Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Workshop Minutes 05.28.2019MINUTES CITY OF LAUREL CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP TUESDAY, MAY 28, 2019 A Council Workshop was held in the Council Chambers and called to order by Mayor Tom Nelson at 6:31 p.m. on May 28, 2019. _x Emelie Eaton _x Heidi Sparks x Bruce McGee x Richard Herr x Scot Stokes x Iry Wilke x Richard Klose x Bill Mountsier OTHERS PRESENT: Nick Altonaga, City Planner Bethany Langve, Clerk/Treasurer Stan Langve, Police Chief Kurt Markegard, Public Works Director Carl Jackson, KLJ Jessica McCartney, 303 Union President Public Input: There were none. General Items: There were none. Executive Review: 1. Resolution: A Resolution Approving A Task Order Authorizing Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson, Inc. For Work Relating To The City's 2019 Pavement Damage Repair Project. Kurt Markegard, Public Works Director, spoke to the damage this past winter caused to our streets. Areas have been barricaded. Crews have been out this spring to repair the areas. However, there are too many areas that need to be addressed for City crews to handle. This resolution is for KLJ to prepare bid specs to have a contractor come in and help get these areas repaired. The engineers estimate approximately $400k in damages. This Task Order went before the Public Works Committee this past week. It was questioned how many of the streets are scheduled for replacement. It was clarified that last year the City replaced two blocks of W. 4`'' Street and half a block of W. 2nd Street. City crews did some of the work themselves and had the contractor pave the site. It was further questioned if the City is replacing entire blocks of streets, if so what is the biggest bang for the buck. It was clarified that this work is to get the streets back in a safe condition. These streets are repairable. There is not enough in the budget to do a full street repair. The City can do the large project and repairs this year. It was further clarified that once bids come in Council can choose to accept the bid. The Contractor doing E. 6th Street is interested in this project as well while they are in town. Can only move forward if this project goes out to bid. The Public Works Director gave a brief overview of the history of street paving in the City. The City first installed curb and gutter, leaving the streets dirt. The roads were oiled yearly to reduce the dust. If residents wanted their street paved, a SID was created. They started by paving the driving lane and left the parking lane. They laid less than an inch of asphalt on top of the dirt for budgetary reasons. The load of the road is carried by the gravel underneath the asphalt. Asphalt is considered "plastic" and has a tendency to bend and mold to the substructure beneath it. When the City is doing a big project, the roads are being built with the correct substructure to withstand the load. Laurel is not the only community to suffer from frost heave damage. Many surrounding communities are facing the same issues. Many had their water lines or service lines freeze this past winter. The City only had one service line freeze. 2. Resolution: A Resolution Approving An Amendment To Task Order Authorizing Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson, Inc. For Work Relating To The City's East 6th Street Reconstruction Project. Kurt Markegard, Public Works Director, stated KLJ was hired to do the design work on E. 6' Street. Then they were tasked with doing the bid process. This is an amendment for KLJ to do onsite construction administration. They will be doing the as-builts for the water lines and be the Residential Project Representative (RPR) for this project. This will be the last expected task order coming from KLJ on this project. It was stated that there would be accommodations to address the traffic for the 4th of July festivities. There is also a class reunion the following Saturday that will be accommodated for as well. This group understands that parking will be limited. The contractor will be excavating, building, filling daily, with the goal to not leave an open trench. They will be working from Wyoming towards 1St Avenue. This project should be completed before the start of the school year in August. 3. Resolution: A Resolution Approving An Amendment To Task Order Authorizing Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson, Inc. For Work Relating To The City's East Downtown Infrastructure Improvements Project. Carl Jackson, KLJ, stated they began work on this project last fall. All preliminary work has been completed. This amendment to the task order is to begin the design work. The project area is Washing to Ohio; Main to E. 1' Street. The design work will include water, wastewater, stormwater, sidewalks, paving, etc. The design will include a two-phase approach. Phase one should be able to be completed this fall. Nick Altonaga, City Planner, stated that he had toured the area recently. He has reviewed the scope of work and the budget with the Clerk/Treasurer and agreed that this area was in need of improvements. Two of the main reasons the TIF District was established was for drainage and streetscape improvements. This is a perfect area to use these funds. Mayor Nelson stated three of the worst streets within the TIF District are included in this project. Looking at ways to increase parking for the businesses in this area. This project stemmed from complaints on Washington where water was pooling because of improper drainage. It was questioned if the streets in this area were included in the previous task order addressing street repairs from this past winter. It was clarified that none of the streets included in this project area are part of the previous task order. It was clarified that the TIF District would be expired in under three years. The State allows for the TIF District to bond a project to extend the district another 25 years. The TIF District is a great service for the businesses within the district. It was questioned if this project would be going on at the same time as the E. 6a' Street project. It was clarified that yes, this project would be going on at the same time. There are two phases to this project. Phase One will be this fall, while Phase Two will be the following spring. It was clarified that other projects had been brought forward over the years within the TIF District. The Gateway project is one of those projects, it was brought forward and paid for by LURA. That is a State route and requires State approval. This project is the perfect size for the TIF District while still allowing the grant program to continue. This winter there was a water break at Ohio and E. Main Street. Staff found many different types of pipes and many varieties of valves. One had a valve you would place in the home, it had a valve riser, but crews would have had to dig down and turn it with a pipe wrench. There are some 2in waterlines in this area. Fire hydrants need a bin line to maintain proper pressure. The infrastructure in this area is old and in need of repairs. Crews have used the new sewer camera to look at the existing infrastructure and found some areas that need to be rehabbed. Started discussing the needs in this area in 2015. Chad Page, 701 E. Main Street — Pelican Cafe, asked if the roads will be closed during this tune. It was clarified that efforts would be made to minimize the impacts to the businesses in this area. Other businesses in the area have expressed their support of this project as well. This project will address parking for a variety of businesses and install ADA sidewalks. They are looking at options for crosswalks in this area as well, as the streets don't line up to at typically intersections. It was questioned if Phase One will be infrastructure with Phase Two being paving. It was further questioned if these streets will be gravel between the end of Phase One and the beginning of Phase Two. It was clarified that Washington, Idaho, and Ohio would be the focus of Phase One, with E. 1st Street being the focus of Phase Two. Paving will be completed weather dependent. 4. Resolution: Resolution Relating To Special Improvement District No. 119; Creating The District For The Purpose Of Undertaking Certain Local Improvements And Financing The Costs Thereof And Incidental Thereto Through The Issuance Of Special Improvement District Bonds Secured By The City's Special Improvement District Revolving Fund (Public Hearing 6.4.2019) Mayor Nelson reminded Council that this SID is attached to the E. 6'a' Street project. Bethany Langve, Clerk/Treasurer, stated that the Council passed the resolution of intent; this is the resolution to actually create the district. Currently, the Clerk/Treasurer has not received any protests. Letters have been sent out, including to ourselves. The next step in this process will be to sell the bond; they can begin on the sidewalks. The sidewalks will be ADA compliant. The Clerk/Treasurer recently spoke with the Superintendent of the School District. The School District is very excited about the completion of this project. 5. Resolution: A Resolution Of The City Council To Amend The Large Grant Request Program Pursuant To The Recommendation Of The Laurel Urban Renewal Agency. Council pulled this item from the last Workshop; there were questions on the affordability of the cap increase. Bethany Langve, Clerk/Treasurer, clarified the question posed by Council at the previous Workshop. Council had questioned how raising the cap on the Large Grant program would affect the TIF Districts ability to repay their debt service once the bond is sold. The Clerk/Treasurer reached out to the Bond Counsel for further clarification. TIFs have different bonding capacities. They are viewed more like an enterprise fund. Currently, the revenue is over $600k per year. Their cash balance is $1.6 mil. When the bond is sold, the purchaser looks at how much the TIF can repay on their debt service. The purchaser prefers to see the ability to pay 130%-140% of the repayment amount. The rough estimates are that this project will be total approximately $4.6mil. The $1.5mil in reserves will be used, leaving approximately $3mil to finance. With this calculation, the payments would be approximately $210k per year. With the 30-40% buffer bring the debt service payments to $295k. The TIF District is bringing in approximately $700k per year; last years was $708k. The financial recommendation would be to not increase to $225k until after the bond has sold. Increasing their limit by $50k is a more reasonable option and revisit after the bond is sold. The interest rate is unknown at this time and will affect their yearly repayment amount. It is Council's responsibility to keep the TIF District financially sound. It was questioned how much was spent across all the grant programs last year. Last year they awarded $26,511.31 for Technical Assistance grants; $109,222.19 for Large/Facade grants. This year they have spent $24,978.75 in Technical Assistance grants and $106,150.38 in Large/Fagade grants. It was questioned if the budget is $629k or $708k. It was clarified that the budget is $705k, part of the revenue source is from HB 124. This is an entitlement share which started in 2001. The State collects taxes and redistributed them go from there. Each legislative session, this revenue source has been attacked. In 2016 and 2018 the money the City received had been reduced. This revenue source has been left out of this equation as it is not a safe source of revenue for the TIF or the City. When the Mayor asked for the budget, it was budgeted off the worst-case scenario. The Planner is looking to see if the cap is raised can they be retroactively awarded more funds. It was questioned if the TIF District has $629k in tax revenue and $1.6 mil in cash balance. It was further questioned if LURA could spend the money in their reserves. It was clarified that they could not because they have only gotten approval from Council to award up to $ l 00k each fiscal year. It was further questioned if the $1.5 mil is the down payment for the East end project. It was clarified that was correct; then the bond will be sold for the TIF. It was questioned if the $1.5 mil down payment would be wiping out their reserves. It was clarified that was correct. This Council Member was against raising the cap on the Large Grant program to $225k. They stated they wanted more cushion to be available. It was questioned when the Council would determine that amount. The Mayor clarified they could sort that out tonight or at next weeks Council meeting. The district should increase over time; this project will allow the district to continue for 25 more years. The cap on the Large Grant program can be increased in the years to come. It was questioned if the TIF could be expanded to the west for that development. It was clarified that once the boundaries are drawn on a TIF District, they are the boundaries for the life of the district. The boundaries need to take in mind future use within the district. The TIF can assist in building a Fire Hall, for example. Development on the west end would be a different TIF. A Council Member stated that if the money is not there, then LURA cannot spend it. Council has oversight to approve the funds. There were concerns about allowing applicants to think these funds are available, then told the pot was reduced. A weighted percentage is applied to the applicant requests. It was questioned how much funding was applied for last year. Last year the requests were just under $500k. LURA was able to award $100k. It was questioned if a $50k increase would be the best option for now. The Clerk/Treasurer stated that from a fiscal standpoint, the TIF could not pull revenue from anywhere else. Not comfortable with raising the limit to $225k, agreed that a $50k increase would be a start and that this cap can increase in the future. It was questioned if the LURA Board is required to give out the full amount. It was clarified that they are not required to give out the full amount. LURA reviews and makes a recommendation to the Council. Each year they have recommended the entire amount. By bonding this project, it will extend the district for another 25 years. The district can continue to support the businesses within it. It was further clarified that interest rates are really wonky right now. It is not clear what interest rate the District will receive when selling this bond. It was questioned what happens if the district goes in the negative. It was clarified that there would be no spending out of this fund except for debt services payments and payroll. All other expenditures would cease. A Council Member stated that it looks terrible to say that $225k is available and then change the size of the pot of money to be distributed. This Council Member was more comfortable with a cap of $150k. The last increase was by $25k; this would double the last increase. This amount would also give enough cushion until the interest rate is known. Then re-evaluate after the bond is sold to see if the cap can be increased. It was questioned how long it will be until it is known what the debt service will be. It was clarified that this project needs to go out to bid, Council needs to approve the bid and award the project. The bidding will be done in two phases; the final figure will be after the second phase is bid. This will be approximately six to nine months from now. The Clerk/Treasurer reiterated that she was comfortable with the $50k increase to the cap. The City works with Yellowstone Bank on many things; they have been great to work within the past. It is unknown if the bond will be sold to them. Chad Page, 701 E. Main Street — Pelican Cafe, questioned how much funding had been applied for this year and is it comparable to what was applied for last year. It was clarified that approximately $225k had been requested this year. It was stated that there is a fine balancing act between the grant programs and infrastructure. It is visible that those funds are being used within the district. The TIF may acrue enough funds to do another small project in the future. It was questioned if there is no bondable project and the TIF expires where do the funds go. It was clarified that the funds go back to the taxing jurisdictions, such as the school. It was further questioned what other entities would these funds go back to. The Clerk/Treasurer stated she knew the school off the top of her head and would need to look up the others. The Mayor has the authority at the end of the fiscal year to send any unused funds back to the tax jurisdictions. The reserve has been building to do a large project. This is a great project for these funds. It was questioned what the possibility would be for those streets to be repaired if not through the TIF. It was clarified that they are a lot of streets that need work. This is an opportunity to take of those without needing to use the General Fund. It was clarified that the Council could not come to a decision on the amount this evening. They will need to amend the current resolution to the dollar amount they feel comfortable at next weeks Council meeting. 6. Resolution: A Resolution Of The City Council Approving Certain Revisions To The CBA Through A Memorandum Of Agreement Between The City Of Laurel And Local Union Local 303, American Federation Of State, County And Municipal Employees, AFSCME. Bethany Langve, Clerk/Treasurer, stated that the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) trumps the Wage and Hour as well as the Personnel Policy. During negotiations, there was the addition of the 2-2-3 schedule. There was some missing verbiage that needed to be clarified for both the City and the Union. First, 2-2-3 schedule needed to be excluded from a standard work week. Second, it needed to state that overtime would be paid for any hour over 80 hours. The Officers are giving up shift differential for the overtime. Wage and Hours state that Officers work a 14 -day work week with overtime starting at hour 86. The CBA trumps Wage and Hour. It was questioned what Officers are currently working. It was clarified that they are working a 6- 3 rotation. Dispatch will not be on the 2-2-3 schedule. The Police Department has not tried the new schedule. This MOU needed to be in place before trying the new schedule. Council Issues 7. Handicap Parking Lot Discussion At the last Council meeting, Mr. Koch asked that Council Member Eaton assist him in resolving the problem with the handicap parking lot near the stadium. Council Member Eaton stopped by that lot this week and took a photo, see attached. The request is to extend the parking lot 8 to 10 feet to assist in getting in and out of the parking lot. To add approximately 10 feet puts the parking lot up to the power pole and trees. Questioned if Staff felt the City could extend this parking lot and not have issues with the pole or trees, and the cost associated in doing so. Kurt Markegard, Public Works Director, stated he looked into this today. He pulled the design standards, see attached Ordinance 918, regarding the parking lot size. Currently, there are 44 feet of asphalt that has been chip sealed and painted, which is the maximum size of the parking lot. The ordinance was passed in 1987 but is still in LMC. There are approximately 60 feet from the sidewalk to the pole/trees. The City could add 14-15 feet to this parking lot. There is a possibility that angled parking may work with the additional feet added. Staff can work on bring forward the costs associated with adding feet to this parking lot. The trees are in standing water. The roots need air to thrive. It is unknown the damage this past winter caused to the trees. The Public Works Director asked for more time to look into the options for this project. It was questioned if the lot was left as it is currently could there be enforcement of no parking along the fence line. Another Council Member stated during this past weekends events he saw multiple cars parked along the fence, and everyone had a handicap placard. The no parking signs were clearly marked. It was clarified that the handicap spots needed to be close to the stadium. The school could have used the practice field but needed to keep that open for events such as the javelin. The Mayor and Superintendent at the time agreed to build the parking lot on an alkaline spot. The lot is for general public use. With the completion of the E. 6"' Street project, additional parking will be available along the Southside of Thompson Park. In order to expand the handicap parking lot millings will need to be located. The power pole services the sprinkler system and scoreboard. This pole could possibly be moved. There is also the possibility that balls will go over the fence and damage a vehicle. Council Member Eaton asked that an update be brought back to the last Workshop in June with a monthly update until this is resolved. Stan Langve, Police Chief, stated there are parking issues around town. Over the weekend there were thousands of people in town for an event. Officers didn't write any tickets in that lot. The issue comes in parking lot enforcement. It was questioned with no parking signs is that no enforceable. Does the State statute for handicap parking apply only to parking within the lines? That the perpendicular parking renders those spots unusable. The Police Chief stated when that lot was first put in, he spoke with the City Attorney on what types of tickets can be written in that lot. He was advised to use prohibitive parking. He gave an example at Walmart the Police Department can only enforce the handicap spots within their parking lot. It was questioned if cars along the fence could be written a ticket. It was clarified that more warnings are written and that this is a rotating issue. As kids graduate from these sports, new ones come in. Their family members will rotate out accordingly. If the area is not a public right of way, then someone is managing that land. For example, the school is entrusted with the management of school property. They have the ability to ask for someone to be removed from that property. The Police Chief referred to this parking lot as "private." It is City -owned, but the City is entrusted with the management of that property. This is why the parks like the Kids Kingdom close down at dusk. This can make it difficult to enforce parking. It was further clarified that when land is subdivided, the final plat states the dedication of the roadway as "dedicated to the public forever." Another example given was that City parks close, but sidewalks do not. Karl Dan Koch, 320 Colorado Avenue, thanked the Council for addressing this issue. Parents and Grandparents want to go watch their kids play. He doesn't want to have people hauled away. He stated more space is needed. Mayor Nelson stated that this problem will be solved; parking is a problem for the City. But each will be tackled one at a time to continue moving forward. It was requested that a specific deadline be established, such as 90 or 120 days for Staff to produce suggestions to resolve this issue, would also like to know what kind of new problems the solution will create. It was clarified that a solution will be brought forward to Park Board and that there are funds for this project. A Council Member stated that previously the Police Chief had mentioned that ordinances needed to be tweaked. He asked what ordinances needed to be tweaked and what those changes should be. It was clarified that Parking and Barking and the hot button issues, that those ordinances should be addressed first and need to be compliant with MCA. The Mayor reminded Council that this is a small community with a small staff. Boards, Commissions, and Committees need to assist in the review process. Need to start small and then move to the next one. Other Items: There were none. Review of Draft Council Agendas: Review Draft Council Agenda, June 4, 2019. There were no changes. Attendance at Upcoming Council Meeting: Council Member Sparks will not be in attendance at next week's Council meeting. Announcements: There were none. The council workshop adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brittney Moo n Administrative Assistant NOTE: This meeting is open to the public. This meeting is for information and discussion of the Council for the listed workshop agenda items. El ORDINANCE NO. 918 AMENDING SECTION 17.76.010 OF THE LAUREL MUNICIPAL CODE, OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND REQUIRED DIMENSIONS OF OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Laurel, Montana, that Section 17.76.010 of the Laurel Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 17.76.010. Off -Street Parking. A. [No Change] B. [No Change] C. [No Change] D. [No Change] E. [No Change] F. [No change] G. [No Change] H. Off -Street Parking. Except as provided elsewhere in this section, no application for a building permit or certificate of occupancy in any. zone shall be approved unless there is included with the plan for such building, improvement or use, a site plan showing the required open space designated as being reserved for off-street parking incident to such building, improvement or use, in accordance with this section. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the required off-street parking spaces have been provided. Each required off-street parking space should be of an area at least 10 feet wide and 20 feet long, not including the required ingress and egress approaches and driveways also required by this code. However, at a minimum, each off-street parking space shall conform to the size and layout standards set forth in the attached "Table of Parking Dimensions in Feet", now mentioned and incorporated herein. Off-street parking on the street side of properties shall be paved with an all -weatherproof surface -1- of concrete or asphalt. Off-street parking on the alley side of properties shall also be paved with an all -weatherproof surface material unless the City Street and Alley Committee and the building official gives approval in writing of a different surfacing material. The number of off-street parking spaces shall be provided according to the following minimum requirements: Items (1) through (15), inclusive, [No Change] I. [No Change) J. (No Changel K. [No Changej L. [No Change] M. [No Change] N. [No Change] This ordinance shall be effective Thirty (30) days after final passage and approval. Introduced and passed on first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on June 16 1987 by Alderman Dickerson PASSED and ADOPTED by the Laurel City Council on second reading this 7th day of July 1987. APPROVED by the Mayor this 7th day of July 1987. ATTEST: Donald L. Hackmann, City Clerk A=roved as to form: IX6k&-ft Gauthier, Mayor 11� 0 Table of Parking Dimensions in Feet 4 Stall stall Stan Modutcst e Width Depth Depth Wall Interlock Parking Parallel to to AW&O to to Angle to Aisle Wan Interlock Width Wall Interlock i 4S° 9.U-lt stall 12.7 17.5 15.3 12 47 43 9.5-11 stall 13.4 17.5 15.3 11 46 42 60' Nl� Stall depth to wall [A NJ 9.O4t stall 10.4 19.0 17.5 16 54 51 9.5 -ft stall 11.4 19.0 17.5 15 43 50 75' 15.3 at various angles v 18.8 18.5 9.0 -ft stall 9.3 19.5 18.8 23 62 61 9.5 -ft stall 4.8 19.5 18.8 22 61 60 90", 63.0 Module, interlock to curb face H 42.8 9.0 -ft stall 9.0 18.$ 18.5 26 63 63 9.5 -ft stall 9.5 18.5 18.5 25 62 62 'Measured between ends of stall lines, 6.3 2.7 0.5 0,0 tRounded to nearest ft. K 11.0 8.3 6.0 ;For back -in parking, aisle width may be reduced 4.0 ft. Crass asle,one,way L 14.0 14.0 Nate: These dimensions are for 18.5 -ft length stalls, measured parallel to the vehicle and art based on results of a special study to evaluate the effects of varied aisle and stall width for the different parking angles shown. The study was conducted in December 1970 by the Federal Highway Administration and Paul C. Box and Associates. 24.0 On Angle Dimension diagram - 45° 80' 750 Wo Stall width, parallel to aisle Lj r 12.7 10.4 s 9.0 Stall tength of tine Wall �• x X r� Curb 22.0 20.0 Nl� Stall depth to wall [A NJ 19.0 19.5 X Aisle width between staff trues C D E .Nall to Interlock Interlocking interlock t_ tl curb 1 nP H -t - F -•-•-+- -*-G Module 1 Module Module X m Stall not accessible in certain layouts Parking layout dimensions (in ft) for 9 -ft stalls . 15.3 at various angles v On Angle Dimension diagram - 45° 80' 750 Wo Stall width, parallel to aisle A 12.7 10.4 9.3 9.0 Stall tength of tine 8 25.0 22.0 20.0 18.5 Stall depth to wall C 17.5 19.0 19.5 18.5 Aisle width between staff trues D 12.0 16.0 23.0 26.0 Stall depth, interlock E 15.3 17.5 18.8 18.5 Module, wail to interlock F "A 52.5 61.3 63.0 Module, inter tacking G 42.6 51.0 61.0 63.0 Module, interlock to curb face H 42.8 50.2 58.8 60.5 surnoer overhang (typical) 1 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.5 Offset J 6.3 2.7 0.5 0,0 Setback K 11.0 8.3 6.0 0.0 Crass asle,one,way L 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 Cross aisle, two-way 24.0 . 24.0 24.0 24.0 Source: Parking Principles, Highway Research Board, Special Report N. 125, 1971, p. 99.