIC SAFETY None PUBLIC WORKS None PARKS & RECREATION None ADMINISTRATIVE None COMMITTEE REPORTS CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT, 1. MR. MAGNUSON reported that the Johnson Annexation hearings will resume on Thursday and Friday of this week and invited the Council members to come .ip and testify if they would like. 2. Questions were asked about the Nelson School hearing and he stated that he has not had a decision from the referee as of this date. 3 • • • • 1 1 • 1 380 • • APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilman Harry Peterson, minutes of the following meetings were approved: June 26, 1979 July 10, 1979 July 24, 1979 August 6, 1979 August 7, 1979 August 8, 1979 Regular Meeting Regular Meeting Regular Meeting Special Meeting Regular Meeting Reconvened :feeting COUNCIL REOUEST ITEMS 1. COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON asked about the petition or letter regarding the sewer drain at Hillside and Hidden Valley Lane requesting that a grate be installed and MR. SHELTON reported that tris is being taken care of. 2. COUNCILMAN POWELL asked about the complaint regarding the charges for dumping at the dump boxes and no action was taken on this matter. OUESTIONS FROM PRESS REPRESENTATIVES None ORDINANCES None RESOLUTIONS The following resolutions were read and on roll call were unanimously adopted: 1. Directing the Payment of the Bills. 2 Final Plans and Advertise for Bids for Local Improvement No. 175 - Frontage Road 3. Advertise for Bids for Local Improvement No. 167 - Lookout Street 4. Terminate Ordinance NO. 428 - Cable T. V. 5. No Parking on North Owens Street (Stonebridge School) 6. Ordering Hearing on Industrial Bonding - Spirit of St. Croix 7. Authorized Agreement for Frontage Road Funding 8. Use of State Aid Monies for Chestnut Street Matting ADJOURNMENT On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilman Roger Peterson, the meeting adjourned at 10:50 P. M. Attest: j Cit `Clerk August 21, 1979 (all in favor) Mayor 7:30 P. M. 7:00 P. M. 7:30 P. M. 2:00 P. M. 7:30 P. M. 6:30 P. M. aA • • • • • •