HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/10/15 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Regular Ifl St. Louis Park OFFICIAL MINUTES
MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK,MINNESOTA
OCTOBER 15,2012
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Steve Hallfin, Julia Ross, Susan Sanger, Sue
Santa, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: Anne Mavity.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Deputy City
Manager/Director of Human Resources (Ms. Deno), Controller (Mr. Swanson), Finance
Supervisor (Mr. Heintz), Public Works Operations Superintendent (Mr. Hanson), Director of
Public Works (Mr. Rardin), Director of Community Development (Mr. Locke), Planning/Zomng
Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Public Works Coordinator (Mr. Merkley), and Recording
Secretary(Ms. Hughes)
la. Pledge of Allegiance
lb. Roll Call
2. Presentations -None
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Special Study Session Minutes August 6, 2012
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 Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 2422-12 adopting fees for
2013 as outlined in Appendix A of the City Code of Ordinances, approve
summary, and authorize publication.
4b. Adopt Resolution No. 12-140 approving a Registered Land Survey for Solomon
Real Estate Group at Hwy 7 and Blake Road.
4c. Reaffirm the final plat of Gateway Plaza, and approve a six-month extension for
the filing of the plat, and for a variance pertaining to the rear yard setback.
4d. Continue 2nd Reading of Ordinances Relating to Xcel and CenterPoint Energy
Franchises until November 5, 2012.
4e. Approve Amendment No. 2 to Contract 38-08 with Eureka Recycling modifying
the plastics matenals being collected and the financial terms relating to revenue
sharing.
City Council Meeting -2- October 15, 2012
4f. Adopt Resolution No. 12-141 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of
the sewer service line at 3043 Cavell Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN — P.I.D.
18-117-21-21-0027.
4g. Adopt Resolution No. 12-142 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of
the water service line at 4261 Utica Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D.
07-028-24-32-0182.
4h. Adopt Resolution No. 12-143 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of
the water service line at 3329 Xenwood Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN -
P.I.D. 16-117-21-24-0057.
4i. Adopt Resolution No. 12-144 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of
the water service line at 7025 W. 24th Street, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 08-117-
21-13-0101.
4j. Adopt Resolution No. 12-145 approving the Minnesota Internet Crimes Against
Children Task Force Joint Powers Agreement and authorize the Mayor and City
Manager to execute attached resolution.
4k. Approve for Filing Fire Civil Service Commission Minutes August 17, 2012.
41. Approve for Filing Vendor Claims.
Councilmember Spano requested that Consent Calendar item #4e be removed and placed
on the Regular Agenda.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Spano, to approve
the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar as amended to move Consent
Calendar item #4e to the Regular Agenda as item #8c, and to waive reading of all
resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Mavity absent).
5. Boards and Commissions -None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing for Assessment of Delinquent Utilities, Tree
Removal/Injection, Mowing, False Alarms, and Other Miscellaneous
Charges. Resolution No. 12-146
Mr. Heintz presented the staff report and advised that each of the customers has been
notified of the special assessment process and this public hearing. He stated the City has
received a number of payments since the original notification was mailed and the current
delinquent balance owed the City is $626,435. He indicated property owners have until
4:30 p.m. on November 2, 2012, to pay the delinquent amount and any amounts not paid
by the due date will be charged a $30 administrative fee and the past due amount will be
certified to Hennepin County for collection as part of the owner's property tax bill.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Jacobs
closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Ross asked if the City provides a payment plan for property owners to
pay their delinquent accounts and also asked if an account is considered delinquent if not
paid in full by the due date.
City Council Meeting -3- October 15, 2012
Mr. Heintz advised it has not been the City's practice to offer a payment plan for
delinquent utility accounts, which represents the vast majority of the delinquent accounts;
however, the City does offer payment plans for tree removal.
It was moved by Councilmember Ross, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt
Resolution No. 12-146 Levying Assessment for Delinquent Utility Accounts, Tree
Removal/Injection, False Alarm Fees and Other Miscellaneous Charges
Councilmember Sanger stated that every year the City sends delinquent notices and there
are hundreds of people who pay their bill only after receiving the delinquent notice,
which means the rest of the taxpayers are picking up the slack. She felt the City needs to
have a stncter system of penalties to encourage people to pay their bills on time and
asked that the City look into implementing stronger penalties or applying a higher interest
rate to encourage people to pay their bills on time.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Mavity absent)
6b. Consolidated Public Hearing.
(1) 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service
District No. 1. Resolution No. 12-147
(2) 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service
District No. 2. Resolution No. 12-148
(3) 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service
District No. 3 and extension of Special Service District through 2022.
Resolution No. 12-149
(4) 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service
District No. 4. Resolution No. 12-150
(5) 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service
District No. 5. Resolution No. 12-151
(6) 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service
District No. 6. Resolution No. 12-152
Mr. Hanson presented the staff report and advised that the City has six Special Service
Districts set up to provide an increased level of service including landscaping, irrigation,
banners in Special Service Districts 1-5, snow removal in Special Service Districts 1 and
3, as well as decorative lights in Special Service Districts 1-3 and 5. He reviewed the
proposed budgets in each of the Special Service Districts and noted that the proposed
2013 budgets were approved by the Special Service District Advisory Board.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Jacobs
closed the public heanng.
Councilmember Santa requested general information regarding the purpose of the Special
Service Districts and who is involved, adding there has been some confusion about why
some areas have a Special Service District and others do not.
Mr. Harmening explained that a Special Service District is authorized by State statute and
allows commercial property owners to petition for and ask a city to provide a higher level
City Council Meeting -4- October 15, 2012
of service for their particular area. He stated the City uses Special Service Districts in
areas that are redeveloping and the City's philosophy has been that it should not install
nice streetscapes if there is no mechanism in place to maintain them. He stated that
Hoigaard Village and the Shops at West End are good examples of a higher level of
amenities installed by the developer and the City has indicated it does not have the
resources to maintain those amenities and the commercial property owners are told if
they want higher quality amenities they have to pay for maintaining those amenities. He
added that under the law, a city can only charge commercial properties and cannot charge
residential properties. He added that under law, each Special Service District has an
Advisory Board that the City works with for setting their budgets and to address any
issues within a district. He added Mr. Hanson has done a great job running these Special
Service Districts and the reason people are not at the public hearing is because they are
happy with the services being provided.
Councilmember Ross requested further information regarding Special Service District
No. 5 and asked why no money is budgeted for snow removal. She also asked why the
charge for the Doubletree Hotel increased more than the Shops at West End.
Mr. Hanson explained that the Shops at West End elected not to have snow removal,
which is an optional service. He stated that all service charges are based on the foot
frontage and not on square footage of a property and the service charge is divided out
among all front footage then split out for each property.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt
Resolution No 12-147 Approving 2013 Budget and Service Charges for Special Service
District No. 1; Resolution No. 12-148 Special Service District No. 2; Resolution No. 12-
149 Special Service District No. 3; Resolution No. 12-150 Special Service District No. 4;
Resolution No. 12-151 Special Service District No. 5, and Resolution No. 12-152 Special
Service District No. 6
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Mavity absent).
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public—None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances,Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Eliot Park Apartments — Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Civic to
High Density and Low Density Residential.
Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report and explained that the proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendment would modify the land use plan of the Eliot School site
from Civic to a combination of High Density Residential (RH) and Low Density
Residential (RL). She stated that the City has received a concept for development of the
site, noting that the City Code requires amendment of the Comprehensive Plan before any
applications for rezoning, PUD, or preliminary plat are reviewed. She advised the
proposed development includes two 72-unit apartment buildings of two and three stories
as well as the development of three single family homes on the north end that would
buffer the existing single family homes from the higher density use for a total of 147 new
residential homes.
City.Couricil Meeting -5- October 15, 2012
She reviewed the public process undertaken by the City, including task force meetings
with the neighborhood to create a set of design guidelines for the site, and indicated one
of the design guidelines was to have the building setback the same distance as the single
family homes to retain the feel of the neighborhood; in addition, the neighborhood
expressed interest in keeping the triangular corner facing Cedar Lake Road as open space.
She explained that the proposed density is near the recommended maximum of 34 units
per acre and the unit mix proposed meets market demands and meets the maximum of
three stories in height. She noted that the units per acre is just one measure of density
and the unit mix could change but the overall density of the site meets the intent of the
design guidelines. She stated that a second neighborhood meeting will be scheduled to
review the plans in detail. She then introduced Mr. Dan Hunt and Mr. Pete Keely.
Mr. Dan Hunt, President of Hunt Associates, appeared before the City Council and stated
that the primary concern expressed by residents has been related to traffic concerns. He
indicated that traffic generated from the former use was approximately 100 tnps during
the morning and afternoon peak hours while the traffic study showed the proposed
development would generate 75 trips during the morning peak hour and approximately 90
trips during the afternoon peak hour. He felt they have done a great job of trying to meet
the design guidelines, they have adjusted the height of the building throughout the site
and he felt the proposal fits well in the neighborhood. He indicated they have moved the
entrance to the parking lot for the second building over to Hampshire to split the traffic
and he felt the development would be a great attribute to the neighborhood.
Mr. Pete Keely, Collage Architects, appeared before the City Council and stated with a
courtyard design they were able to pull the mass of the building to the center of the site
and to leave the triangular piece open for green space. He indicated the courtyard will
have a semi-private use where residents of the apartments can enjoy that space and will
keep more of the noise in that area. He advised that each of the units on the two-story
portion of the building will have a front stoop, which will provide a row house feel. He
stated they are considering a modification to the plan that will align the southern
driveway access with 22nd Street which will provide more green space in the southwest
area.
Councilmember Ross asked if the drive-through space in the middle area would be used
for loading and unloading for people moving in and out and expressed concern about
vehicles blocking traffic.
Mr. Keely stated there will be a loading zone in the middle of the street, which will
provide an easy access point and will bring traffic toward the middle rather than toward
the edges.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the developer was planning to ask for financing from the
City.
Mr. Hunt replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Spano asked if there will be three bedroom units available.
Mr. Keely replied the current plan has one- and two-bedroom units and they are adding
four three-bedroom units that will be split between the two buildings.
City Council Meeting -6- October 15, 2012
Ms. Elaine Mense, 6712 Cedar Lake Road, appeared before the City Council and
expressed concern about having apartment buildings on the site and the neighborhood has
said they want family owned homes. She indicated she had a problem with rentals
because people do not take care of their property if they do not own it. She stated they
are in a quiet neighborhood and noise from the apartment buildings was a concern. She
stated the School District wants money and does not care what happens to the
neighborhood and did not take the neighbors into consideration.
Mr. John Lang, 6610 Cedar Lake Road, appeared before the City Council and stated he
was in favor of residential on the site and against high density zoning. He stated if the
City approves the high density and Hunt Associates goes out of business, the City could
get someone else to put up a six or eight story building because it is zoned high density.
He was also concerned about traffic especially during rush hour when he cannot get out
of his driveway and asked the City to consider a partial traffic control during peak times.
Mr. Jaime Calle, 2055 Kentucky Avenue South, appeared before the City Council and
stated he did not think it was a good idea for an apartment building in his neighborhood.
He stated there are a lot of kids in the neighborhood and it is a quiet, beautiful place. He
indicated this is an opportunity for Mr. Hunt to make money but the City will take away
their happiness. He was concerned about the high volume of people in an apartment
building and how this will affect traffic, his life, and his kids.
Mr. Wade Hammer, 2201 Jersey Avenue, appeared before the City Council and stated the
neighbors who attended the task force meetings indicated overwhelmingly they wanted
single family housing. He stated that pnnciple#1 of the design guidelines calls for a mix
of medium density residential land uses which should have been the starting point for
consideration and starting at a high density designation may allow the City to be able to
manage perceptions when in fact medium density should have been the starting point. He
felt open discussion of this option should be considered before remapping the area. He
did not agree that redevelopment of the area to residential was not a viable option due to
conditions in the housing market and felt that single family lots should be explored. He
stated the range of medium density residential is 6-30 units per acre which is a range of
26-129 units on the site and did not feel the City Council should jump to the conclusion
that 129 is acceptable. He commended the proposal put forth by Mr. Hunt but wanted to
advocate for single family homes and owner occupied homes. He strongly urged the City
Council to table its vote and reconsider whether it is viable to have single family homes
on this site.
Ms. Jan Agren, 1810 Hampshire Avenue South, appeared before the City Council and
stated she was not pleased about adding 250 people to her block and preferred lower
density. She also expressed concern about traffic on Cedar Lake Road.
Ms. Judy Dvorak, 6636 West 16th Street, appeared before the City Council and asked if
there was a website yet for the development of the Eliot site. She stated that larger
developments are usually located on the edge of communities and not in the center. She
asked if there has been a study of apartment vacancies in St. Louis Park. She indicated
the apartments on Hampshire are renting for $900-$1,500, the apartments at Park Pointe
are renting for $945-$1,650 and have vacancies, the Gables rent is $1,150-$1,825 and
there are vacancies so it appears the higher cost apartments have vacancies and this
City Council Meeting -7- October 15, 2012
development falls into that category. She was concerned about adequate parking noting
that one car per bedroom is provided which means there will only be ten extra spaces for
guests. She was concerned about traffic and stated they do not want sidewalks because
there is too much traffic in the area. She questioned if the City was planning on putting
in four way stop signs because of the additional traffic.
Councilmember Ross stated that Council has been concerned about the number of units
being built in the City and asked about vacancy rates in the City.
Mr. Locke stated the new projects in the City have done well and there are a number of
buildings underway that are not yet renting. He added that market vacancy rates in the
City are quite low which is driving the market for rental housing in the broader area.
Councilmember Ross stated she would like to see single family homes and there were
many residents who voiced their opinion about wanting single family homes, however,
the City Council as well as those working in the industry have been looking at future
trends, which are not trending toward single family developments. She noted the City
has housing stock sitting vacant because the market has changed, financing has changed,
and the City's population is aging and she has had people ask her about more
developments with larger units because they have not been able to secure three-bedroom
units. She felt the developer had done a good job of meeting most but not all of the
criteria in the design guidelines.
She stated the concerns expressed by residents in terms of traffic, noise, and parking are
some of the same issues that came up when the Ellipse was developed and she felt the
Ellipse has been a successful development that is located in a residential area. She was
concerned about some of the comments made about renters and stated that family
dynamics are changing in society and there are more generations living together requiring
a different type of housing. She stated that work hours are also changing and studies
indicate more people are working from home or are working a flex shift, which will not
impact the normal 9:00-5:00 traffic. She disagreed with the assumption that there is a
level of behavior that comes with renters and stated she was sensitive to plans that tend to
relegate housing or segregate housing. She did not think people with a family will want
to rent in the West End where there is little open space for parks or green space and felt
this developer has done a lot of what the City Council asked for in order to make the site
a more family friendly atmosphere. She stated families want access to parks, a safe area,
and adequate parking and some people like living in apartments for its sense of
community and a lot of the tone is set with the developer and the manager of those
communities to encourage a sense of community and to take care of your property. She
stated that any future plans for a building higher than three stories in this area will not be
allowed and she felt the developer had done a reasonable job in terms of maintaining the
integrity of the site and she would support the Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Councilmember Sanger stated she felt the Planning Commission and the neighbors were
correct in recommending the kite be designated medium and low density residential. She
stated this site is not amenable for high density housing and supported the idea of having
mixed types of housing but did not agree with the current proposed mix of housing or
proposed density and would not support it for that reason. She stated that all the
developers who have come to the City have proposed smaller one- and two-bedroom
City Council Meeting -8- October 15, 2012
units and four three-bedroom units on this site is not adequate when the community is
looking for more family-type housing.
She stated the Comprehensive Plan amendment to allow high density does not mean the
proposal by Mr. Hunt is the plan the City will end up with and there is nothing to stop the
proposal from changing. She pointed out that the School District has told the City that it
wants to see more homes with larger units so there is a greater possibility that more
children will be raised in these units, which is essential for supporting the School District.
She stated if this developer is going to be requesting TIF financing for this project it
underscores her point of view that if this is to be built with TIF financing it needs to be
built in a way that meets the community's needs and not just the developer's needs.
She stated she would much rather look at this long term and not just what the market will
support today and to also consider what the City knows regarding the demand for move-
up housing and larger units as well as the aging population in the City. She suggested the
plan be reconfigured to respect the Planning Commission and neighbor's desires to have
medium density housing with fewer units and a greater mix of owner occupied single
family and row houses or townhouses with some rental.
Councilmember Spano asked if were there any proposals to build a fully residential
development with single family homes on this site.
Mr. Garfield Clark representing the St. Louis Park School District appeared before the
City Council and stated there have been other proposals over the two year period the site
has been on the market and several single family home developers were interested in the
site. He stated these proposals were not selected because it boils down to the value of the
property and whether single family homes can carry the value of the property.
Councilmember Spano requested information about vandalism and police calls to the
property and stated he has concerns about the property remaining vacant and becoming
blighted.
Mr. Harmemng stated that because the property is vacant and up for sale, it is not being
maintained and there has been some vandalism, break-ins, and there was a small fire in
the building. He stated the City has talked about tearing down the building for the School
District and having the School District reimburse the City because of the potential for a
blighting influence on the neighborhood. He added that some work has been done to
secure the building, which has helped.
Councilmember Hallfin asked if the School Distnct has figured out how many single lots
could be built on the site and their corresponding value.
Mr. Clark replied that none of the proposals ever got that far.
Councilmember Sanger asked if it was correct that the true value of the property is in
large part dependent on the zoning applied to the parcel.
Mr. Clark replied that if the zoning were constant, yes, however the zoning is altered
based on things that occur in the market place over time.
City Council Meeting -9- October 15, 2012
Councilmember Sanger asked if over time the property was worth more to the seller if
zoning allowed for a higher density development.
Mr. Clark replied that options include single family, multi family, commercial, or office
and over time, the School District considers uses that would fit in the community. He
stated it is presumed there will be a mix of uses and the developers who invest in the site
do so with an understanding of what the future will bring. He indicated the way the
markets are shifting regarding residential use is down and in some ways, those people
who were interested in buying single family homes are less likely to do so today and the
question for the School District is how to focus on finding a solution acceptable to the
neighbors, City Council, and the ultimate market user.
Councilmember Sanger asked if it was true that the School Board would reap a higher
profit on this if the site were zoned high density as opposed to low density.
Mr. Clark stated he was not sure of that and added it depends on what the rents would be.
Mr. Locke stated the current use no longer makes sense and agreed that most people
wanted to see single family homes or lower density row homes on the site and one of the
principles guiding the development of the design guidelines was to consider what it
would take to make the site economically viable. He stated the guidelines were put
together to work through this question first before talking to developers and before the
Comprehensive Plan amendment, adding that the Comprehensive Plan amendment is
needed or the density is not available to allow a project such as this. He indicated the
Comprehensive Plan amendment does not obligate the City to approve this project and
the City has discretionary control, including whether to provide TIF financing.
It was moved by Councilmember Ross, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt
Resolution No. 12-_Approving an Amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan for the
City of St. Louis Park Under Minnesota Statutes 462 351 to 462 364 — 6720 and 6800
Cedar Lake Road
Councilmember Hallfin stated he initially supported changing this to high density but
after reviewing all the documents, talking to residents, and reviewing the Planning
Commission's recommendation, he was convinced that high density was not right for this
project and would be voting against the amendment.
The motion failed 3-3 (Councilmembers Hallfin, Sanger, and Spano opposed,
Councilmember Mavity absent).
Mr. Harmening stated the developer needs to decide what he wishes to do since the
motion failed and staff can bring the issue back to Council in a study session
8b. Resolution to Amend Fee Resolution for the Greensboro Condominium
Improvement Area (HIA). Resolution No. 12-153
Mr. Locke presented the staff report and stated this is a housekeeping item to adjust the
fee resolution for the Greensboro HIA now that the project has been constructed and
actual costs known, including the lower interest rate.
City Council Meeting -10- October 15, 2012
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Spano, to adopt
Resolution No. 12-153 Amending Resolution No 11-134 Approving a Housing
Improvement Fee for the Greensboro Condominium Association Housing Improvement
Area Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 428A.11 to 428A.21.
The motion passed 5-0-1 (Councilmember Ross abstain; Councilmember Mavity absent).
8c. Approve Amendment No. 2 to Contract 38-08 with Eureka Recycling
modifying the plastics materials being collected and the financial terms
relating to revenue sharing
Councilmember Spano requested further information regarding the amount the City
receives in revenue sharing with Eureka Recycling noting that the amendment includes
an approximate 40% decrease in revenue sharing related to plastics recycling.
Mr. Merkley explained the City receives $150,000 per year in revenue sharing and the
contract amendment reduces the amount of revenue sharing by approximately $50,000.
He stated Eureka has indicated its Material Recycling Facility is not set up for separation
of the additional plastics material so Eureka intends to hire several additional staff to do
manual sorting of these materials and the reduction in revenue sharing is to enable Eureka
to collect the plastics material and fund the necessary staff. He agreed this is a large
reduction in revenue shanng and stated the City does not have a lot of leverage in this
case because the amendment comes in the middle of the contract term. He stated that
collection of the additional plastics will start Monday, November 12th, and the City is in
the process of putting together educational materials. He added an article will appear in
the Park Perspective before the November 12th start date and Eureka has indicated it is
ready to start picking up these additional plastics.
Councilmember Santa stated it was her understanding that Hennepin County is requiring
cities to take more plastics for recycling; therefore, if Eureka wishes to do business with
cities in Hennepin County, they need to collect this additional plastic.
Mr. Merkley stated that the mandate is coming from the MPCA to the counties and in the
City's case, the contract with Eureka calls for them to collect #1 and 2 bottles and it is up
to the City to negotiate a contract to conform with the new mandates.
It was moved by Councilmember Spano, seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to approve
Second Amendment to Agreement for Recycling Collection Services (City Contract No
38-08).
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Mavity absent).
9. Communications
Councilmember Santa reminded residents of the annual Halloween party at Westwood
Nature Center on Friday, October 19`11, and Saturday, October 20`h, from 6:30-9:30 p.m.
and also reminded residents that pre-registration is required.
Mr. Harmening stated that Mn/DOT will be holding an open house regarding the
Highway 100 reconstruction project on Wednesday, October 24th, from 5:00-7:30 p.m. in
City Council Meeting -11- October 15, 2012
the Council Chambers. He added there will also be a public hearing regarding the project
on November 5`f' at 7:30 p.m. at the City Council meeting.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:19 p.m. j f
Nancy Stroth, pity Clerk Jeff Jaco' h
s, yo