DRAFT – These minutes are not official until approved at the next regular City Council meeting.

City of Bigfork

Regular Meeting and Public Hearing May 25th, 2004

Except for Motions made by the Council this is not a verbatim record of every statement made during the Council meeting. Discussions have been paraphrased to give general direction and understanding.

Members Present: Mayor Lonnie Kacon, Jean Lexvold, Amy Tendrup, Bob Zimmer Absent: Steve Grover Also Present: Julie Kennedy – SEH, Inc., Marvin & Sally Larson, Orbin Holt, Mark & Connie Maki, Gary W. Schwersinski, John Gustafson, Dick Salmi, Mike Bakke, Tim Engrav – Itasca County Zoning, Police Chief Jon Babcock

Mayor Kacon called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and announced the results of the May 11, 2004 closed meetings as follows: At the closed meetings held on May 11, 2004, performance reviews of Bartender Cathy Schumacher and Public Works/Maintenance Worker Dave Waters were conducted. As a result of his performance review, Dave Waters received a 2% pay increase effective with the pay period beginning May 16, 2004. Cathy Schumacher received 32 out of 45 possible points on her performance review. Cathy was not eligible for a pay increase due to the fact that bartenders are given raises based on total number of hours worked for the City.

Consent Agenda Motion by Zimmer, seconded by Lexvold to approve the consent agenda as follows: #1- approval of the minutes of the May 11th regular meeting #2- denial of the application for a variance by David Asher as recommended by the Planning Commission #3- approval of the adoption of Ordinance #118: amending Title III of the City of Bigfork Code of Ordinances (ordinance is attached to the minutes as Appendix A) #4- approval of the claims for payment in the amount of $19,639.70, including the May 14th payroll Motion Carried Unanimously (MCU)

OLD BUSINESS:

Julie Kennedy, SEH, Inc: Kennedy’s first item was an update on the Fine Arts Center waterline relocation. She has been in contact with Greg Granholm of DSGW, the engineer for the Fine Arts Center. She has given him drawings of the recommended relocation of the waterline and explained that the hydrant will be provided by the City. June 7th is the projected start date for their project. Kennedy recommended that we make contact with them prior to this date if they have not yet contacted the City. Kacon stated that he has talked with Ron Bailey of the Fine Arts Center committee and they are having meetings to discuss options for funding this additional cost.

Kennedy’s next item was funding for I & I improvements. She stated that the City’s problems with wastewater capacity are mainly caused by water usage and inflow and infiltration, (I & I) from sump pumps, individual houses and foundations, manholes, and inflow directly into the ponds. Public Works Superintendent Mark Maki is currently performing inspections of all sewered properties in the City to identify any violations of sump pumps or footing drains. He is also inspecting manholes. Kennedy stated that the City needs to conduct these inspections and make the necessary corrections in order to be considered for any funding programs. Kennedy and Maki will gather the data and submit an application to get the City on a project priority list to be eligible for funding.

An update on the Legacy Development project was next. Kennedy explained that they have run into some unforeseen issues. A wetland delineation was done last Thursday, and shows that much of the lot is considered a wetland. This changes what can be done on the property. Legacy Development is now working with SEH on a re-design of the project. Once this is completed, they will be re-submitting a preliminary plat for approval.

Kennedy’s final item was the Cedar Street Sewer project. She gave a brief history of the project, stating that at the last Council meeting, the City approved the feasibility report, which showed that the project was feasible, cost-effective, and necessary. Kennedy next reviewed a drawing of the proposed project. She pointed out the existing manhole on Division Ave. Running northwesterly from this manhole is a stub of an 8” line that goes about 17 feet into the ditch area and then turns and runs to the west. This 17 feet of pipe is in good condition. After that point, it is reduced to 6” line and there are two services off of it. This line shows evidence of mineral deposits. The City project would replace this 6” line since it is undersized and in poor condition. The proposal is to connect to the existing 8” line coming off of the manhole on Division and continue with a new 8” line that will run approximately 630’ west to the westernmost City-owned lot on Cedar Street. This will provide new services for the Gustafson and LaTrace properties and will stub out new lines for the two city-owned properties. Kennedy explained that by using a trench box in the installation of the line, we would most likely be able to complete the project without having to remove any trees. Kennedy explained that Orbin Holt’s project will tie into this one. Originally, Holt had proposed to install a lift station on his property and run a line all the way to the manhole on Division Avenue for his service. Holt will save on the cost of the 630’ of the project that the City has now taken over in order to provide the additional services. Kennedy talked about costs of the project. She explained that the City will be covering 30% of the cost and the other 70% would be covered by the four benefiting property owners. The total cost of the project is approximately $34,900.00. If the Council decides to go forward with the project, we would go out for bids and a bid would be awarded at the June 8th Council meeting. The project would likely get started at the end of June and is about a two to three week project. Salmi questioned if any services are planned for the other side of Cedar Street. Kennedy explained that until the development plans of the property are known, it is not wise to put in services. It is more likely that services to this side of Cedar Street would be tied in from Division Avenue. Salmi next asked if the City has the money to pay for their 30% of the project without bonding. Kacon stated that we would have to bond for it. Salmi asked if the bonding would be given to the citizens for referendum. The Council was not able to answer this question. The Clerk will look into this. Kacon gave a brief background of the reason for the project. He stated that when Orbin Holt started his sewer project, the Council felt it was a good time to work with him and get services for the other properties on the same street. The Council felt that the two city-owned lots would be good locations for housing and that they would be much more desirable and marketable if they were serviced with City utilities. Zimmer added that it made sense to do the project in conjunction with Holt’s project in order to save on costs for all involved. Salmi stated that the problem is that the liquor store is not making money. He felt that citizens would not complain about project costs like these if they were not also supporting the liquor store.

Kacon closed the regular meeting at 7:35 p.m. and opening the Public Hearing.

Kennedy passed out drawings of the project. Sallie Larson questioned what would happen if the trees were not removed, but were damaged and died at a later date. Kennedy stated that most contractors have a one-year guarantee and that the City may choose to have a guarantee of their own and offer to replace any trees that die within a certain amount of time after the project’s completion. John Gustafson questioned where the 30/70 split came from. Kennedy explained that the City had recently adopted a special assessment policy that spells this out. Gustafson also asked why there are only four benefitting property owners rather than six. Kennedy explained that it is because Holt’s project is being paid for by him. The City portion of the project only serves four properties. Holt stated that he started this project on his own and then the City decided to piggy-back on it. He asked Kennedy to reiterate a conversation that they had recently had regarding his project. Kennedy stated that they had talked about why there are two separate projects as opposed to one large one. She explained that it has to do with how the project was initiated. Holt’s project was self-initiated and taken on by him. That is why his portion of the project is not included in the City’s portion and vice-versa. Holt’s next question was how this project differs from the Division Avenue extension that was done in 1997. Kennedy stated that that project was also a citizen’s initiation. Kacon stated that each property on that line was assessed $4500. This number was come up with by the previous engineer. Holt did not feel that there was any difference between his project and the Division Avenue extension. Kacon explained that the City was under the impression that he was willing to pay for his project and wanted it done this spring. He also pointed out that the Council felt they would actually be saving him money on his project by taking over 630’ of it. Holt stated that he is not in any rush to get this done and the City can take all the time they need to examine the project. Kennedy pointed out that one option is to look at the project as a whole, both Holt’s portion and the City’s. The costs would be higher and would then be split between six benefitting properties rather than four. Holt had one last point to bring up regarding his water line. He installed his own water line and when he turned the line over to the City, there was a stipulation that only so many connections could be added. He asked why the City would spend $35,000 to put sewer service to their lots when they won’t be able to get water service from this line. Kennedy suggested to the Council that they had three options. The first is to approve the project as is and go ahead with soliciting bids. The second is to reconsider the project as a larger project and order a new feasibility report. The final option is to stop the project entirely.

Mayor Kacon adjourned the public hearing and reopened the regular meeting at 8:10 p.m.

Tendrup stated that she felt the City needed to take more time to do this project correctly. She explained the problem she is having with her own property on Division Avenue regarding water and sewer services. She was assessed in 1997 when the water and sewer extension was done in that area and yet she still does not have sewer service. Now she is trying to determine who should pay for her connection. A motion was made by Tendrup and seconded by Lexvold to put the project on hold until the City can look into the issues of the stipulations on the water line, as well as the different options for proceeding with the project, MCU.

Itasca County Zoning Rep – Demolition Dump Site: Tim Engrav, Solid Waste Administrator for Itasca County was present to talk with the Council about the possibility of a demolition dumpsite in the area. He explained that the County has been looking at the two current demolition dumpsites. They are reaching the end of their life span and they are looking at a new site in Grand Rapids and expanding the site in Spring Lake. The costs for this are between $800,000 and $1,000,000. The County has not looked at the Bigfork canister site to check for feasibility of putting a demo site there. Considering the projects that will be happening at the two current sites, and the costs involved with those, the concept of another demolition site is not on the horizon at this time. Connie Maki asked about the possibility of a compost site in the area. Engrav stated that a compost site would be a more likely option. Maki also asked about the possibility of the canister site hosting a once a year collection of tires, batteries, appliances, oil, and other items that are hard to dispose of. Engrav thought that would be a possibility. He also felt that it would be possible to have a once or twice a year demolition waste collection. Kacon asked if the City should approach the County Board regarding this issues. Engrav stated it would be best to first attend the next Transportation and Land Management meeting which will be June 21, 2004 at 1:00 p.m. Kacon will attend this meeting.

At this time in the agenda, Kacon recognized Orbin Holt and Dick Salmi who had items to address the Council on. Holt stated that he had read Gene Madsen’s comments regarding the liquor store at the last Council meeting and that he agrees with him one hundred percent. He stated that he has fought this liquor store since the day they started it. He questioned why the Council took money from the water and general funds to cover the liquor fund loss. Kacon stated that the budget has to be balanced at the end of each year and that was the only place to take the money from. Holt stated that the liquor store needs to go and asked the Council how long they would let this situation continue. Kacon stated that they are working on it. The Council has established a Liquor Store Commission. Holt stated that there has always been a liquor store commission and asked what good it has done. Kacon said that in the past, it was a liquor store liaison officer rather than a full commission. Zimmer added that the commission, as well as the Council, is aware that there is a problem at the liquor store. The commission has been working during the past months to improve the atmosphere of the facility. They have also made changes to the electricity and heating systems that should save money. He stated that much of our losses have occurred because of poor tourists seasons due to road construction and lack of snow. It is the same for other businesses in town as well. He further stated that the many rules that municipal liquor stores have to abide by have hurt business and created animosity towards the liquor store. He feels that we are making headway, but admits that it has been slow progress. Holt stated that the consensus of the State is those municipal liquor stores are on the way out. He questioned why we keep trying to tough it out here in Bigfork. Kacon answered that the purpose of municipal liquor stores are for control as well as profitability. He added that, since he has been Mayor, the Council has never gotten as involved in the liquor store operations as they are right now. Holt felt that the City would be better off to sell the business and start collecting the tax money. Tendrup stated that in the past, the store did make money and contributed money to many different City projects. She feels that the goal of the liquor store commission is to make the business profitable again. Salmi stated that when he was Mayor, the liquor store only made money through pull tabs. Over the years they Council keeps giving raise after raise after raise. He questioned why they continue to give raises when there is no incentive to perform better. He felt that the store could be profitable if it was an off-sale only facility. Kacon stated that the Council was unaware of the formula used for performance review raises since this was a new practice for the City and they have since revised the formula. Salmi stated that he has heard from a person who would be interested in leasing the business. This would get it on the tax rolls and still employ people. Zimmer stated that many people have suggested that the City hire a new manager for the liquor store. He pointed out that no matter who the manager is, the rules that must be followed are the same. Holt wrapped up by asking what the procedure is for getting the question on the ballot as to the future of the liquor store. Storlie stated that a petition needs to be submitted that is signed by five percent of the registered voters of the City. Holt stated that the City could expect such a petition.

Dick Salmi brought up the issue of returning to a local polling place as opposed to mail balloting for elections. Salmi stated that he was misquoted in the last minutes as saying that you would get a better voter turn out with a polling place in Bigfork. The point he actually made was that you may in fact get less voters, however it would be more accurate since those living outside City limits would not be allowed to vote. He stated that he had talked to Bob Zuelke at the Itasca County Auditor’s office and was informed that the City would need to notify the County by the end of June if they decided to have the election in Bigfork. Storlie stated that it was not feasible to do this for the 2004 election. There would not be enough time for her to get the necessary training required to run an election. Kacon suggested that, for this year, we stay with mail-balloting and that Salmi work with the Clerk to file a petition to the County Auditor to remove those people from the list of registered voters who do not actually live in City limits.

Employee Raises/Performance Reviews: Storlie briefly reviewed the situation. The Liquor Store Manager and Librarian were given performance reviews with the possibility of getting up to a 9% pay increase. After that time, the Council revised the personnel policy so that 4.5% was the top possible pay increase due to a performance review. The question was raised as to how to deal with the fact that two employees were eligible for a higher raise than the rest of the employees now would be. Storlie has contacted the human resources representative from the League of Minnesota Cities, as well as the City’s personnel attorney, John Licke. The recommendation that came back was to put a performance based pay increase freeze on the Liquor Store Manager and the Librarian for the next year. This will allow every other City employee to have two chances at a 4.5% increase while the first two employees had one chance at a 9% increase. Police Chief Jon Babcock stated that that would not be exactly equal since the first two employees would have the higher raise for the entire two-year period and the other employees would get two smaller raises later on. Storlie presented the proposed amendment to the personnel policy, which provides for the change from 9% to 4.5% possible top pay raise. Motion by Tendrup seconded by Lexvold to approve the amendment, MCU. Tendrup questioned whether or not the City has salary caps. Storlie stated that we do not. Tendrup thought this should be looked into. Storlie finished by saying that the representative from the League of Minnesota Cities had also recommended that after this two-year adjustment period, the City discontinue giving performance-based pay increases. The reason for this recommendation is that giving raises this way can take you out of compliance with pay equity.

Public Works Truck Purchase: Storlie presented a price quote from Powell Auto sales for a new truck for the public works department. She explained that if the Council decides to purchase the truck, they would need to pass a resolution. Zimmer asked Maki if this was the truck he wanted. Maki felt that the truck would fit the City’s needs and would work great for us. He added that the truck can handle much of the plowing for the City which will save us money on our plowing contract with Itasca County. Motion by Zimmer, seconded by Tendrup to pass the following resolution to purchase the truck, MCU. RESOLUTION 5-25-2004 (3) RESOLUTION DETERMINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS WHEREAS, a contract is about to be entered into for the purchase of public works/road maintenance equipment at a total cost to the city of $28,370.00; WHEREAS, Minnesota Statues 412.301 authorizes the City Council to issue certificates of indebtedness within the existing debt limits to finance such purchases of public works/road maintenance equipment; WHEREAS, the proposed issue amount is less than 0.25 percent of the market value of taxable property in the city, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Bigfork, Minnesota: 1. The Council hereby determines that it will issue certificates of indebtedness in the amount of $28,370.00 payable in five equal annual installments with interest thereon payable semiannually at a rate not to exceed 4.25 percent per annum to finance the purchase of this public works/road maintenance equipment. 2. The Council will levy a direct general ad valorem tax, equal to 105% of the total cost of the equipment, upon all taxable property in the municipality to be spread upon the tax rolls for each year of the term of the certificate in order to pay the obligations of the certificate.

NEW BUSINESS:

Pump and Squad Car Bid Opening: The City received one bid for the pump and two bids for the car. Kacon first opened the bid on the pump. It was from Gus David for $101.00. Motion by Zimmer, seconded by Lexvold to accept the bid, MCU. Kacon next opened the bids for the car. The first was from Timarah Stedman for $507.00. The second was from Jim Johnson for $856.59. Motion by Lexvold, seconded by Tendrup to accept Jim Johnson’s bid of $856.59, MCU. Maki requested that the money received from the sale of these two items be used for repairs at the airport. He stated that there are some major repairs needed. He received a price quote of $1950 from Ferguson Sealcoating for the filling of runway cracks. Motion by Tendrup, seconded by Lexvold to allocate the $957.59 to the airport fund for repairs, MCU. Motion by Tendrup seconded by Lexvold to allow the repairs by Ferguson Sealcoating for the quoted price of $1950, MCU.

Resolution 5-25-2004 (1) – Accepting Donations for Bigfork Wilderness Celebration: Motion by Lexvold, seconded by Zimmer to pass resolution 5-25-2004 (1) as follows: RESOLUTION 5-25-2004 (1) A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING ACCEPTANCE OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE GIFTS OF VARIOUS BUSINESSES, ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS IN SUPPORT OF THE ANNUAL BIGFORK WILDERNESS CELEBRATION ACTIVITIES Business Amount Bigfork Ambulance Association 30.00 Bigfork Township 500.00 Treacy Properties 125.00 Johnson Lake Construction Services, Inc. 250.00 Cole Hardware, Inc. 40.00 Three Cedars Resort 50.00 Montavon Motors 25.00 Peoples Telephone Company 500.00 Northern Star Cooperative Services 25.00 Casper Construction 50.00 The Shop 200.00 Bigfork Lions Club 1500.00 Itasca Chiropractic 25.00 DICK Distributing Co., Inc. 25.00 Starkovish Distributing, Inc. 25.00 Fraternal Order of Eagles 100.00 Two Rivers Cenex 150.00 Pederson –Hovila Insurance 75.00 Farrell & Judy Gunelius 150.00 V.F.W. Auxiliary 100.00 People in Business Care 1500.00 Bigfork Valley Hospital 1466.25 Northeast Technical Services, Inc. 25.00 WHEREAS, the above-listed business, organizations and individuals have presented to the City donations of the stated amounts and have designated that these donations be used for the annual Bigfork Wilderness Celebration; and WHEREAS, the City Council is appreciative of the donations and commends the businesses, organizations and individuals listed for their civic efforts, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Bigfork, Minnesota; 1. that the donations are accepted and acknowledged with gratitude. 2. that the donations will be appropriated to the Bigfork Wilderness Celebration activities.

Resolution 5-25-2004 (2) – Accepting Donations for Recreation Program: Motion by Tendrup, seconded by Lexvold to pass resolution 5-25-2004 (2) as follows: RESOLUTION 5-25-2004 (2) A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING ACCEPTANCE OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE GIFTS OF BIGFORK TOWNSHIP, PEOPLE IN BUSINESS CARE, AND THE BIGFORK LIONS CLUB IN SUPPORT OF THE RECREATION PROGRAM WHEREAS, Bigfork Township, People in Business Care, and the Bigfork Lions Club have presented to the City donations of $1000.00, $1500.00, and $500.00 respectively, and have designated that these donations be used for the summer recreation program; and WHEREAS, the City Council is appreciative of the donations and commends Bigfork Township, People in Business Care, and the Bigfork Lions Club for their civic efforts, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Bigfork, Minnesota; 3. that the donations are accepted and acknowledged with gratitude. that the donations will be appropriated to the summer recreation program.

OTHER BUSINESS:

Storlie presented a revised drawing of where the Lutheran Church sign will be located. The City has already approved the sign permit and the new location of the sign still complies with all the requirements of the sign ordinance.

Zimmer reported that he has talked with Bob Lawler about a computer for public use. Zimmer talked about the City paying for basic internet service at $19.95 per month. Lawler was willing to provide the computer and also to put up a sign stating that internet access was provided courtesy of the City of Bigfork. Motion by Zimmer to pay Out of the Blue $19.95 per month, plus tax if there is any, for public internet access, MCU.

Tendrup asked for help on resolving her issue of sewer service to her property. She believes that the alley has not been vacated and this needs to be looked into. Maki stated that his first step will be to get help in televising the line to document what is already in place for infrastructure. He also will contact Benchmark Engineering and request as-builts for the project. It is possible that a saddle has already been set. If it is not, there is an 8” line that supposedly goes down Third Avenue that Tendrup could hook into. Maki also that if the alley was indeed vacated, the City will need to pursue obtaining an easement.

Babcock addressed the Council and stated that he will be coming to the June 8th council meeting and requesting a part-time officer. His time off is not working. He stated that every time he tries to schedule a day off, he gets called out for something. He is just starting to research the costs that would be involved with hiring a part-time officer and will present this information at the June 8th meeting.

Kacon presented a letter from St. Louis County regarding the joint coop agreement for Northeast Minnesota HOME Consortium that the City entered into three years ago. This agreement qualifies residents of the City for HOME funding programs. It is time for the renewal of this agreement. If the City wishes to renew, nothing needs to be done. If they want out of the agreement, they need to send notification by June 15, 2004. There is no cost to the City to participate in the program. It was the consensus of the Council to renew the agreement.

Angie Storlie City Clerk

These minutes are available on the City website at www.cityofbigfork.com. To sign up to receive the minutes by email, send your email address to ctyclerk@bigfork.net.

Appendix A

CITY OF BIGFORK ITASCA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 118

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE III OF THE CITY OF BIGFORK CODE OF ORDINANCES

The City Council of the City of Bigfork, Minnesota ordains that §31.48(F) of Title III of the City of Bigfork Code of Ordinances shall be amended to read as follows:

“Variances. All applications for variances shall be referred to the Planning Commission which shall have the powers of a Board of Appeals and adjustments as provided for in M.S. 462.357, Subd. 6, as it may be amended from time to time. Variances may be granted from the literal provisions of an ordinance only where strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration as authorized by M.S. 462.357, Subd. 6(2) as it may be amended from time to time.”

This ordinance is adopted this 25th day of March, 2004 and will be in effect immediately upon publication.

BY: ATTEST:

_____________________________ ______________________________ Mayor Clerk