Nowthen Workshop meeting, January 5, 2016

What was on the agenda

8 items as recorded in the meeting transcript, each with a short summary of what was at issue.

1. APlanning & Zoning: Comprehensive plan amendment (John Wagner / Bill O'Welling / Engs)

   Draft comprehensive plan amendment discussed; stated purpose included avoiding a frontage road through the property to allow development.

   Council opened the workshop with discussion of a draft comprehensive plan amendment involving John Wagner, Bill O’Welling, and the Engs, explaining the city is working with the property owners to amend the plan so a frontage road will not go through the property, allowing the owners to develop it as they see fit. The planner noted efforts to have the amendment reviewed administratively by the Met Council and possibly avoid review by neighboring cities due to the site’s central location; no action was taken at the workshop beyond discussion.

   Workshop discussion only; no vote recorded in this transcript excerpt.

   • Wagner-O’Welling-Engs comprehensive plan amendment
   • frontage road

   Discussion only
   0:28↗So to start off the workshop with the planning and zoning portion of it, we have the John Wagner, Bill O'Welling, as his amendment to the comprehensive plan. ... We are actually working with the property owners in question here to amend our comp plan so that there will not be a frontage road through this property so th…1:37↗Just that the comp plan amendment, again, is a joint venture with the Engs. We have the 88 parcel and with Mr. Wagner and Bill O'Welling. ... So it is just a draft

2. BPlanning & Zoning: Cory and Haley Sheldon agricultural building / Green Acres definition issue

   Discussed ordinance wording requiring Green Acres tax status for agricultural exemptions, apparent past intent to remove that requirement, and plan to formalize an ordinance definition update at the Tuesday meeting; council indicated comfort with amending to delete the Green Acres requirement.

   Council discussed Cory and Haley Sheldon’s request for an additional agricultural building and the discovery that the city code’s definition of “agricultural use” still includes a Green Acres tax-status requirement for agricultural exemptions, even though prior ordinance amendments appeared intended to remove the Green Acres requirement elsewhere. Staff and council described the Green Acres clause as an oversight in the definitions and indicated the council seemed comfortable deleting the Green Acres requirement for agricultural uses and formalizing the change at the Tuesday meeting, with the goal of allowing the Sheldons to move forward without being delayed by the cleanup of outdated language.

   Workshop discussion indicates intention to vote Tuesday; no motion/vote recorded here.

   • Sheldon agricultural building
   • Green Acres ordinance definitions
   • ag building permit exemption

   Discussion only
   2:49↗Cory and Haley Sheldon, an agricultural building on the property, and they want an additional one. ... I guess I just wanted to bring it to your attention and see what your feeling was. ... So the Sheldons have been waiting on a decision.16:44↗Agricultural uses shall not be subject ... Green acres tax status must pertain to property seeking agricultural exemptions. Are we seeking an exemption here? Meaning that they're exempt from the building permit, yeah.21:26↗Right, so we basically, I think the intent was to remove it. I mean, in my personal opinion would be that I'm okay with letting the Sheldons move forward knowing that we're going to make this change. ... Unfortunately for the Sheldons, it goes back to the definition that's still in there, green acres must pertain to pr…23:17↗So, basically, bottom line, we removed the green acre statement out of the ordinance, but we just didn't remove it out of the definition. Right. We need to, I guess in my opinion, we need to update the definitions to match the ordinance24:24↗At this point, I think that, you know, again, we are voting on Tuesday to finalize things, but it appears that the council is okay with the amending of the ordinance to delete the green acres requirement on agricultural uses, and we will formalize that on Tuesday.

3. COrdinance 2016-07 fee schedule

   Council member stated intent to move Tuesday to table the fee schedule and direct staff to prepare a comparison report with surrounding cities and clarify which fees are state-mandated; discussion included condensing fee listings and noting an adopted $100 illegal dumping fine already included.

   Council discussed Ordinance 2016-07 (fee schedule) and a council member stated she planned to move at the Tuesday meeting to table the fee schedule and direct staff to produce an apples-to-apples comparison of Nowthen’s fees with surrounding communities, including whether services are provided by staff or contractors and which fees are mandated by other agencies such as the state. The planner noted she had previously created a surrounding-community cost table, and staff also noted the fee schedule included a $100 illegal dumping/littering fine that had already been adopted in a prior month’s ordinance.

   Intent stated for a future motion Tuesday; no workshop vote recorded.

   • Ordinance 2016-07 fee schedule
   • fee comparison report
   • state-mandated fees

   Discussion only
   25:48↗All right, item C, ordinance 2016-07, fee schedule. ... On Tuesday, I'm going to move that this be tabled and then direct the internal staff to provide a report showing how our fees compare to our surrounding cities, ... There's been numerous conversations that our fees are higher than other cities28:34↗that also some of the fees could change based on votes later on in the meeting on Tuesday.32:38↗And then lastly, although this fee schedule shows you that littering and illegal dumping was a new $100 fine, that that was actually adopted as part of last month's ordinance.

4. DCode enforcement updates (including Gibbs IEP-related complaints)

   Planner reported limited new activity; discussed complaints related to the Gibbs special permit/IEP and noted she did not observe violations on her visit; council consensus to take no action at this point.

   Staff provided a code-enforcement update and discussed two complaints tied to the Gibbs’ special permit/interim use permit, including allegations about employee vehicles being parked outside the fenced area and concerns about brush piles and graveling for drainage. The planner reported she did not witness employee vehicles parked outside the fence on her visit and had not heard of drainage problems since the engineer’s earlier review; a council member stated it did not appear there was any violation of the IEP granted in 2013, and the council indicated it would take no action at that time while reminding the permit holder to stick to IEP conditions.

   Council indicated 'no action at this point' on the Gibbs-related complaints.

   • code enforcement list
   • Gibbs IEP complaints (2013 interim use permit)

   No action
   33:58↗Not a lot going on in code enforcement. You will see one new complaint on your list very soon. ... Actually, two separate complaints. ... those were geared around their special permit for the business.35:23↗The employee vehicles be parked outside the fenced area. However, on the day I was there, I did not witness that. ... one of the complaints was regarding the storage area not being serviced with gravel or crushed rock to control drainage. ... To my knowledge, there hasn't been an issue here.40:23↗Reading Planner Stockman's memo and listening to her today, it doesn't appear that there is any violation of the interim use permit that was granted to the Gibbs in 2013. ... So I don't see any need to do anything further with this.41:08↗Seeing a lot of shaking heads, it looks like we'll take no action at this point.

5. ERequest for reduced fire call fee (Todd and Mary Hobrick)

   Discussed resident request due to house fire total loss; noted city fee is $2,000 (not $2,500) and insurance would pay up to $500; council agreed to hold off collection while council considers the overall policy later.

   Todd and Mary Hobrick appeared with a request to reduce a fire call fee following a total-loss house fire. The mayor clarified the city’s fire call charge is $2,000 (not $2,500 as referenced in the letter) and that the insurance company would pay up to $500; council members referenced prior discussions about whether the fee should be changed or removed and whether it is already built into the fire department budget. The council agreed to place the matter on hold and not pursue collection while the city readdresses the overall policy and considers how any change would apply more broadly.

   Council direction described as putting the request/policy 'on hold' rather than deciding a reduction at this workshop.

   • fire call fee policy
   • Hobrick reduced fire call request

   Discussion only
   47:07↗We have Todd and Mary Hobrick? ... Alright, request for a reduced fire call. ... We don't charge a $2,500 fee, but it is $2,000. You're saying your insurance company will pay up to $500?49:15↗Just a month or two ago we had some discussion, ... is there a change in this fee or removing the fee totally, ... Right now we can certainly, until the end of the year, when we determine who's paid and who hasn't paid, we're not going to hound the Hobricks for the money.52:21↗I'm seeing a lot of positive heads there. So at this point, consider this on hold and we'll figure out what we're going to do as a city and how it affects you.

6. FPark & Recreation: Port-a-potty at skating rink (cost comparison and proposed vendor)

   Reviewed cost comparison ($140/month vs $103) and noted existing relationship with vendor used at recycle center; council requested details (rate, placement, cancellation, ordering authority), and staff indicated it would come from Park & Rec operating budget; recommendation offered to set March 1 as end date.

   Council revisited adding a portable toilet at the skating rink and reviewed an apples-to-apples cost comparison, noting $140/month from one vendor versus $103 from “Jimmy Johnny’s,” which already provides the unit for the recycling center (stated as $83 there). Council asked staff to check whether the same rate could apply, whether rentals can be weekly or monthly and prorated, where the unit would be placed for servicing access, and who would order and cancel service; a Park & Recreation member recommended setting March 1 as an end date, and staff stated the cost would come out of the Park & Rec operating budget.

   Council discussed bringing a motion Tuesday; no workshop vote recorded.

   • skating rink portable toilet
   • park and recreation operating

   Discussion only
   54:04↗we had gotten some information on putting a port-a-potty at the skating rink ... rent support, portable toilets, it was $140 a month and Jimmy Johnny's was $103. We actually already have a contract with Jimmy Johnny's because that's who supplies the port-a-potty for the recycle center.1:02:07↗Chris Bassett, resident of Malden, Park and Recreation member. I make the recommendation that if you're leery about the date and when we should shut it off and when we should have it out of there, put the date on it on March 1st.1:04:50↗Mr. Mayor, it would come out of the Park and Rec operating.

7. GUse of tanker truck for flooding the ice (liability/authorization discussion)

   Discussed using others to flood the ice; stated that based on information from insurance and Attorney Ruby it should not be an issue; no immediate action and framed as guidance for future seasons.

   Council discussed the possibility of allowing others to use the tanker truck to help flood the skating rink ice so staff time is not the only resource used. The mayor stated that based on information from insurance and Attorney Ruby it should not be an issue, described the matter as mainly for future safety and future seasons, and indicated no immediate action was needed unless circumstances arise later in the season.

   No action taken beyond discussion and noting clarification received.

   • tanker truck use
   • skating rink ice flooding

   Discussion only
   1:05:40↗Use of the tanker truck. ... Based on the information that we've received from staff, from Attorney Ruby, it does not appear that it would be an issue if we had others do it. This may be more for future safety.1:07:29↗So at this point, no immediate action on the tanker other than we've got clarification from the attorney and the insurance company.

8. HConsent agenda (minutes / financial report / audited bills) — discussion of possible typo and new claims numbering

   Council discussed a typo in prior minutes vote tally and asked to notify clerk; clerk noted new program and restarting claim numbers at 1 after contacting state auditors; discussion started on audited bills (including a $300 cleanup line) but transcript provided ends mid-question.

   Council began discussing consent agenda items including council meeting minutes, a financial report, and audited bills. Members noted a possible typo in the minutes where a final motion vote should read “3 in favor, 1 opposed,” and the clerk explained that after launching a new program and consulting state auditors, claims were restarted at claim number 1; discussion began on a specific audited-bills line item described as an old claim number 10543 for $300 cleanup, but the transcript excerpt ends mid-question.

   Consent agenda referenced, but no approval motion/vote is captured in the provided transcript excerpt.

   • consent agenda
   • audited bills
   • meeting minutes correction

   Discussion only
   1:08:26↗Consent agenda. Council meeting minutes. ... Item 4, letter B. The final motion was 3 in favor, 1 opposed. Instead of 4.1:10:00↗Financial report. Audited bills. ... we launched the new program, so that's why the claims are now starting in January. They're starting on 1 because I called the state auditors and they said we don't have to continue the follow-up, so we just started with claim 1.1:11:31↗Under the old claim number, it's 10543, $300 for the cleanup. Is that where the property on Old Viking, is that a carryover?

Sources

Documents and recordings archived for this meeting, when available.

• Video

  Meeting recording

  YouTube

  Transcript · 2733 segments · 3:27:55

  ↗