HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-04-1970Record of Official Proceedings of the Common Council
J; • r:. , M- May 4, 19700
of the City of Rochester, inn.,
55y
•
1
1
is
1
Minutes of -a regular meeting -of -the Common Council of the City of Rochester,
Minnesota, field in the Council Chambers in the City Hall -,in said City., on May 4-3, 1970.
President Postier called -the meeting to order at 2:00 o'clock P.- M. with the
following members being present: President Postier, Alderman Cherland, Larson, -Ludowese,
McNary, Strain, Willmarth. Absent: None.
Upon motion by Strain, second by Willmarth, and all voting in favor, the -minutes of
of'the-meetings of April 20th and 28th, 1970 were approved with the -correction that at the
roll call of the meeting on April 20th the name President' DeVries be changed to -President
Postier.
Mayor's -reappointment -of Benjamin R. Hippe of -1502-Damon Court and Mrs. B. D.
• (Beverly) Brandt of 2353 - 12th Avenue N. W. as members.to the Community Relations Committee,
term of office for three years. and expire May 1, 1973.• Upon motion by Willmarth, second by.
Cherland, and all voting in favor, appointments were approved.
Mayor's appointment of Mrs. Alma Johanns of 415 - 17th.Ave. N.W..as.school crossing
II guard-. Upon motion by Larson, second by Willmarth, and -all voting in favor, appointment was
-approved.
• Appointment of-C.-Bruce Cherland as a member of the Rochester Utility Board, term
of office for.two years. Upon -motion by Ludowese; second by McNary, and all voting in favor,
appointment was approved.
Alderman Cherland submitted the name of David Grimsrud of.1507 22nd St. N.W. as a
member of the Committee on Urban Environment from the 6th-Ward. Upon motion by Cherland,
second by Larson, and all voting in favor, appointment was approved. -
The recommendation of the Airport Commission directing the Mayor and City Clerk
to execute Change Order No. 1. decreasing the contract with Fire Safety Corporation in the
amount of $300.00 in lieu of power steering for the furnishinglof one Fire Truck. Upon motion
by Ludowese, second by Cherland; and all voting in favor, the recommendation was accepted and
execution of the said change -order was -authorized.
Upon motion by Strain, second by Larson, and all voting in favor, the request of
the -Veterans of Foreign Wars and American Legion -to sell poppies on the streets of Rochester
from 3:00 p.m. Friday May 22, to 3:00-p.m.-on Saturday, -May 23 was approved.
Upon motion by Wi.11marth,.second by Strain,•and all voting in favor, the request
of Gilbert Fjelstad to move a garage from 1221 6th Ave. S.E. to 2026 26th Street N. W. was
approved, subject to payment of $25.00 fee; said routing to be approved and supervised by the
Police Department. jl
Upon motion by Larson, second by Ludowese, and all voting in favor, the following
licenses -and bonds were approved; 4 license to -sell cigarettes - Kubat's Dinette, Perkin's
• Cake & Steak House and Greenway Co-op Employees Club (2);.License Bonds - J..McClure Kelly &
Co. in the amounts of $5,000 and $1-,000 with St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company as
surety; Ronald L. Harris in the amounts of $5,000 and $1,000 with St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins.
Company as surety; Peoples Natural Gas Dvivision in the amount of $5,000 with Fidelity and
56.0 Record of Official Proceedings of the Common Council
of the City of Rochester, Minn., May 4, 1970 •
Casualty Company of New York as surety; Joseph Cozik in the amounts of $5,000 and $1,000 with
Western Surety Company as surety; Riverside Sand & Gravel Co. in the amount of $1,000 with The
Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York as surety; Mitchell Welding and Trenching in the
amount of $5,000 with The Travelers Indemnity Company as surety; Woodhouse Brothers in the amount
of $5,000 with Capitol Indemnity Corporation as surety; The Sanitary Company in the amount of
45,000 with Transamerica Insurance Company as surety. Contract Bonds - Rochester Sand & Gravel
(2) in the amounts of $11,000 and $15,000 with Transamerica Insurance Company as surety; L. N.
Sickels Co. in the.amount of $3,894.00 with Seaboard Surety Company as surety; and General Safety
Equipment Corp. in the amount of $35,037.00 with National Surety Corporation of New York as surety.
. Recommendation of Public'Works Committee that Council initiate a local improvement project
without petition for concrete sidewalk on the east side of 19th Avenue S.W. from 2nd Street S.W.
to sidewalk in place at 5th Street S.W.. Upon .motion by Ludowese, second by Cherland, and all
voting in favor, the recommendation was accepted and.resolutions (1) referring proposed improve-
ment for feasibility.report and recommendation and (2) receiving preliminary=report, ordering a
public hearing and directing preparation of plans .and specifications, were each adopted.
Recommendation of Public Works Committee that Council accept feasibility report of City
Engineer and order a hearing on sidewalk improvement on the northerly side.of 13th,Avenue N. W.
from 14th Street N. W. to. 16th Avenue N. W.. Upon.motion by Willmarth, second.by Ludowese, and
all voting in favor, the recommendation was accepted and resolutions (1) referring improvement
petition fqr determination of adequacy, feasibility report.and recommendation and (2) receiving
preliminary report, ordering q public hearing and directing preparation of plans and specifi-
cations, were.each adopted..
Recommendation of Public Works Committee that a local improvement.project without
petition be initiated for. constructing concrete sidewalk on the West side of North Broadway
from 14th Street N. to 16th Street N. Upon motion by Willmarth, second by Strain, and all
voting in favor, the recommendation was accepted and resolutions (1) referring proposed improvement
for feasibility report and recommendation and (2) receiving preliminary report, ordering a public
hearing and directing preparation of plans and.speci-fications, were each adopted.
Recommendation of Public Works Committee that.a local improvement project without
petition be initiated for constructing concrete sidewalk on the south side.of 13th Street
from 6th Avenue S. E..to 8th Avenue S. E. Upon motion by Strain; second by Willmarth, and all
voting.in.favor, the recommendation ways accepted and resolutions (1) referring proposed
improvement for feasibility report and.recommendation anc(_(2) receiving preliminary report,
ordering a public hearing and directing preparation of plans and specifications, were each
adopted.
` Recommendation of Public Works Committee that..a local improvement project without
petition be initiated for constructing concrete sidewalk on the south side of-;19th Street N.W.
from 19th Avenue N. W. to the west frontage road of T.H. 52 NW. Upon motion by Cherland,.second
.by Willmarth, and all vo.ting.in favor, the recommendation was accepted and resolutions (1)
referring proposed improvement for feasibility report and recommendation and (2) receiving
1
•
1
1
•
Record of Official Proceedings of the Common Council
of the City of Rochester, Minn., May 4, 197tD
1
•
1
1
0
1
•
preliminary report, ordering a public hearing and directing preparation of plans and specifi-
cations, were each adopted.
I
The recommendation of the -Traffic Engineering -Division that a crossing guard be
I, �I
i
placed•at the intersection of 2nd Street S.W. and 19th Avenue S.W. Upon motion by Willmarth, '.
second by Ludowese, and all voting in favor, the recommendation was accepted and the crossing ;I
r,
guard authorized.
Recommendation of Traffic Engineering Division that parking be prohibited at all
times on East Center Street -on the north and south side of the street from llth Avenue to a
point 120 feet more or less east thereof. Upon motion by-Willmarth, second by Ludowese, and
all voting in•favor, the recommendation was accepted and the City Attorney instructed to
prepare the necessary resolution.
Recommendation of Traffic Engineering Division that the Master Taxicab Resolution
be amended at the following locations (1) amend Subsection (8) to read - two taxicab stands
on Second Avenue Southwest on the west side of the street -just south of the intersection with
i
First•Street Southwest on Monday through Friday and (2) amend subsection (9) to read - Two
taxicabs stands on First Street -Southwest on the south side of the street just.west of the
north entrance to Mayo Clinic Diagnostic -Building on Monday through Friday. Upon motion by
Ludowese, second by Willmarth, and all voting in -favor•, the recommendation was accepted and I'
the City Attorney instructed to prepare the necessary resolution.
Recommendation of the Traffic Engineering Division that the Master Parking
Resolution be amended to establish a 15 minute -loading zone at First Avenue Southwest on the
I;
west side of the street 35 feet more -or less in front of:the premises known as 415 1st Ave.
S.W. - General Trading Company. Upon motion by Strain, second by Willmarth, and all voting
in favor, the recommendation was accepted and the City Attorney instructed to -prepare the
necessary resolution.
Recommendation of the Traffic Engineering Division that the contract.between the
City and H & H Electric for installation of traffic signals at intersection of 2nd Avenue and
2nd Street S. E. be cancelled; this equipment can be used at other proposed improvements and
for additional inventory for -emergency needs, the cost -of the equipment and material that the
'! .
City will be required to purchase plus profit is $10,780.38tand the contract price was.
I�
$16,440.00 leaving $5,659.62 remaining. Upon motion by Ludowese, second -by Strain, andall
voting.in favor, the recommendation was approved.
Recommendation of the. -Traffic Engineering Division requesting the Council to
approve installation of a mid -block pedestrian actuated traffic signal on 2nd Avenue S.E.
i
between 1st Street S.E. and 2nd Street S.E.;-the signal will provide pedestrian protection 11
I
across 2nd Avenue S.E. with a minimum interruption of vehicles and it is recommended that this
signal be installed in place of the traffic actuated signal at-2nd Avenue and 2nd Street S.E.;'
the estimated cost is $2600 by using City furnished materials and it is proposed to be I�
11.
financed from the $5,659.62 remaining from the cancellation of 2nd Avenue and 2nd Street S.E.i;
I!
�i
�I
06
Record of Official Proceedings of the Common Council
of the City of Rochester, Minn., May 4, , 1970 •
Upon motion by Willmarth, second by Ludowese, and all voting in favor, the recommendation was
approved.
Recommendation of Traffic Engineering.Division that Council authorize the installa-
tion of flashing.warning lights at the intersection of U.S. 14 West and 7th Street N.W. in an
effort to reduce the accidents; estimated.cost to.install.city furnished material is $1200.
it is proposed to finance this project out of the remaining $5,659.62 from the cancelled contract
at 2nd Avenue and 2nd Street S.E.. Upon.motion_by Ludowese, second by.Cherland, and all voting
in favor, the recommendation was approved and installation authorized..
Recommendation of 1 Public Works Committee, that a resolution be adopted advertising
for bids for curb.and gutter on both sides of 3rd Place N.W. from 36th Avenue N.W. to.and
including all 36XX and 37XX numbered lots and 3803. Upon motion.by Strain, second by Cherland,
and all voting.in favor, the recommendation was accepted.and a resolution ordering bids was
adopted.
Recommendation of Finance that a resolution -be adopted authorizing City Clerk to
advertise.for sealed proposals for furnishing liquid chlorine for Sewage Treatment Plant. Upon
motion by Strain, second.by Cherland, and all voting -in favor,_the recommendation was accepted
and a resolution authorizing advertising for furnishing liquid chlorine was adopted.
The recommendation that Mrs. Louise Sweeney,.Clerk Typist. in the City Engineer's
office be given a two step merit.increase effective April 16, 1970,,she_is.currently at.step B
and this will move her to step D was read and upon motion by Ludowese, second by Strain, and
all -voting in favor, the=recommendation was accepted and the increase granted.
.Request of Rochester Peace Center to parade in the Memorial Day Activities. The
Public Safety Committee recommends.that they be permitted to parade on Memorial Day at 1:00.P.M.
unless.the Memorial Association would allow the Rochester Peace Center to be. included in their
parade. Upon motion by Strain, second by Willmarth, and all voting in favor, the recommendation
was:approved..
Resolution adopted by Public Utility.Board requesting authorization to enter into a
contract with Graybar Electric.Inc. for furnishing two 150 KVA Pad.Mounted Transformers in the
amount of $2,868.00. Five bids were received and Graybar Electric of Minneapolis and_Crescent
Electric of Rochester were identtcal.and,there.is.no formal policy indicating that when
identical bids are received that preference should be given.to the local vendor, howeyer,:the
practice has been to give preference to the local bidder. A.motion was made by Larson, second
by Cherland,.that the resolution adopted by the.Public Utility Board be approved, upon roll
call.Larson voted "aye".and all.others voted "nay, so the motion was lost. .A motion was then
made by Strain, second by Willmarth., and all voting in favor, that the.b$d of Crescent Electric
Company.be accepted.
Recommendation that a resolution be adopted instituting charges for use of City.
Land Fill to be effective June 1,. 1970., the charges recommended were as follows:
1
•
1
1
0
1
0
Record of Official Proceedings of the Common Council v
of the City of Rochester, Minn., May 4, 1970
1
•
F1
Lam'
LJ
0
I.,
1.
Car & Station Wagons (each)
2.:
Pickup, panels, 2 wheel trailers
(full load or
not)
3.
One axle truck, 4 wheel trailer
(full load or
not)
4.
Tandem axle truck
(full load or
not)
5.
Semi Truck (3 axle)
(full load or
not)
6.
Appliances (each) The rate for
each on appliances
would be used in lieu of the vehicle
charge,
where these constituted their
load.
7.
Tires (per load)
(full load or
not)
8.
Special Handling
9.
Junk Cars (each)
10.
Packer trucks
(full load or
not)
11.
Flammable Liquids
.25
1.00
2.00
5.00
10.00
1.00
20.00
5.00
10.00
0.20 cu. yd.
not accepted
Alderman Larson - "I read with dismay of the action of the County Planning Board and I would
like to raise a question at this time - Just what do they think we can do? The Public Works
Committee spent many months of 1968 working out a solution to the refuse problem. Prior to
that we stopped all burning at the dump, we instituted the best possible program of covering
refuse that we could in a limited area. We established a set of rules for operation of futu
II
landfill which would practically eliminate the undesirable aspects of a landfill operation.
Before seeking a new land fill site the criteria for one was established -"salient points were!
. i
that it should be removed from any existing residential development, have the necessary terral
ll
G`as well as soil suitable conditions, large enough so that it could be operated remote from any,
�I
homesites, within a reasonable distance of the City and within a mile or so of a state highway,
After several months of searching, a site was recommended. The Mayor did not believe the
committee and the Council so another six months was spent.while another group searched for a
4,
site. (Mayor Day said he recommended that the Council set up a committee and this•recommend-
ation was passed unanimously, he did not at any time disbelieve any one). Their first choice
was one that was unworkable because of soil conditions, blue clay does not work very good as
a cover, wet or dry, and the water table was near the surface, anyway the L.ocoshonas farm was
agreed as the best site. Now we all know that the average person is not going 'to want a land-'
�I
fill right next to them but there was only one home within a 1/r mile of this site or maybe
I
two. Now we are supposed to go out again and search. It doesn't make sense. But I do know J
that we are rapidly running out of space and filling our present site. We have for years 11
operated a free disposal site -paid for by city tax money, we were supposed to start charging
for it this year so that its expense will be off the city tax rolls. But I think charging
will not be enough, I think we should consider limiting it to the City of Rochester residents
only, let the townships find their own site. Any rubbish hauler that has customers outside
the city would have to haul some other places or abandon those customers. We are going to run
i
out of space soon, I don't think we should continue to supply a free area for the townships
and even surrounding villages and•then have their representatives give-1 us a no vote for a II
0
solution to'a problem whichlis partly their making. I think it would be unfortunate if we �l
i
were to get into a hassle with our neighbors at a time like this - but I do believe it is time]
we got a little more consideration from them. They have a lot of people living out there that!'
make their living in Rochester. I wonder if they realize what the action of the county planning
i
board means and what the ultimate cost might be." (The Olmsted County Planning Advisory
it
i
0
564
Record of Official Proceedings of the Common Council
of the City of Rochester, Minn., May 4, 1970 •
Commission voted last Friday to reject the city's plea for a special exception to the county
zoning ordinance to allow a new,landfill-on.a 252 acre farm in ;�Oronoco.Township). The City
Attorney said he would wait until official notice of the rejection is.received before he files
an appeal with the Board of Adjustment. After further discussion, a motion was made by
Ludowese, second by Larson, that the recommendation -of Finance on charges for use of the City
Land Fill be accepted and the City Attorney prepare the necessary ordinance; all•voted in
favor.
Resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute on behalf
of the City the contract between the City of Rochester and Johnson, Drake Piper, Inc. relative
to the construction of said local improvements in a portion of Manor Woods First Subdivision.
Upon motion by Ludowese, second by Willmarth, and all voting in favor, resolution adopted.
Ordinance relating to charges for refuse collection; amending Rochester Code of
Ordinances, Section 130.600 (this ordinance was given its three readings on April 6, 1970).
A motion was made by Willmarth, second by Cherland, and all voting in favor, that Section 2
of this ordinance be amended so that this ordinance shall take effect and be in force
June 1, 1970 and from and after its official publication. A motion was then made by Cherland,
second by Larson, that the ordinance be adopted as amended; all voted in favor.
Ordinance rezoning South 9 feet of Lot 1, Block 2, Indian Heights Third Subdivision
to R-l'One Family Residence District, was given its third and final reading. A motion was made
by Ludowese, second by Cherland, that the ordinance be adopted as read; all voted in favor.
Ordinance annexing to the City of Rochester, Minnesota, certain unplatted land not
exceeding 200 acres in area, all being in the Southwest Quarter of Section 7, Township 106
North, Range 12 West and in the East half of Section 12, Township 106 North, Range 14 West,
Olmsted County, Minnesota (Conway property) was given its 2nd reading. A motion was made by
Larson, second by Willmarth, to suspend the rules and give the ordinance the third and final
reading; upon roll call Alderman Ludowese voted "nay".
Ordinance rela ting to passenger and commodity loading zones; amending the Rochester
Code of Ordinances by adding a new section 147.221, was given its 2nd reading.
Ordinance relating to the establishment of Truck Routes in the City of Rochester;
amending Rochester Code of Ordinances, Section 144.100;7 was given its 2nd reading.
Ordinance relating to the Rochester Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning Code
and the issuance of licenses thereunder, was given its first reading. (This ordinance deletes
the license requirements for Journeyman�Installer and Serviceman). Upon motion by Larson,
second by Strain, and upon roll call and all voting in favor, the rules were suspended and the
ordinance was given its second reading. Upon motion by Cherland, second by Larson, and upon
roll call and all voting in favor, the rules were suspended and the ordinance was given its
third and final reading. A motion was then made by Strain, second by Cherland, that the
ordinance be adopted as read; all voted in favor.
Upon motion by Larson, second by Strain, and all voting in favor, the proposed
1
•
1
1
10
1
0
Record of Official Proceedings of the Common Council
of the City of Rochester, Minn., May 4, 1970
"-b0
06.
I
E
1
1
45
1
Subdivision Regulation Ordinance was removed from the table. Upon motion by Larson, second
by Ludowese, and all voting in favor, the ordinance was given its first reading. A motion was
then made by Ludowese, second by Strain, that the matter to extend the subdivision regulations
beyond the City limits be referred to the Planning Department for a detailed report of its
administration and that the recommendation to require underground electric utility lines be
referred to the Public Utility Board for a report and recommendation; all voted in favor.
Upon motion by Larson, second by Strain, and all voting in favor, the meeting was
recessed at 3:00 P. M. The meeting was called to order again at 3:30'P. M. with all 'members
being present.
Mr. Mark Brataas, President.of the Downtown Council was present and requested that
the Council change its priorities on construction of the one-way'system and build 1st Avenue
S.E.-N.E. the northbound leg of the one way system first, he said they were in favor of the
one way system but felt this should have priority. Mr. Virgil Elliott of 621-10th Ave.'S:E.;
Maurice Gintz, Manager of Osco Drug Store; Mr. Alan Rich, President of C. F. Massey Company;
Mr. James Klattke, Manager of The Dayton Company and Mr. Malcolm Mellin, representing the
Development Committee for Downtown Rochester were each heard; they opposed making Broadway a
one-way street and each spoke in favor of doing 1st Avenue S.E.-N.E. before doing 1st Avenue
N.W.-S.W. President Postier noted that there would be a public hearing on the one-way
street pair at 7:30 P. M. on Monday, May 25, 1970.
Mayor Day said the City had purchased the Norton Hotel property and also the
Railroad property and they were both sitting idle with chains across them and said he would
like to see them blacktopped and put to use within the:next few weeks, he suggested that a
fee be charged and thought if about 25(,� was charged for about three hours they would fill up
and be used. The City Attorney reported that the Railroad Company had until June 9th or loth
to take the tracks off and remove the platform off of the one lot and that we have tenants
that would have to be notified to vacate. Upon motion by Ludowese, second by'Cherland, and'
all voting in favor, this was referred to the Public Safety Committee.
Upon motion by Larson, second by Cherland, and all voting in favor, the meeting was,
adjourned until 7:30 P. M.
President Postier called the meeting to order at 7:30 P. M. with the following
members being present. President Postier, Aldermen Cherland, Larson, Ludowese, McNary, Strain,
Willmarth. Absent: None.
Dr. Gary MacElroy of 905 2nd Avenue N. E. was present and said it was his underst-
anding that a parade permit had been granted earlier in the meeting and that another permit
would be granted later to hold parades on Memorial Day; he said he felt they should be
combined, both parades use taxpayers money by having to have police present and as far as he
could see both organizatiorshave the same thing in mind. Dr. MacElroy represented the Roche
Peace Center and the other group was the -Memorial Association.
Hearing on proposed assessment for widening, repaving and partial sidewalk
:r
41
replacement on 2nd Street S. W. from 5th Avenue to llth Avenue S. W. and replacement of sewer
F'566
Record of Official Proceedings of the Common Council
of the City of Rochester, Minn., May 4,1970
and water services at certain properties abutting the repaving project. A letter signed by
Wilbur E. Cotton of 123 6th Ave. S.W. stating that they were being assessed for 58 feet of
frontage and they had granted an easement to the City for 7 feet of this property, which was
cut off for the corner and they felt that they should be only assessed for 51 feet, was read.
Mr. Terry.Hopfenspirger owner of property 839 - 2nd Street S. W. was present and said he did
not think he should be charged for sidewalk because the work trucks had run over the sidewalk
(anddemolished it, he said he had put in a claim for it but had never received an answer. C. A.
Armstrong, City Engineer, said replacement of sidewalk was part of the project and they had
information that this sidewalk was hazardous before the project was started. There was no one
else present wishing to be heard. President Postier declared the hearing officially closed.
A motion was made by Ludowese, second by Strain, to proceed with the assessment;.:::
all voted in favor. A motion was then made by
Strain, second by Ludowese, that the letter from Dr. Cotton and the complaint of Mr. Hopfenspirger
be referred to the Public Works Committee; all voted in favor.
Hearing on local improvements - Part II of Allendale Improvements (Project 6502-70
Part II). The estimated cost of the improvement to be %562,300 and all costs would be assessed
less whatever amounts that may be received from federal grants; the City has submitted an
application for federal assistance on the sewer and water and the amount of the application was
$97,400 but as of this date the application has not been acted on and there is no assurance
that funds will be forthcoming. Mr. Richard Towey, Attorney was present in behalf of Michael
Briese of 2014-30th Place N.W., he said Mr. Briese had a piece of property with about a 290
foot frontage and he had paid about $20,000 for it and if his figures are correct he will have
to pay over $13,000 in assessments. C. A. Armstrong said he could not tell what the assessments
will be because he does not know what is assessable but if Mr. Briese has a 290foot frontage
his -assessment figure will run into something like that, he said no sidewalk was included in
this project; Mr. Towey requested that this be studied further before -the project is proceeded
with. Mr. Dana Eisenman of 2626 North Highway 52 and inquired if (1) the storm sewer was in
this project (2) will the assessments be against Allendale only and (3) would it be possible
to block off the water course; C. A. Armstrong answered the questions (1) the storm sewer is in
this project (2) the analysis of cost assumed it will be against Allendale property and (3) the
water course could not be blocked off; Mr. Eisenman said he felt that 80% of the water would not
come from the Allendale Subdivision and did not think they should assume the whole assessment,
he requested the Council to consider apreading the assessments over all the area involved. Mr.
Dennis Pickering of 1902 - 18h Avenue N.W. was present in behalf of the Emmanuel Baptist Church
and said they were opposed to the entire project. Mr. Donald Bowman of 2025 31st Place N. W.
questioned just what the project was and also how it was going to be paid for. Mr. Harold
Brevig owner of south 100' of Lots 7 and 8 inquired if the property would be restored to
original grade, etc and will the assessments on Part I and II be made separate. C. A. Armstrong,
said the property was to be put back in same shape as when started and the plan was to assess
Parts I and II jointly. Mrs. Harry Ranks of 2030 - 31st Place N. W. inquired if sidewalk was
1
11
7_7
1-
I
Record of Official Proceedings of the Common Council .56
of the City of Rochester, Minn., May 4, 1970
•
F�
1
40
included in this sidewalk and also objected to the size of the roadway. Mr. Armstrong said
the owner could put in sidewalk if they wanted but it was not included in this project and t
roadway was.the standard 66ft width.. Mr. Eugene O'Neil of 2926 Highway 52 said he did not
think they should be assessed for the entire storm sewer because he did not feel they.
benefited from it and also the cost was $7.00 different between now and last year.. C. A.
Armstrong said it is customary.to assess.storm sewer to all the land contributing to the wat
and even if owners.do not think so, the land is contributing to that storm sewer and it does
benefit the entire neighborhood, he said the difference in cost is because it is just an
estimate at.this time. Mr. Lawrence T. Collins, Attorney.represented several of the land
owners in the area and requested that the Council take a very critical look.to the basis of
assessing the storm sewer and also upon securing certain appraisals. There was no one else
present wishing to be heard. Upon motion by Ludowese, second by Strain, and all -voting in
favor, the hearing was continued to June 1, 1970 at 7:30 P. M.
Hearing on proposed zone change on Lot 7,.Block 2, Leiferman-Koehnen Subdivision
to B-lb Neighborhood Business District (1533-2nd Ave. N.E.). The recommendation of the
Planning & Zoning Commission was to approve the requested zone change.. Mr. Richard
Gullickson, Attorney -was present in behalf of the petitioner and urged that the zone change
be granted. There was no one else present wishing to be heard. President Postier declared
the hearing officially closed. Upon motion by Larson, second by Ludowese,'and all voting in
favor, the recommendation was accepted and the zone change approved. An Ordinance rezoning
Lot 7, Block2, L.eiferman-Koehnen Subdivision to B-lb Neighborhood Business District was
given its first reading. Upon motion by Larson,. second by.Willmar.th, and upon roll call and
all voting in favor, the rules were suspended and the ordinance was given its second reading.
Hearing on amending the Land Use Plan as it affects the property lying West of
U.S. 52, south of CSAH No. 8 and the Zumbro River to designate this area as being suited for
commercial, multi -family and.recreation uses (Baihley property). There was no one present
wishing to be heard. President Postier declared the hearing officially closed. The
recommendation of the Planning Commission was to approve the request. Upon motion by Ludowes
second by Larson, and all voting in favor, the recommendationwas accepted and a resolution
amending the Land Use Plan as it applies to the Baihly Property was adopted, subject to
proper considerations being given for flood control.
• A motion was made by Strain, second by McNary, and passed unanimously, -that the
semi-monthly bills, list attached, in the amount -of $166,971.24 be approved with the
correction on page 7,.that the amounts of $13,559.01 and $363.82 be changed to code 1263.
Bids for furnishing two Travel -all Station Wagons for the City Engineer's Dept.
Bids of Selby Truck Co. $3,176.50, Clements Chevrolet '$3,088.40 and Truck Service Co.
$3,063.00 for 1,:.7500 GVW Wagon with no trade in; Selby Truck Co. $2,895100, Clements
Chevrolet :$2,834.90 and Truck Service Co. $2,919.00 for one 5400 GVW Wagon less trade in.
Upon motion by Larson, second by Ludowese, and all voting in favor, the bids of Clements
568
Record of Official Proceedings of the Common Council
of the City of Rochester, Minn., May 4, 1919 •
Chevrolet Co. for 5400GVW Wagon in the amount of $2,834.90 and Truck Service Co. for 7500GVW
Wagon in the amount of $3,063.00 were accepted and a resolutionaccepting the said.bids was
adopted. Alderman Strain noted that thepe was only one trade-in, they -were actually adding
one vehicle but when the one that -was to be traded in on the 7500 GVW could no longer be used
it woeld•not-be replaced.
A -resolution adopted by the Common Council on April 6, 1970 recommending to.the
Minnesota Municipal Commission that approximately 1081 acres of land.abutting.upon the present
city limits and situated between the -City of Rochester -and the Rochester Municipal Airport be
annexed subject to the conditions listed was again read. Mayor Day vetoed.the.said resolution
on April 10, 1970. The following veto message submitted.by.Mayor Day was read:
Members of the Common Council
City of Rochester
Rochester., :-:Minnesota
Gentlemen:
. . . On Friday, April 10, 1970 I vetoed and returned to the City Clerk your
resolution approving the petition to annex approximately 1081 acres south of the
City. This veto was based on.a.careful analysis of_the_many factors involved and
my conclusion that it was not in the best interests of the City to annex this land
at the present time. As all of you are aware, it has never been.my position that.
there are no plausible or effective arguments in favor of this annexation.
Undoubtedly, connection of this.area, and abutting areas, to the City's sewage
disposal system would be superior to individual on -site sewage facilities. The
Rochester Municipal Airport as well.as other existing and future commercial and.
industrial sites would benefit from construction of sanitary sewer lines connecting
to Rochester's system. Probably better supervision over planning and development
of the area proposed for annexation and ajoining areas could be exercised if such
planning and development were directed toward ultimate.annexation.of a large area
south of the City.
. My. opposition to this annexation has been,, and continues to be, that the
arguments and factors against it far outweigh those in favor. It is my hope and
request that you will carefully reconsider this matter before voting again.on the
resolution approving the annexation, and I am sending this letter to you at this
time so that.you will have in mind, during your reconsideration, some of the more
important factors which compel me to veto your resolution. These factors are:
.(1) By no reasonable standard could the proposed annexation (See..Exhibit A)
of a grossly irregular corridor more than five miles long and averaging
approsimately one-2uarter mile.in width, be considered as an ;'orderly" annexation
in keeping with good planning and development principles. For many years, this
City has been an advocate of orderly annexation procedures, and representatives
of this City have frequently testified before the state legislature in an effort
to obtain amendments .to.the state laws on.annexation which would permit such
orderly annexation. We have long been attempting to persuade surrounding
townships as to thg merits of planned, orderly annexations and have been
partially successful in this attempt. While we have had to accept some annexations
in the past which did not fully qualify as orderly annexations,_the annexation now
being proposed and considered goes far beyond anything we have done in the past
and violates many of the basic principles of orderly annexation.and good planning
and development and development practices. If we approve this proposed annexation,
we will not be acting in good faith.and will be breaching.the principles we.have .
so long advocated. We will have substantially impaired the City's position on
orderly annexation which I believe to be right and just, both morally and legally.
(2) The proposed annexation would seriously compromise our efforts to
solve the problems of the Jmmediate fringe area of the City.. These problems are
set forth in an excellent report prepared by our City Planning Department staff,
dated August, 1968, and entitled "An Analysis of Fringe Area Development Problems."
This report outlines the territory and problems upon which the City should be
concentrating its efforts and financial resources.. The existing problems in the
immediate fringe area around Rochester are much more severe than the relatively
minor problems you are attempting to resolve by this anngxation,.and the City's
planning, engineering and financial resources should not be diluted in an
attempt to solve problems far beyond our.area of immediate concern. I especially
recommend this report to you and call your attention to Page 5 (See Exhibit B)
which outlines the territory considered in the.study.. I also call you; attention
to the fact that 51% of the individual wells that have been tested in the
immediate fringe area of the.City are contaminated, and most of these contaminated
wells are south of the City.
1
•
1
11
CJ
Record of Official Proceedings of the -Common Council
of the City of Rochester, Minn:, May 4, 197t0
56.9
i
•
•
1
(3) From a practical standpoint, with the.possible exception of sanitary sewer,
the City of Rochester will not be able to provide the usual municipal services which
any are annexed to the City has the right to expect (See Exhibits C thru I). Even
though some of the owners of the property being considered for annexation, may.have
expressed a willingness to forego many of the usual.municipal services, I am .
convinced that they will be demanding these services in the near future. This is
expecially true of.municipal water supply, fire protection, street construction and
street maintenance. Having annexed their land as.suitable for municipal control,
the City will be in a difficult position to deny them priority over other lands sub-
sequently annexed.
(4) This annexation is undesirable from an investment standpoint (See Exhibit Q .
Whenever the City undertakes to make local improvements in land being developed, it
must consider whether the costs of such improvements are a good investment and -will
be recovered within a reasonable time in the future. In order to construct sanitary
sewer, the City will be required to issue approximately $750,000 in general obligations
bonds and therefore go into debt to that extent to solve a very modest list of
problems. With the large number of areas involved and the rate at which this land
can be expected to develop, is the Common. Council convinced that this is a good
investment. Will this land be able to support, not only general taxes, but the
added burden.of approximately
pp y $700 to.$750 per acre in special assessments (with
.interest) for sanitary sewer. In.addition, a portion of the cost of. the "East.Side
Interceptor" sewer should be assessed against the land proposed for annexation, and
will the land be able to support this added assessment? If there is default in the
payment of special assessments, then the City must look to -general taxation}°,to pay
the outstanding bonds. If additional special assessments are levied for:water.towers,l
water mains, storm sewers and street construction, will this large quantity of
undeveloped land be able to carry such added burdens? The.development of a large
part.of the area now proposed for annexation is long-range speculation at best, and
the Common Council should be very cautious about incurring general oblication indebted;
ness of the City to this extent.
(5) There is no reliable evidence that Federal Funds will be available to defray'
a part of the cost of constructing sanitary sewer. Apparently the time has already
past to make application for funds which may be available in 1971.. The sewage
problems existing on the lands proposed for annexation are certainly not such that a
sewer project will warrant any high priority status as far as Federal Funds are con-
cerned. If this land is annexed, the -Common Council should be prepared to pay the
initial cost entiretly from City. funds.
(6) The cost of sanitary sewer is only one.of the many costs that will be in-
curred in connection with this annexation. The -City engineer_advises.that several
miles of township roads runs along the center boundary of the land proposed to be
annexed and the City will have to assume its share of cost of maintaining.such roads
and removing snow. According to the petition, only.forty (40) residents live on the
land to be annexed. Can the added cost of street.maintenance, fire protection and
police protectionbe justified for forty (40) residents when many more residents and
areas nearer the City are in critical need of these services.
(7) It is appropriate to -inquire what the attitude of the Common Council will be
if areas nearer the City along the line of the proposed sanitary sewer.seek.to annex
and connect to the sewer. The development of these nearer areas will.undoubtedly
adversely affect the areas included in the.proposed annexation which are farther
away. Is the Common Council prepared to annex these areas and perhaps impair the
financial security for the special assessments on the land now proposed to be annexed.
(8) McGhie and Betts, Inc., Consulting Engineers, who have prepared the study on
the new sewage disposal system at the Rochester Municipal Airport, have estimated the
cost of such a system at '$72,000, of which it is anticipated the State of Minnesota
will pay 50%. The cost of `proposed sewer line which petitioners suggest the City
bear is approximately '$60,000 to; $70,000. Additional.cost of sewer:line on the
Airport prop.er is estimated by McGhie and Betts, Inc. at $22,000. Therefore, the i
cost of constructing a separate sewage disposal system at the Airport as compared
with the City's participation in construction of sewer lines connecting to -the City,
is $362000-against $7.0,000._to $80,000 (See Exhibit J).. I believe that under the
special circumstances existing at the Airport,.construction of an approved and
satisfactory separate sewage disposal.system will be permitted at substantial savings
to the City.
(9) Annexation of the proposed area will encourage.a strip. -type of commercial
development along Trunk Highway #63. This type of development has consistently.been
opposed by the City's Planning.and Zoning Department because it impairs the traffic
carrying capacity of the road or .street along which it occurs, creates unnecessary
traffic hazards and causes deteriorated and blighted conditions at the rear of the
strip. If the annexation under study is ordered, approximately 10,730 lineal feet
on the east side and 15,110 lineal feet.on the west side of.Highway.#63 will be added
to the City (See Exhibit K). Although this constitutes only about 48% of -the highway
frontage between the present City'-Aimits and the Airport, encouragement of commercial
development along this extensive frontage could have serious adverse consequences.
0
570
Record of Official Proceedings of the Common Council
of the City of Rochester, Minn., May 4, 1970
The proposal (See.Exhibit L).submitted to the Common Council on March 2,.1970 by
Mr..Gerard Ring, Attorney for the petitioners, appears to have many ramifications that
should be.considered.
a. What if 30% of the cost -is not forthcoming from the Federal Government?
b. Is '$700 per acre the.maximum assessmentcost, even though it.has never.been
the policy of the City -to seta maximum amount?
c. Specifically, who.are.the majority..of the landowners and the size of their
acreage -that they are willing to annex?
d. Specifically, who are the landowners and.size of their acreage who have
pledged immediatelassessment to their property?
e.. Would the.'120 to 140 acres that are now platted and developed expect immed-
iate "other" services?
f. What is meant by the "return for their.pledge", there will be a $700 "hook-up"
charge for all developers in.the area? Does this mean "un-annexed" land too?
g. In paying $700 per acre for.this project only,�:would this.mean.that this area
would not share in the future.costs of the "East Side Interceptor."?
It is not my intent to make-this.statement long and confusing. :However, there are so •
many points with far reaching effects that I feel it my duty to point outsome of the major
problems such as:
a.- The precedent of.a five -mile long corridor one-fourth mile wide.
.b. That this annexation.would violate the basic principle of orderly annexation.
C. That the City has proposed entering into agreements with the townships for a
phased and orderly program of annexation. This particular annexation would
not.be keeping faith with the proposal.
d. That we would delay helping the.built-up areas on the fringe of the -City who
are in urgent need of.water and water facilities.
e. That the engineering firm of McGhie and Betts, Inc. have assured us that the
construction of a complete sewage system for. the -Airport could be done to
comply with local and state agencies...
f. That City services for this corridor would be very expensive and in.some
instances impractical.
g. That this is a massive project, for instance, the trunk .line sewer alone would
be approximately 37,700 feet long, compared to a total.of 31,202 feet built
in our entire City during the last ten years.
h. Less than 50% of the highway frontage between Rochester and the Airport would
be served by sewer or annexed to the City. .The present county zoning ordinance
.is as restrictive as the City ordinance, and, in fact, does -have a C-1 Highway
Service District under Article VIII which we do not have.
In conclusion, I feel my past actions against pollution should.be indication enough
that I am very concerned about present and future water and sewer problems.- The water
and sewer study being made at the present time, along -with the.1968-study, I am sure show
that we must have reasonable and orderly. boundaries. If money and taxes were no problem,
I would be the first to.propose taking care of all the sewage problems in the county.
However, as you know, that is not the case. We have limited funds and they must be used
in an orderly fashion and on.a priority basis. The.highest ofthese priorities, of
course, is the annexation and serving with sewer and water the.built-up areas east and
south of the City.
I appreciate your study of this statement, and request for the best long-range
interest of our City, that.you reconsider this matter.
Respectfully,
s/ Dewey Day, Mayor
Alderman Larson then read the following statement:
I would like to say a few words in reply to the Mayor's veto message. They are mine
and made without the advice and help.of legal counsel. •
I must commend the Mayor for. his document. It is very well.prepared. I will not
bore you with a point.by point discussion of.the issues the questions as -they were dis-
cussed in committee and at other previous meetings..
The Mayor has very .clearly .stated .the proponent.'s position in the .last half of his
first paragraph, "Undoubtedly, connection of this area, and abutting areas, -to the City's
sewage disposal system would be superior to individual -on -site sewage facilities. The
Rochester Municipal Airport as well as other existing and future commercial and industrial
sites.would benefit from construction of sanitary sewer lines connecting to Rochester's
system. Probably better supervision over planning -and development of the area proposed
for.annexation and adjoining areas could be exercised if such -planning and development
were directed toward ultimate annexation of a large area south of the.City."
We of the Council are faced with two paramount issues: (1) Prevention of Pollution;
and (2) Proper control over the planning of an area.
Regarding polution, the County Health Board has denied requests for the construction
of lagoons to treat sewage in this and other areas. I doubt if they could at this time
do.an about face and grant a permit for one at the airport. I think that any approved
method of treatment would cost the taxpayers several times more than the projected lagoon
system proposed by the consulting firm of McGhie and Betts, with all due respects to the
firm. I am not questioning their program, I just don't think it would be acceptable.
•
Record of Official Proceedings of the , Common Council
W
of the City of Rochester, Minn., May 4, 1970
1
•
1
1
�J
1
Regarding Control of Planning. Several of the property owners -south of
Rochester are aware of the economic forces that will cause the commercial development
° south of the City toward the airport -and the junction of I-90. They realize that
with proper planning their property will be better utilized to realize its fullest
and best -potential. They want to have this control of planning. Coupled with it,
they of course want City services, primarily waste disposal. They have indicated a
willingness to bear the major share of the sewer lines cost to serve the area. They
are willing and anxious to annex to the City and pay City taxes. They are no dif-
ferent than developers in every other area. They hope to aohieve monetary gain the
same as any other developer. It's the American way of life --It's private enterprise --
plus they are willing to help pay the expense of getting the City out of a tight
spot at the airport. Seldom is a City given an opportunity to plan an area before
the problems arise.
Usually building takes place in rural areas in a piecemeal and haphazard manner.
When the mistakes and problems become acute, the City is asked to -step in and remedy
the situation.
I am sure all of you realize these problems and I am confident that the majority
of you agree with me and will vote for this much needed program of annexation.
A letter from David Bach, President of the Chamber of Commerce going on record as supporting
the decision of the Common Council concerning the proposed annexation and extension of utilities
to the Rochester Airport was read. Mr. G. Ring, Attorney was present and when asked said the
people would be willing to pay their share which would include the interceptor and water linesf,
there has been no request for exemption of future assessments but at the present time there is
no one in the area in need of water. After hearing those present President Postier asked for
a vote on the original motion to approve the resolution and upon roll call, Larson, Ludowese,
McNary, Strain and Willmarth voting "aye" and Cherland and Postier voting "nay", the Mayor's
veto was overridden and the resolution adopted.
Resolution vacating the utility easements in Lots 1,2,3, and 4, Block 2, .Indian
Heights Third Subdivision. Upon motion by Ludowese, second by Willmarth, and all voting in
favor, resolution adopted.
Resolution granting a variance to permit the construction of an addition to the
existing house at 2635 - 12th Avenue N. W. Upon motion by Willmarth, second by Strain, and
all voting in favor, resolution adopted.
Ordinance relating to Refuse Disposal, Establishing Fees for Disposal at
Sanitary Landfill Disposal Sites; and amending Rochester Code of Ordinances by adding Section
31.031 thereto was given its first reading. Upon motion by Larson, second by Ludowese, and
upon roll call and all voting in favor, the rules were suspended and the ordinance was given
its second reading. Upon motion by Ludowese, second by Strain, and upon roll call and all
voting in favor, the rules were suspended and the ordinance was given its third and final
reading. Upon motion byLudowese, second by Larson, and all voting in favor, ordinance was
adopted.
Upon motion by Larson, second by Willmarth> and all voting in favor, the meeting
was adjourned until 7:30 o'clock P. M. on May 18, 1970.
City Clerk
11