Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005/01/18 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Regular ITY OF OFFICIAL MINUTES rric PARK CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA January 18, 2005 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7.30 pm. Council members present. Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, and Sally Velick Staff present: City Manager(Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr Scott), City Clerk (Ms. Reichert), Community Outreach Coordinator (Ms. McDonell), Finance Director (Ms McGann), Planning/Zoning Supervisor(Ms. McMonigal), Public Works Director (Mr. Rardin), and Recording Secretary (Ms Stegora-Peterson). 2. Presentations a. Annual Human Rights Award Mayor Jacobs presented Human Rights Awards to: Jill Holte-Weldin, Officer Jon Parker, Cynthia Mueller and Jan Johnson b. Recognition for Greg Knutsen Mayor Jacobs presented a resolution to Greg Knutsen and thanked him for 34 years of service to the City of St. Louis Park. c. Governor's Award for St. Louis Park NORC Project Annette Sandler presented the Governor's Award for St. Louis Park NORC Project to Mayor Jacobs. d. North Hennepin Mediation Program Inc. Annual Service Report Beth Bailey-Allen presented a report about the North Hennepin Mediation Program She commended the City of St. Louis Park for encouraging people to use mediation rather than go to court, with violence or putting up in silence. 133 St. Louis Park residents used the services last year and 88 mediations were referred to the program She reviewed a chart showing the mediations. There is a new referral process for municipalities, and if someone may benefit from mediation, they can provide contact information to the program. There was a much better chance of getting people to mediation if they made the first contact Community volunteers provided mediation. Another training will begin on February 25th and they were looking for volunteers More information is available at www.mediationprogram.com. Councilmember Basill noted that he had referred people to the service and thanked them for doing an excellent job. This is an excellent tool for the community and for councilmembers to utilize when there were situations needing mediation Mayor Jacobs added that mediation was a fabulous opportunity to allow people to find their own resolution rather than having one imposed on them. He had also referred people to mediation and he hoped more people would use the program Council Meeting Minutes -2- January 18, 2005 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. City Council Minutes of January 3, 2005 The minutes were approved as presented. 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar NOTE The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion Consent items are acted upon by one motion If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience,that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion 4a Approve Resolution No. 05-011 which authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to execute applications to convey tax-forfeit parcels to the City for utility, roadway, and noise wall purposes 4b Ratify Additional Members to Excess City Land Task Force 4c Adopt the following Resolutions Imposing Civil Penalties for Liquor License Violations according to the recommendation of the City Manager. Resolution No. 05-012 Rackner Inc., Bunny's Resolution No. 05-014 Byerly's Inc., Byerly's St. Louis Park Resolution No. 05-015 Chili's of MN Inc., Chili's Southwest Grill & Bar Resolution No. 05-016 Mojito, Inc Resolution No. 05-017 GMRI Inc , Olive Garden #1424 Resolution No. 03-018 VFW 5632 4d Accept for filing the Planning Commission Minutes of December 1, 2004 4e Accept for filing the Housing Authority Minutes of December 8, 2004 4f Accept for filing the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes of November 17, 2004 4g Accept for filing the Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of November 30, 2004 4h Appoint Jim Brimeyer to the Southwest Corndor Policy Advisory Committee 4i Designate EnComm Midwest, Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of$188,188 00 for Water Treatment Plant#4 Filter Rehabilitation, Project No. 20041301 4j Accept Vendor Claims for filing (Supplement) 4k Adopt Resolution No. 05-010 Recognizing the Contributions of and Expressing Appreciation to Gregory Knutsen It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar The motion passed 7-0 6. Public Hearings Council Meeting Minutes -3- January 18, 2005 6a. Public Hearing to Consider 2005 Utility Rates Ms. McGann presented the staff report She noted within the water funds, the staff report indicated that installed or purchased meters would be included within the fee ordinance as they had not been included in the past. That was omitted from the original ordinance and would be incorporated into the fee ordinance upon second reading. Mayor Jacobs opened the public heanng No speakers present. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing. Councilmember Santa noted that the sanitary sewer rates were dependent on who took care of the waste water and they were charged a fee for the handling of that Ms McGann replied that was correct The majority of the sanitary sewer fund budget was for Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) charges and that was for the flow of sewer going through the pipes. Councilmember Omodt asked if there was a built-in increase for Waste Management each year? Ms. McGann replied that was correct. Councilmember Omodt went on to ask what the rate increases were. Mr. Rardin responded that there were standard increases built in to the five-year negotiated contract between the city and Waste Management. He did not have the figures with him at the meeting. Mayor Jacobs asked if what was within the contract was what they were recommending now? Mr. Rardin responded that was correct. Councilmember Omodt asked if there was any provision in Waste Management's contract requiring them to justify annual increases. Mr. Rardin responded that the amounts of the increases had been part of their bid and included as part of the contract. Councilmember Omodt remarked that their bid was low and now he is getting calls from residents complaining that garbage rates were going up. He suspected tipping charges had gone up. He felt council should look at the service and make sure citizens were getting the most for their money Mayor Jacobs asked if they could look into the contract provision before second reading Mr. Rardin responded staff could get them a one-page summary showing the different services and the amounts that were bid for the five-year period. He had no reason to believe the city was not getting exactly what they contracted for. They pay the County tipping fees with a pass-through, and those did not affect the Waste Management fees. Councilmember Omodt recalled a contentious debate and whether they should go to a citywide service or hauler by hauler. They were trying to get the best price. If it was not where they wanted it to be and they were paying more money for no reason, other than it was contractual, they had the right to look back at it. Mr. Scott indicated they could review the contract. Mr. Harmening noted this would not be able to come before the next study session. This discussion could be held at the meeting. Staff could provide the Council with the information and a copy of the contract Council Meeting Minutes -4- January 18, 2005 Councilmember Sanger asked if the $2 increase was due to increased costs the City was being charged. Ms. McGann replied for the solid waste increase that would be true because it was a contracted service. For the sanitary sewer it was also true to a certain extent. MCES charges for the flow of the sanitary sewer. Those have a tendency to increase throughout the years, however they were also looking at various structure improvements that were necessary throughout the city. Councilmember Finkelstein indicated that they try to keep the four separate enterprise funds as predominantly self-supporting as much as possible Ms. McGann replied that was true. Councilmember Finkelstein stated sometimes if the rates didn't increase and they were replacing equipment or broken pipes, they needed to collect additional funding in order to take care of that. Ms. McGann replied that was correct, the definition of an enterprise fund meant it must be predominantly self supportive. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if they could borrow from one fund to pay for the other one. Ms. McGann replied they should be self supporting. If they needed to borrow from another enterprise fund to make another one whole, that was fine, however it should be repaid such that in the end they were self sustaining. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Velick to approve 1" reading of an ordinance setting 2005 rates charged for Water, Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, and Storm Water Utility and set second reading for February 7, 2005. The motion passed 6-1 with Councilmember Omodt opposed. 6b. Public Hearing to Consider: lst Reading of an ordinance amending Ordinance#2044-03 relating to franchise fees imposed on Centerpoint Energy Minnegasco; and, lsi Reading of an ordinance amending Ordinance #2045-03 relating to franchise fees imposed on Xcel Energy. Ms. Reichert presented the staff report. She noted that this ordinance was proposed to correct an error made last year when franchise fees were adopted. This would reinstate the city's ability to collect permit frees as it has done in past years prior to the adoption of the franchise fees ordinances in 2003. There was 60 days notice prior to this hearing and would be another 60 days after it is adopted when it can go into affect. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing Al Swintek, representing Centerpoint Energy, requested that the City Council not approve the changes to the existing franchise fee ordinances as suggested. If the franchise fee were changed, Centerpoint Energy would be the only energy provider in the City that would pay permit fees, franchise fees and personal property tax in the City. Secondly, the proposed changes go contrary to the agreements that were in place with the City which were crafted only recently. A year ago when the franchise fee ordinance was passed, there was language that specified that in lieu of them collecting franchise fees on behalf of the City, that it would be in lieu of permit fees that would otherwise be paid. They believed this ordinance would be a violation of the level playing field requirement in the agreement. Council Meeting Minutes -5- January 18, 2005 They agreed that the City needed to have a sound street replacement program in place and a good right of way management program and that cost money, but they also believed that the contributions of the franchise fees themselves were adequate and permit fees should not be charged in addition to those fees. Councilmember Omodt recalled when this was discussed and drafted were two different things and this was an oversight in the drafting of the language What they were proposing to do now was what they had intended to do. He did not understand Mr. Swintek's definition of a competitive disadvantage and didn't know that gas competed with electric. He did not understand the argument Councilmember Finkelstein asked if Councilmember Omodt wanted to know what the annual revenues were? Councilmember Omodt replied no, they said this would put them at a competitive disadvantage and he wanted clarity with whom. Mr. Swintek replied it was more of a fairness argument to the extent that they were very similar in that they were both energy providers. They were both in the nght of way and to the extent that they had language in their contract that tried to create a level playing field. ' They had that language in every city that they had franchises in because they wanted to be treated fairly with regard to the other utility company They were both publicly traded companies, so to the extent that they were able to maintain the highest level of value to their customers and shareholders, that was important Councilmember Finkelstein indicated if there hadn't been a drafting error last year, they wouldn't be here now. The anticipation of the Council was that both fees would be paid Mr. Swintek stated that wasn't what he would recall as true. They had several franchise fee ordinances throughout the system and many had specific language that offered the "in lieu of language in terms of permit fees Why would that language be there? One of the reasons might be because of a stacking argument, in order to receive or provide an essential service like gas or electricity, they had personal property tax, franchise fees, sales tax, permit fees, on and on. Councilmember Finkelstein indicated that they were passing the franchise fee on to the customer. They were talking about the additional permit fees that Centerpoint would pay to make sure that when they ripped up the streets, there were proper inspections and repairs were done accordingly. Mr. Swintek stated that all of the costs that they incurred were paid by the rate payers one way or another. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if his argument was based on fairness. Mr. Swintek's understanding is that the city cannot require Xcel to pay permit fees pursuant to the terms of their current contract which had different start and end times than Centerpoints. Therefore, the city could not charge permit fees even though that was the intent of the ordinance last year. Councilmember Sanger clarified how we were using the term franchise. The "franchise fee" is a fee which the legislature did not want to identify as a tax, so they called it a "franchise fee". In reality, the franchise fee is not Centerpoint's money, and they are '1 Council Meeting Minutes -6- January 18, 2005 merely acting as a collection agent taking their customers' money and passing it along to the city. The term "franchise" refers to the contract agreement between St. Louis Park and CenterPoint Energy. The terms of that contract allow the city to impose franchise fees and also allow the city to collect permit fees. Though CenterPoint feels it is unfair to collect the permit fees from CenterPoint and not from Xcel, the ordinances being considered for adoption now apply equally to both utilities. The only issue is when it went into effect for each of the utilities. In addition, the utilities were not the only funders of road reconstruction. There was a pavement management program which all of the taxpayers were paying into. It was reasonable that the utilities that cut up the roads and contribute to deterioration should pay fees to help repair them and keep them in as good of shape as possible. Mr. Swintek agreed that utilities impact the rights of way and that they should be repaired and restored by the utilities. Centerpoint's position was that the franchise fee was intended to cover that cost and that charging permit fees in addition to the franchise fee was compartmentalizing city services and costs in a way that did not make sense. Councilmember Sanger asked if it was their contention that the City didn't have the right to change the ordinance to correct their mistake from last year? Mr. Swintek believed they had the right to do it Councilmember Santa stated that it was clear to her why the city issued permits and collected fees for those permits to pay for staff time and effort. She had recently received numerous calls from residents along 35th Street wondering what Centerpoint was making holes in the street for and if they were looking for gas leaks. At the same time it was pointed out that there was no signage, no traffic control and, as of that afternoon, holes were still in the street. As a Councilperson, she looked to City staff to make sure that work done in the right of way was completed in a timely fashion and hoped it was also Centerpoint's expectation that the city would provide oversight through the permitting process She believed a permit fee was a user fee, and that was very different than the franchise fee which was a more global approach to pavement management. Mr Swintek apologized if there was work that was done improperly. When that happened, regardless of whatever the fee structure is, they had a responsibility outlined in the franchise agreement and in the right of way management ordinances that should prevent that. Mayor Jacobs closed the public heanng. It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Sanger to approve first reading of an ordinance amending Ordinance#2044-03 relating to franchise fees and set second reading for February 7, 2005; and, to approve first reading of an ordinance amending Ordinance#2045-03 relating to franchise fees and set second reading for February 7, 2005 The motion passed 7-0. Council Meeting Minutes -7- January 18, 2005 7. Requests,Petitions, and Communications from the Public—None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances,Motions 8a. 2005—2009 Capital Improvement Program Resolution No. 05-013 Ms McGann presented the staff report. Councilmember Sanger asked if in the event that they wanted to add or delete projects or the project costs changed, would they have the ability at any time of the year to amend the CIP? Ms. McGann replied yes, as each project came on board, they went through another process to go through the sealed bids and determine the final costs of the project. The five-year CIP was used as a planning document so they could project the various projects and costs that may occur throughout the years. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve 2005—2009 Capital Improvement Program. The motion passed 7-0. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt Resolution No. 05-013 approving an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Year 2000 to Year 2020 for the City per Minnesota Statutes, incorporating the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Year 2005 to Year 2009, approve summary resolution for publication The motion passed 7-0. 8b. First Reading on Revised Subdivision Ordinance Regarding Park Dedication Fees and Amending Appendix A of the City Code to Include the Park Dedication Fee Amount Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report. Councilmember Omodt indicated he didn't see Minneapolis reflected in the comparisons, was that due to the size'? Ms McMonigal replied another person did the survey and she was unsure why they were not included. Councilmember Finkelstein thought it could be because the City of Minneapolis had an independent park district, which had its own statutory authonty to levy taxes and therefore would not have this type of payment. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve 1" reading of an ordinance amending Section 26-158 of the Subdivision Ordinance removing park dedication cash-in-lieu of land fee amounts from the Subdivision Ordinance and including a cash-in-lieu of land contribution of park land dedication in the amount of$1,500 per residential unit to Appendix A of the City Code. Council Meeting Minutes -8- January 18, 2005 Councilmember Finkelstein clanfied that this was not for current homeowners and would be for new planned divisions for increased park usage. The motion passed 7-0. 9. Communications Mayor Jacobs noted that Millie Johnson, long-time member of the League of Women Voters had passed away He extended his condolences on behalf of the Council. She was a very active member of the community and would be missed. 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:52 p.m. - $r"." ' 29.,C2--4---"-- L__-) /hi / 6/4--1 City Clerk Mayor