Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996.01.30 CC Minutes - Special Council meetingMINUTES FOR THE SPECIAL _CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3(:),_,L996 The meeting was called to order by Mayor Fran Miron at 7:30 PM. PRESENT: Barnes, Goiffon, LaValle. Leroux. Miron Citi Administrator. Robert Museus The Fire Hall Committee reports were the first items discussed to determine the need for fire facilities in the community. Member Barnes reviewed information that the Council has received, which included the following reports: 1. Fire Hall meeting summary dated October 18, 1995 2. City Administrator's report dated November 15, 1995 3. Report and recommendations by four members of the Fire Department dated November 8, 1995 4. Comments from Dan Davis, a member of the Fire Hall Committee, dated January 1, 1996 5. Comments and recommendations from Walter Stoltzman, member of the Fire Hall Committee, dated January 1, 1996. 6. Comments and recommendations from Chief Jim Wisner dated January 29, 1996 Barnes made a motion, Goiffon seconded, to accept the conclusion of the Fire Hall Committee that the existing_ Fire Hall facilities do not meet the current and future needs of the Hugo Fire Department. All aye. Motion Carried. The Council then discussed the pros and cons for remodeling the existing facility versus construction of a new facility. The advantages to remodel are as follows: 1. The initial lower cost :_'. Potentially quicker construction due to the use of existing property and utilities. Neciat.ives to remodeling include the following: 1. Location of the building and potential safety problems on adjacent streets. . The immediate need to relocate the City Hall and its resulting expense. Parking problems and the fact that it may very well be only a temporary solution to the problem. 4. Space constraints on the property with the water tower and well, which could lead to compromises i.n design. Limitations on the remodeling imposed by the Existing facility, and that the remodeling will interrupt the work. at both City Hall and Fire Department as the facility is remodeled. The ongoing planning for the downtown revitalization was considered a nFUt.ral factor in remodeling, as many of the existing problems of the ck..krrent fire facility could be resolved through the downtown redevelopment process. On the other hand, leaving the Fire Hall at its existing .Location would place constraints on the commercial development in the area.. City Council meeting of January 30, 1996 Page The advantages for new construction are as follows: 1. There will be a permanent fix: into the foreseeable future. 2. There will be no serious interruption of City operations during construction. 71. It will provide the City options in locating the facility. 4. Allow for the purchase of more modern equipment. 5. Improved Fire Department morale. 6. Provide for better street access and safety. 7. The building would set an example for commercial development that occurs in the future. Negatives include the following: 1. The larger capital outlay required to construct the facility. ?. The fact that a site for a new Fire Hall has not yet been identified. Separation of the Fire Hall from the City Hall was considered a neutral factor since this would occur regardless of the option chosen by the City. Financing was discussed, and there was general agreement that whatever course is chosen, that it should be placed before the public in referendum, which would allow the issue of general obligation capital improvement bond and public comment on the City's plan. The Council discussed the initial cost estimates received from the vario parties providing reports, and the fact that they indicated a very wide range of potential costs for either remodeling or new construction. It was initially suggested that a more detailed cost estimate be generated for both alternatives. This was considered too costly, as detailed planning will be required with the assistance of an architectural firm to identify actual costs. Leroux; made motion, Miron seconded, to begin planning for the construction of a new Fire Hall to include: identifying potential sites for its location, and preparation for a public referendum on the issue in the Fall, 1996. VOTING AYE: Barnes, Goiffon, LaValle, Leroux:, Miron Motion Carried. The next item discussed by the Council. was appointment of a City Engineer for 1996. The Council considered the services of both OSM and WSE( and Associates. DArnes made motion, Leroux: seconded, to appoint Tom Angus as the City Engineer for 1996 and in addition, Peter Willenbrinq of WSB will be used cam a consulting engineer for storm water planning and improvement projects. All. aye. Motion Carried. Following the vote, Council member Barnes departed at 9:58 PM. City Council meeting of January 31. 1996 Page _ The Council then considered a request by Tony Emmerich, developer for Country Fonds, to alter Paragraph 13K of the Development Aqreement, between Mr. Emmerich and the City, in order to allow for the construction of a home on Lot 6, Block 1, Country Ponds subdivision. At issue was the existence of a temporary cul-de-sac on the property, concerns for the potential location of the home on the property, and how it would be affected by the eventual removal of the cul-de-sac when 137th Street was extended to the east. Obtaining security for the eventual removal of the Cul-de-sac was recommended as an option by the City Administrator. Councilman LaValle stated that if the developer wished to renegotiate the Development Agreement, that the two other items should be considered for change: 1. The developer should remove all silt fence from the site in the near future. i. The City should require a much more detailed landscaping plan for the bermed area between the development and T.H. 61. Miron made motion, Lerou>: seconded, to table action on the request until the Council meeting of February 5, 1996, and to direct staff to work•. with Mr. Emmerich in developing the proposed amendments to the Development. Agreement, both those made by the developer and the City. All aye. Motion Carried. Councilman Leroux; rotated that he would not be at the Council meeting of February 5, 1996, but did want to make his concerns known on the revised Comprehensive Plan to be discussed at that meeting. He does not want cIUSter.ing mandated in the agricultural district, but felt that the objectives of the City of reducinq future infrastructure costs, meeting environmental concerns, and maintaining open space could be achieved through more creative and less intrusive standards built into the Zoning ordinance. Goiffon made motion, Lerou>: seconded, to adjourn at 10:.35 PM. All aye. Motion Carried. Robert A. MUSeUS City Administrator