Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft January 19, 2010 Meeting Minutes o~ PRIO~" to('-~ 4646 Dakota Street S.E. U ~ Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 'E~~/~ REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm, Present were Mayor Myser, Councilmembers Erickson, Hed- berg, Keeney and Millar, City Manager Boyles, City Attorney Pace, Public Works Director/City Engineer Albrecht, Assistant City Engineer Poppler, Finance Director Erickson, Assistant City Manager Meyer, Communications Coordinator Peterson and Administrative Assistant Green. City Council Meeting Minutes January 19. 2010 DRAFT PUBLIC FO~UM The Public Forum is intended to afford the public an opportunity to address concerns to the City Council. It will be no longer than 30 minutes in length and each presenter will have no more than ten (10) minutes to speak. Items to be considered on the agenda may be addressed at the Public Forum unless they have been or will be the subject of a public hearing or public information hearing at the City Council, the Eco- nomic Development Authority (EDA), the Planning Commission, or any other City Advisory Committee within the foreseeable future. Forum items are also restricted to City governmental topics rather than as a platform for private agendas. Matters that are the subject of pending litigation are not appropriate for the Public Forum. The City Council will not take formal action on Public Forum presentations. City Manager Boyles explained the concept of the Public Forum. Comments: No person stepped forward to speak. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION BY ERICKSON, SECONDED BY MILLAR TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Millar. The motion carried. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES MOTION BY MILLAR, SECONDED BY KEENEY TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 4,2010, MEETING MINUTES AS PRESENTED. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Millar. The motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA City Manager Boyles reviewed the items on the consent agenda, A. Consider Approval of Invoices to be Paid B. Consider Approval of Treasurer's Report. C. Consider Approval of 2009 Annual Building Permit Report. D. Consider Approval of Animal Warden Report. E. Consider Approval of December and 2009 Annual Fire Call Report. F. Consider Approval of Resolution 10-009 Accepting Donations and Grants to the City During the 4th Quarter of 2009. G. Consider Approval of a Report Recommending the Appointment of a Health Officer for 2010. www.cityofpriorlake.com 1 Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 City Council Meeting Minutes January 19, 2010 DRAFT Councilor Erickson requested that items A, Consider Approval of Invoices to be Paid, and F, Consider Approval of Resolution 10-009 Accepting Donations and Grants to the City During the 4th Quarter of 2009, be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Councilor Hedberg requested that item B, Consider Approval of Treasurer's Report, be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Mayor Myser requested that items D, Consider Approval of Animal Warden Report, and E, Consider Ap- proval of December and 2009 Annual Fire Call Report, be removed from the Consent Agenda for discus- sion. MOTION BY MILLAR, SECONDED BY ERICKSON TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS MODIFIED. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Millar. The motion carried. ~ Comments: Erickson: Regarding item A, asked City Manager Boyles to comment on the invoices to be paid due to Tax Increment Financing (TIF) payments. Boyles: Replied that the City has five TIF districts. Tax Increment Financing is a tool available to the City to facilitate development in certain instances, where BUT FOR the contribution of TIF funding, the project would not make economic sense and would not occur. TIF funds are generated by pooling, from all of the taxing authorities, the tax revenue the properties in the TIF District generate and "paying" it to the developer to assist with the project. There are two methods of financing TIF; if the money is needed up front the City can sell bonds, The other method is referred to as "pay as you go." The "pay as you go" method places the burden on the developer. The City has granted TIFs to promote certain kinds of economic development such as light industrial and commercial in the Deerfield Business Park and the senior housing and com- mercial in the downtown area. Erickson: Listed the developers who will be receiving TIF monies. Noted that taxes paid on properties in the TIF districts is disbursed to the developer rather than the County, School District, Watershed District and various other taxing authorities. Asked the Finance Director to explain. J. Erickson: Replied that bonds were issued with Lakefront Plaza, but the City retains 25% of tax incre- ment received. Property owners within districts pay their taxes which are sent to the City and the School and County does not receive the taxes from that district until the TIF is expired. Erickson: Regarding item F, stated he wanted to acknowledge people who made donations and read the names of the donors as well as what they donated. Hedberg: Regarding item B, asked the Finance Director to describe the various funds maintained by the City. J. Erickson: Responded that governments may use any number of funds to keep track of monies. Stated the City has different types of funds - general fund, special revenue funds, debt service funds, capital pro- jects funds and enterprise funds. Stated that the Treasurer's Report reflects cash balances on a particular date, but does not reflect the obligations of each fund. Hedberg: Spoke of the balances in the funds and how much of the balances are invested. Keeney: Asked why the City carries such a large balance in the sewer and water fund. J. Erickson: Replied that fund is obligated to pay for the CR 21 water main repair and there are also fu- ture projects identified to use those funds. Explained that some funds have reserved balances and others 2 City Council Meeting Minutes January 19, 2010 DRAFT unreserved balances - monies that can be designated for particular purposes. The funds in this report are either reserved or have a designation attached to them. Future Council work sessions are scheduled for discussion of what the appropriate balances should be for these funds. Provided as an example that a de- veloper's agreement fund receives monies for specific purposes as part of the development agreement so the City cannot change how to use the funds. Hedberg: Asked if the next well is scheduled for construction. Albrecht: Replied that is scheduled for 2011 and a Council work session is scheduled in March to talk about the sewer and water fund. J. Erickson: Added that the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) outlines projects that are paid for with the obligated funds. Myser: Queried whether future Treasurer Reports could separate the reserved/obligated funds and unre- served funds and the different projects to which they are designated. Myser: Regarding item D, asked if the animal control statistics are typical from month to month and whether the City considered the cost per call to be high. Boyles: Affirmed that is typical and that the cost of animal control services has been consistent for a cou- ple of years. Noted that the City is scheduled to solicit bids for this service prior to May. Myser: Regarding item E, queried comparisons from previous years about the number of fire calls. Boyles: 800 calls were recorded in 2008. Informed the Council that firefighters used to be called out for all incidents, but now Allina responds to the medical calls rather than the firefighters. Noted that firefighters are trained and prepared to respond to medical calls, but are no longer the first responder called. Hedberg: Added that of the 804 calls in 2008, 401 were medical calls. This year there were only 56 medi- cal calls. MOTION BY HEDBERG, SECONDED ERICKSON TO APPROVE THOSE ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Millar. The motion carried. ~ PRESENTATION No presentation was scheduled. PUBLIC HEARING Consider Approval of a Resolution Ordering the 2010 Improvement for CR 12. City Manager Boyles described the process of the public hearing. Councilor Erickson recused himself and City Attorney Pace explained that since Erickson owns property within the project area, he has a disqualifying conflict of interest which prohibits him from participating in the Council's discussion, deliberation or vote on the County Road 12 project. Assistant City Engineer Poppler provided a history of the entire project and an outline of work that has already been done. Described the proposed street improvements for this portion of the project. Com- mented on plans for snow removal stating that official policy is not yet established, but staff will recommend that snow be removed from both sides of the roadway in this project area. Commented that electric power lines will remain overhead due to the prohibitive costs of burying the power lines. Described the upgrade proposed for sanitary sewer, the watermain improvements including replacement of hydrants and gate- valves. Explained that new storm sewer pipes will be installed which should reduce erosion issues and 3 City Council Meeting Minutes January 19, 2010 DRAFT eliminate drainage ditches. Reminded the Council that the Prior Lake Spring Lake Watershed District pro- vided a grant to subsidize the cost of a bioretention pond in Northwood Meadows Park and a surface water infiltration pond in Sunset Park. Voluntary reforestation and driveway reconstruction programs will be of- fered to property owners. Raingardens are not being ,offered as the water quality budget for this project is being dedicated to the Northwood Meadows and Sunset Park plans. Provided the project cost estimate and funding sources, Explained that Creekview Circle is proposed to be included for assessments and that benefit appraisals of those properties support that the benefit received will be greater than the assessment from the project. Benefit appraisals show that benefits to each property will range from $6,000 to $15,000. Noted that improvements were completed for properties on the west end of the project area in 2008 and those properties are proposed to be included in this assessment also. Stated that the Assessment Review Committee met to determine which properties to include in the project and that the unit method of assess- ment should be applied. Estimated assessment to the property owner is $3,434. ~ Comments: Millar: Asked if Creekview Circle area is considered a private street or a driveway. Poppler: Replied it is a gravel surface street/driveway. Millar: Asked if the City offers services on the driveway and how the appraisal company came up with the benefit. Stated that although these properties are 200 feet off CR 12, the improvement of CR 12 increases the value of the properties. Poppler: Replied that the City does not plow snow on Creekview Circle. The benefit was appraised to be $6,000. Noted that CR 12 is the only access in and out of the properties. Hedberg: Clarified that the plans and specifications for this project are complete from the County perspec- tive and bids have been solicited. Asked what sort of design changes could be considered at this point. Poppler: Replied that changes could be made to things that could be adjusted in the field such as drive- way or retaining wall changes. Hedberg: Reiterated that tonight's public hearing is required if the City intends to use special assessments to fund any portion of the project. Keeney: Asked if previous projects included roads similar to Creekview and whether they were classified or defined as private drives or private streets. Poppler: Replied that no distinction between them is determined. Keeney: Asked if parking will be allowed in the trailway along CR 12. Poppler: Replied the width will not be big enough for parking, but it would provide an emergency pull over area. Keeney: Asked about the assessment hearing. Poppler: Replied there will be an assessment hearing when the final assessment rate is determined and it will include information about how people can payoff assessments, etc. Keeney: Expressed his understanding that if changes were made now, the City would have to pay for any re-design, etc. even if the County is agreeable to the change. Myser: Asked how long the project has been identified. Poppler: Replied that planning began in 2002-03 for construction in 2006. Myser: Clarified that both walkways are on County property and that no additional property was taken from residents to have a second walkway or green space. Albrecht: Responded that the County acquired 87 pieces of right-of-way as well as easements. The ma- jority of the walkway is in County property. Noted that the 2004 public hearing was about the safety bene- fits that offset the impact to those adjacent properties of the second sidewalk and green space and whether the street could be centered to minimize those impacts rather than whether they were giving right of way or easements for that. 4 City Council Meeting Minutes January 19, 2010 DRAFT Myser: Queried whether the cost of burying of power cables is accurately portrayed at $600,000. Poppler: Xcel Energy indicated it would be more than $600,000. Myser: Asked if residents were given opportunity to pay that cost if they wanted to. Poppler: Replied that the cost would have been assessed as a surcharge to every resident in Prior Lake who is an Xcel customer. Albrecht: Xcel would have looked to the City for an agreement on how to pay for the services also at ap- proximately $1,000 per household, Myser: Asked why the City has not been billed by the County for the work done on the west end. Albrecht: Replied that it was not part of the project in 2007. The County was able to finalize negotiations with one of the parcels there and added it. The City had already gone through assessment hearing and funding for that year and did not have funding available to pay for adding that portion. In the cooperative agreement with the County it was agreed that the City would pay for the costs when the rest of the road was completed in 2010. Those residents were told they would be assessed with the rest of their neighbors at that time. Myser: Asked about the status of reaching agreement with all of the units in this project. Albrecht: Replied that 81 of the 87 acquisitions have been completed. Others are still in negotiation and in some cases the County is working with banks. MOTION BY MILLAR, SECONDED BY KEENEY TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Hedberg, Keeney and Millar. Erickson recused. The motion carried and the public hearing opened at 7:20 p.m. rt. Comments: Kay Pierson, 3020 Creekview Circle, read a statement from Ben and Allison Burnett, 3040 Creekview Cir- cle, expressing their concems with the special assessment including equity of benefits. Burnett's stated that Creekview Circle is not slated to receive curb and gutters and sidewalk like the property owners on CR 12, Stated that following the project, Creekview Circle property owners will not receive maintenance such as snow removal. Listed other streets that can only egress their properties via CR 12 and stated that Creekview Circle is no different from those streets and should not be assessed if those streets are not as- sessed. Believes Creekview Circle should be considered a different class of property than those on CR 12. Gary Pierson, 3020 Creekview Circle, stated that City Engineer Poppler came to their home to discuss the project and they discussed a fire hydrant and asphalt part-way up Creekview Circle. Asked if clean outs are up to code. Poppler: Replied they are not up to City standards and it would not be built that way today. Pierson: Asked if that is why hydrants and asphalt would be added. Poppler: Affirmed, noting that currently the services are more than 200 feet to get to water lines. Pierson: Commented that a new fire hydrant in addition to the current one would result in two hydrants within 50 yards. Believes that if the Creekview Circle homeowners have to pay the same assessment amount, they should be receiving curb and gutters and storm sewers and the City should perform snow plowing, street sweeping, etc. Stated his belief that Creekview Circle is a street rather than a driveway as those homeowners have addresses based on Creekview Circle. Added that if the property owners are not assessed, they will agree to maintain the roadway themselves and believes it would be a win-win to not assess them. Keeney: Clarified that Pierson does not want the upgrade because they prefer not to pay for the services at this time. Pierson: Affirmed, 5 City Council Meeting Minutes January 19, 2010 DRAFT Dave Auringer, 3019 Spring Lake Road, made comment on snow plows rolling snow up onto sidewalks since the corridor is too narrow to store it on the roadway. Displayed photos of same. Believes that lack of snow removal would be a safety issue and questioned who would be responsible for the snow removal from sidewalks noting that current ordinance states the homeowner is responsible. Believes this amount of snow removal cannot be done by a homeowner. Jim Weninger, 2591 Spring Lake Road, stated his property is a duplex with two addresses and he is ask- ing for two driveways in order to have enough offstreet parking spaces. Stated the County has indicated they will only provide one driveway. Stated his property has drainage issues and that his attempts at reso- lution of those issues have resulted in referrals to both County and City with neither entity providing a solu- tion. Believes that having a single sidewalk is more fiscally responsible and consistent with other County roadways. Urged the Council to inquire whether there is a reasonable alternative to sidewalks on both sides and suggested this Council is not bound by the actions of any previous Council. Asked whether the assessment basis is the same as for other phases of the project. Believes the roadway will be turned over to the City after completion and suggested that street parking could then be allowed by the City. Stated there was supposed to be a survey of residents about whether or not they wanted burial of power lines rather than overhead power and asked if that survey was done. Asked why the natural ponding in Spring Lake Park will not be used rather than creating a pond in Northwood Meadows Parle Albrecht: Replied the City currently floods an area for a skating rink in this park which results in poor growth of grass there; and the City is trying to put in natural retention areas in parks that can serve as water retention in the summer and ice rinks in the winter. This pond will be a trial in this park to see if it would be suitable in other parks. Weninger: Commented that utility pole placement could be more optimal and asked if the street light by his house would be replaced. Poppler: Replied that locations of lighting and utility poles would likely be changed. Albrecht: Added that placement of lighting is typically on one side of the intersection and the privately paid poles are usually eliminated and replaced with lights that are on the City's program. Weninger: Asked about utility and mail service locations during construction. Emily Farah- Miller, 3050 Creekview Circle, listed the benefits that Creekview Circle homes would not get compared to the homes on CR 12. Compared Creekview Circle to Flint Road in the Fish Point Road pro- ject in that Flint Road was determined to be a private street and the assessment review committee deter- mined that Flint Road should not be included. Believes that Creekview Circle should not be included in this project due to receiving fewer benefits from it. Joy Fischer, 2986 Spring Lake Road, questioned why there are no stakes in her yard, Warren Erickson, 3031 Spring Lake Road, asked what style of lighting will be installed and if lighting is mainly at intersections noting that there is a section of the roadway that is several blocks long with no inter- section. Asked about access to homes during construction and where homeowners will be allowed to park. Suggested that if the street is turned over to the City following construction, it should be renamed so it is referred to as just one name. Suggested the street should be named either Spring Lake Road or Interla- chen Boulevard. Asked if the City would have the ability to establish the speed limit on the roadway if it is turned over to the City. Asked where mailboxes will be placed when the project is completed and who will be responsible for maintaining them. Asked how the intersection of CR 81 and CR 12 will be built. Stated his belief that it would be good to have just one sidewalk. Keeney: Asked if the desire would be to have the speed limit lower. Erickson: Replied that the problem is inconsistency with speeds posted varying between 30 mph and 40 mph. Poppler: Read a letter submitted by Matt Asfeld, 3070 Creekview Circle, stating he is in Georgia for a Na- tional Guard obligation and could not be at the public hearing. Asfeld is against the proposed assessment 6 City Council Meeting Minutes January 19, 2010 DRAFT stating his property will not receive equal benefits William Broback sent an email stating he lives on the west end of the project on the lake. Stated he disagrees with the City's decision to assess property for improvements that were made before the assessment letter was sent. Understands improvements were paid for by the developer of Stemmer Ridge and some of those improvements were torn out and replaced when they were neither worn out nor obsolete. MOTION BY HEDBERG, SECONDED BY MILLAR TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Hedberg, Keeney and Millar. Erickson recused. The motion carried and the public hearing closed at 8:26 p.m. Mayor Myser requested staff to respond to various questions brought forward during the public hearing. Hydrants Albrecht: Informed the public that the City does not assess for hydrants. The line into Creekview Circle is several hundred feet long and a new hydrant will better serve fire safety and maintenance purposes. Added that the City will not be returning to the area to update utility services for many years. Creekview Circle v. CR 12 Services Albrecht: Stated that assessments are based on roadway improvements and whether it benefits the prop- erties. Benefit is the increase in the fair market value of property before and after the project. Noted that the Flint Street example given by a resident is a different scenario as the City has an agreement with Flint Street residents about maintenance of their roadway. Commented that Creekview Circle is more compara- ble to Red Oaks and Breezy Point that had a few houses off the end of a street where the public street had improvements, improvements were continued to the private roadways and they were assessed. Suggested that the Council could provide direction to the assessment review committee to review the benefit to the property and that the assessment policy could more closely define how assessments should be handled on private roadways. Pace: Stated that another aspect to the question is to consider whether all properties are the same class of property and whether they should be treated the same. Class of property would refer to whether a property is residential, commercial, industrial, etc, Snow Removal Albrecht: Addressed the difference in properties on the east v. west end of the project noting that snow is plowed onto side yards of homes on the east end and onto the front yards and sidewalks of homes on the west end. This is a unique circumstance with driveways opening onto both sides of a collector street with sidewalks. Stated the City plans to do snow removal. Who responds to queries - the City or County Albrecht: Stated it is a County project so they would determine such things as whether a property will have two driveways or not. The City can provide them information regarding Code for on- or off-street parking. Noted there are other areas where one driveway serves two properties. City staff would help de- termine parking stalls if asked. Poppler: Added that if residents have questions regarding assessments, the driveway program or water and sewer services, they should contact the City. If the questions are about construction or negotiations, they should contact the County. Albrecht: Noted that a City inspector will be in the project area and can advocate on behalf of the resi- dents. Soliciting an Alternate Bid for Sidewalks Albrecht: The City can make such a request, but cautioned that the County's stance has been to query what may have changed from a traffic volume or safety standpoint to justify a change. Decisions haveebeen made based on those things. 7 City Council Meeting Minutes January 19, 2010 DRAFT Assessment Basis Poppler: Affirmed that this project is assessed on the same basis as other City projects. County Turnover of Road to City Albrecht: Stated that has not been discussed by the County with City staff, but agreed it is possible that it could be done. City Allowing On-street Parking Albrecht: Noted the roadway would remain a state aid roadway and the State's criteria would remain. City does have variances that allow parking on some state aid roadways and could look at any potential for that if the roadway is turned over to the City. Resident Survey Regarding Underground Utilities Albrecht: Stated no survey was done as Xcel indicated all of the City residents would have to bear the cost, not just the residents of this project area. Believes it would not have been appropriate to conduct a survey if there was no intent to follow any conclusions derived from it. Poles Albrecht: Believes poles will be moved from existing locations. Temporary Mail Service Poppler: Stated that mail service during construction will most likely be on a side street adjacent to the project and the County will work with Postmaster to determine that. Flint Road Albrecht: Stated that Flint Road is treated differently than Creekview Circle as it has an agreement in place with the City. Staking Yards Albrecht: Stated that stakes are set out to show where grading or some other impact to property will be. Suggested there may not be much impact to this resident's property. Added that identifying the property line might have to wait until property is surveyed. Millar: Questioned whether one property's exit can be turned to egress onto the private roadway. Albrecht: Replied that the County has worked out an agreement with the owner of property underlying Creekview Circle. Design and Location of Street Lights Poppler: Displayed three different designs of lights used in the City. Since this is a collector street, a style will be used that directs the light downward. Parking During Construction Poppler: Commented that during most constructions, the road is back together so residents can drive to their homes at night, but during the day they may have to park on a side street. Albrecht: Asked residents to let the County know if there are medical issues that need special attention. Street Name Albrecht: Commented that changing street names is a complex issue and the City would evaluate that issue if the roadway is turned over to the City. Noted that typically consideration would be given to the most residents who would have the least impact. Speed Limit Albrecht: Reiterated that even if the roadway is turned over to the City, it would remain a state aid road and the speed limit would be established by a speed study. Mailbox Location Poppler: Explained that mailbox location will vary by property. CR 811 CR 12 Intersection Poppler: Stated there are plans drawn up for the intersection and they can be viewed by anyone who would like to look at them. 8 City Council Meeting Minutes January 19, 2010 DRAFT Comments: Keeney: Stated that a main issue at the public hearing seems to be Creekview Circle. Noted that tonight's action is to approve the project as planned for construction. Noted that the County is not acquiring Creek- view Circle as right of way and not much construction is planned for it. Suggested clarifying the distinction between a private roadway or a driveway as there may be distinctions about assessments. Queried about buried power and whether it could be done later. Albrecht: Typically, other utility and cable companies would want to replace or move their equipment at the same time and such work should be done with the project as costs would increase after sidewalks and roadways are placed. Keeney: Personal experience is that sidewalks are important for safety when there are that many cars go- ing by. Sidewalks on both sides will definitely be needed when traffic counts reach 11,000. Asked how many units are being assessed for the property that is requesting two driveways. Poppler: One. Keeney: Supports moving forward and giving further consideration to the assessment of Creekview Circle. Millar: Knows the sidewalk issue has been contentious, but believes the project is too advanced to ask for alternate bids and would not support increasing costs. Agreed the assessment review committee should revisit the Creekview Circle assessment. Reiterated that tonight's decision is not about the assessment adding that the proposed assessment amount is a good value for what the residents are getting due to co- operative funding from the County. Hedberg: Commented that the County is working with the cooperative agreement that the City executed with them and they could move forward. Commented that frequently bids go out with several alternates so the question of alternate sidewalk bids might be feasible, but he cannot visualize not having two sidewalks with the anticipated high traffic counts. Given the time frame before the traffic count increases, would sup- port having staff ask the County to get alternate bids for sidewalks. Supports having the Assessment Re- view Committee revisit the Creekview Circle assessments. Does not support putting a surcharge on every Prior Lake customer with Xcel for buried power. Suggested this will be a great opportunity for residents to have driveways reconstructed with this project. Will support moving ahead with the project. Myser: Asked for clarification of the potential of the City to change the way parking is handled if the road- way is turned over to the City. Albrecht: Responded that the City can ask for variances for parking on state aid roads. Counties do not have variances for that. Myser: If such a variance were desired, would the City want a different design for the street. Albrecht: Replied that 36 feet is about as wide as the street can be at some points and would, at most, be wide enough to provide one side parking. Myser: Asked if the City would want to reconsider having two sidewalks if the roadway were going to be turned over to the City. Albrecht: Restated that there has been no conversation with the County about turning over the roadway. The question remains about what has changed with the characteristics of the roadway that would justify a change. The County is not trying to inconvenience the residents, but rather keep the safety factors and traffic counts paramount. Does not believe the County will accept our request to put alternate bids in. Myser: Supports having the Creekview Circle assessments revisited by the Assessment Review Commit- tee. Albrecht: Stated that this is an unclear portion of the assessment policy so the issue should be resolved City-wide. 9 City Council Meeting Minutes January 19, 2010 DRAFT Myser: Commented that it seems appropriate to address the snow removal for this area with the winter maintenance policy. Supports having residents participate in location of lighting and utility poles if that is possible. Albrecht: Noted that utility poles will be driven by the construction needs; but the lighting will be paid by the City so input may be possible. MOTION BY HEDBERG, SECONDED BY MILLAR TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 10.008 ORDERING 2010 IMPROVEMENTS FOR CR 12. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Hedberg, Keeney and Millar. Erickson recused. The motion carried. MOTION BY HEDBERG, SECONDED BY MILLAR TO DIRECT STAFF TO REQUEST THE COUNTY TO BID THE SECOND SIDEWALK AS AN ALTERNATE. Keeney: Questioned whether the intent is the deletion of the second sidewalk: Hedberg: Replied that one sidewalk would be the base, the second sidewalk would be extra. Believes the City could learn the cost of a second sidewalk that way. Pace: Asked if the bids are already out. Albrecht: Affirmed and added that there would be several ways to seek an alternate bid and the County would bill the City for anything related to it. Hedberg: Asked if the County would interpret our request flexibly enough to use any variety of methods. Albrecht: Replied that he could explain the intent to the County and make the request for an alternate bid on the sidewalks. Keeney: Stated he does not support seek an alternate bid and does not perceive any savings. Grading would still be done. Might save the cost of concrete if the area is paved. Hedberg: Believes it will be a long period of time, perhaps ten years, before traffic counts are up and the neighbors could have that period of time with the reduced impact. Albrecht: Stated the sidewalk will probably never be put in if it is not done with the project. Believes the sidewalk can be deducted from the project, but the City would find it very difficult to put it in later on. Myser: Asked if there will be a fee to the City if the County chooses to do an amendment. Albrecht: Replied that the County can charge us for changes to anything that was previously agreed to. Myser: Understands the County believes that two sidewalks is the way to go for safety issues. Asked Hedberg if he is wiling to add an amendment to the motion that the County will add no cost to the City by seeking this alternative. Understands that the decision for sidewalks was already made. Hedberg: Accepted the amendment to the motion. Millar: Seconded the amendment to the motion. MOTION BY HEDBERG, SECONDED BY MILLAR TO DIRECT STAFF TO REQUEST THE COUNTY TO BID THE SECOND SIDEWALK AS AN ALTERNATE WITH NO CHARGE TO THE CITY, Vote: Ayes by Myser, Hedberg and Millar. Keeney opposed. Erickson recused. Motion carried. OLD BUSINESS Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing an Amendment to the Parks Portion of the 2010 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the Relocation of an Existing Picnic Shelter. Public Works Director Albrecht informed the Council that an existing picnic shelter needed to be moved due to erosion at its existing site. Reviewed options for relocation considered by the Parks Advisory Com- mittee and advised the Council that the PAC recommended relocating the picnic shelter to Watzl's due to high useage of that area. Emphasized that the shelter must be taken down, but it could be stored until 10 City Council Meeting Minutes January 19, 2010 DRAFT some future date and its relocation could be considered with discussion of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) in the spring. Comments: Millar: Clarified that need for a picnic shelter has not been identified for Northwood Meadows Park at this time. Albrecht: Replied that the park is in the CIP for 2012. Believes the City will not need a shelter in every park and he would want to learn about the needs associated with recreational programming in some of the parks before shelters are placed. This shelter could be stored until a site is determined. Millar: Concurs with the PAC that the shelter would get the most use at Watzl's compared to the other al- ternatives. Asked when South Shore Park is scheduled for a shelter. Albrecht: 2010. Stated that staff would want to meet with the township to gain their acceptance before placing this shelter at that location. Millar: Stated that the City has been considering hard budget decisions and this could reduce CIP costs by $10,000 - $15,000 this year. Believes this shelter should be discussed with the township to leam if it is acceptable to them and that a future CIP could consider a shelter at Watzl's. Hedberg: Stated his confidence in the PAC and agrees with them that a shelter would have good usage since Watzl's Beach is experiencing steadily increasing usage with its docks. Supports their recommenda- tion, Agrees that the Northwood Meadows shelter could be delayed for at least two years to consider whether there is a need for a shelter there. Believes we should show commitment to the annexation proc- ess and proceed with the new shelter that is already approved for South Shore Park. Keeney: Supports placing the shelter at Watzl's and amending the CIP to delay the shelter at Northwood Meadows. Queried whether a shelter is planned to be replaced at the location that this one is being re- moved from and where the shelter would be placed at Watzl's. Albrecht: Replied that the Blind Lake Trail will not receive another shelter. Showed the area the shelter would be placed at Watzl's. Erickson: Concurred the CIP should be amended regarding the Northwood Meadows shelter. Believes the township should be asked if they would accept this shelter at South Shore Park as it would save the budgeted money for their new one. Stated that if a shelter is needed at Watzl's, the City should plan ac- cordingly. Myser: Asked why Watzl's wasn't in the plan to receive a shelter. Albrecht: Replied that the comprehensive park plan was developed about six years ago and since that time this shelter became available. Noted that a marina concept at Watzl's has been brought forward re- cently and the shelter would enhance that idea, Myser: Concurred that the township should be asked if they would accept this shelter. Suggested that if a shelter is wanted at Watzl's, we should plan for it. Albrecht: Stated that if the township does not want this shelter, it can be stored and the CIP process can be played out to determine which amenities should go into which parks. Millar: Reiterated his confidence in the PAC's recommendation; but believes the budget needs to be the first consideration and if the City has a chance to reduce costs, it would be a wise thing to do. Stated that Watzl's is a park that should have a shelter and if the township does not want this shelter, the Council should again consider moving it to Watzl's. Keeney: Supports moving it to South Shore Park if the township is agreeable. Would support offering it to them and decide what to do based on their acceptance or displeasure. MOTION BY ERICKSON, SECONDED BY MILLAR TO DIRECT STAFF TO MOVE THE SHELTER TO SOUTH SHORE PARK IF ACCEPTABLE TO SPRING LAKE TOWNSHIP. 11 City Council Meeting Minutes January 19, 2010 DRAFT VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Millar. The motion earned, Boyles: Asked if the shelter should be placed into indefinite storage if the township declines it. Hedberg: Responded the question should be brought back to the Council in that event. Consider Approval of a Resolution Accepting Prior lake Spring lake Watershed District Grant Funding for an Iron Enhanced Pond Sand Filter and Authorizing a Change Order to City Project #09- 013. Assistant City Engineer Poppler talked about two options for the iron sand filter; one to install two filters, the second to install one filter. Have applied for grants. The Prior Lake Spring Lake Watershed District supported a grant of $20,185 of which $1,777 .50 would go for the purchase of the filter construction and the remainder for studying results. The Scott Watershed Management Organization has not yet met to con- sider an equivalent grant. Comments: Keeney: Asked if there is reasonable confidence that the iron sand filters will work. Poppler: Replied that lab testing is very encouraging and if they work, the future cost of maintaining ponds will be greatly reduced. Albrecht: Added that the risk is not whether they will work; but rather how long they will work before main- tenance is needed. Keeney: Queried whether putting these filters in will improve the water quality. Albrecht: Affirmed. Erickson: Will support option #1. Commented that the difference in cost to the City is approximately $2500 for two filters rather than just one. Millar: Will support option #1. Commented that City is often viewed as being on the cutting edge and it is part of the 2030 Vision to be environmentally conscious and look for new ways to do things. Hedberg: Will support option #1 stating it saves money and improves water quality. Commented that the lakes have a fairly serious water quality problem and the City needs to be proactive in showing involved agencies that we are doing our best to meet the Total Daily Maximum Load (TDML) criteria. Believes this is a smart, low-risk experiment. Myser: Asked if the second pond proposed for an iron sand filter is significantly different from the first. Poppler: Replied the ponds are similar and the data from both should support each other. Myser: Stated that the City is working to understand and quantify potential costs of meeting TDML. Will support this project. MOTION BY HEDBERG, SECONDED BY MILLAR TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 10-006 APPROVING OPTION #1 AND ACCEPTING PRIOR LAKE SPRING LAKE WATERSHED DISTRICT GRANT FUNDING FOR AN IRON ENHANCED POND SAND FILTER AND AUTHORIZING A CHANGE ORDER TO CITY PROJECT #09-013. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Millar. The motion carried. NEW BUSINESS Consider Approval of a Request by ISO 719 to Install a Bridge at the Jeffers Pond Park. City Manager Boyles provided a history of the security that exists to construct a nature center building on the Jeffers Pond property and explained the timeline on the security. Explained that the school district can- not provide staff, materials or programming for a nature center as originally planned. Described the school's requested to build a bridge and related the Jeffers Foundation decision to support expenditures up 12 City Council Meeting Minutes January 19, 2010 DRAFT to $40,000 to build a bridge with monies used from the security, Discussed the idea of also building a shel- ter and requested authority to secure quotes for a shelter at the Jeffers Pond Park to be built with monies from the security, Comments: Millar: Supports the idea adding that it will not cost the City any money. Commented that Jeffers Pond is a beautiful area and benefits all of the residents, not just the school. Will support both the bridge and seek- ing quotes for a shelter. Hedberg: Concurred. Noted that a woodchip trail was planned for upper pond and asked the status of that. Albrecht: Replied it was not done due to lack of funding. Explained that the woodchip trail would require about $25,000 and Jeffers Park has already received much CIP funding. Hedberg: Noted that earlier specifications called for an environmental learning center and suggested that following the trail of the upper pond would be best the environmental learning. Favors learning whether Mr. Oberg, Jeffers Foundation CEO, would fund the cost of the woodchip trail in return for releasing the rest of the funds stating that such a trail would complete a natural experience in the park. Supports the bridge, a shelter and a woodchip trail. Keeney: Supports all three of those things. Agrees that the best nature center is going out and experienc- ing it. Not sure if the three items should be put together in one package. Boyles: Concurred that staff's intent is to have them be separate items. First is action on the bridge and then whether to support further action. Erickson: Supports the bridge. Does not agree that asking for funds for the woodchip trail should be in return for early release of the securities. Suggested the City should ask for completion of the trail with sign- age and other possible enhancements which might include a shelter. Myser: Supports the expanded view. Asked if there is a narrow interpretation of what an interpretive cen- ter should be, or can it be accepted to be the entire park. Asked if the goal of an environmental learning must be indoors. Queried what would happen if Jeffers Foundation does not accept this proposal. Hedberg: Replied that the security expires in January. Myser: Will support the broadened view of a learning center using these funds. Hedberg: Noted that Jeffers Foundation supported a floating bridge in the upper pond and queried whether the Council should approve "the bird in hand" of a bridge. Erickson: Proposed accepting the money to build a bridge. Boyles: Noted the proposed resolution could be approved with the removal of #4. MOTION BY ERICKSON, SECONDED BY HEDBERG TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 10-007 AUTHOR- 1zNG THE SOLICITATION OF QUOTES FOR THE PURCHASE AND INSTAllATION OF A BRIDGE AT JEFFERS POND PARK FUNDED THROUGH A JEFFERS POND NATURE CENTER SECURITY. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Millar. The motion carried. MOTION BY HEDBERG, SECOND BY ERICKSON DIRECT STAFF TO ENTER INTO NEGOT A TION WITH JEFFERS FOUNDATION FOR COMPLETION OF AN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EXPERIENCE TO INCLUDE A WEST SIDE WOODCHIP TRAIL WITH SIGNAGE AND POSSIBLY OTHER AMENITIES. Keeney: Offered an amendment to include a trailhead shelter. Hedberg: Replied that the more flexibility given to staff to negotiate, the better results we will get. Keeney: Concurred that using the term "amenities" is fine. 13 City Council Meeting Minutes January 19, 2010 DRAFT VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Millar. The motion carried. Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing Preparation of Plans and Specifications for the 2010 Street Resurfacing Projects. Public Works Director Albrecht identified the neighborhoods and scope of work to be included in the 2010 street resurfacing project. Explained the City anticipates having a maintainable surface that would last approximately ten years upon completion of the work. Noted that tonight's action is to authorize prepa- ration of plans and specifications that will be brought to the Council for approval at the February 16 meet- ing. Spoke of timelines and funding sources that might come into play. Comments: Keeney: Clarified the anticipated $800,000 financial impact. Albrecht: Affirmed. Added that a better estimate will be available after plans and specifications are drawn up. Described which streets have curb and gutter and the processes used to mill old asphalt and finish the new top layer to fit into the old. Erickson: Asked if the City will be asking for bid bonds or letters of credit from vendors. Albrecht: Replied that City standards require bid bonds and performance bonds adding that difficulty in getting bonds behooves the City to move early. Pace: Stated that Statute requires the City to get both bid bonds and performance bonds on public im- provement projects. Millar: Commented that these neighborhoods will appreciate moving forward and complimented staff for coming up with ways to accelerate these street projects. Hedberg: Noted that the displayed photos are good representations of the condition of the streets. Added that the Boudin's area is worse, but requires complete reconstruction and that is scheduled for the 2011- 2012 timeframe, Myser: Supports this cost effective approach to improve these roads. Asked the cost of a full reconstruc- tion project querying whether the cost per year over the life of the project could be calculated. Albrecht: Replied that Shady Beach would be approximately $2 million to do a full reconstruction. Noted that a determining factor for whether a street must be reconstructed rather than just overlaid is the condition of the utilities under the street. Added that he will include the requested cost analysis in future reports. MOTION BY KEENEY, SECONDED BY ERICKSON TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 10-008 AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE 2010 STREET RESURFACING PROJECT. Hedberg: Supports the request for further financial analysis. Noted that part of the constraint facing the City is debt service and bonding and even if reconstruction is the best thing to do, the City cannot afford it right now. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Millar. The motion carried. OTHER Community Events Hedberg: Congratulated Dakotah! Ice Center for its Minnesota Eagle Award. Erickson: Informed that the 25th Annual Domestic Awareness Luncheon would be on Friday at Brackett's Crossing. 14 City Council Meeting Minutes January 19, 2010 DRAFT Myser: Congratulated Jordan Schroeder, United States Under-20 Hockey Champion, who is a Prior Lake native. ADJOURNMENT With no further comments from Council members, a motion to adjourn was made by Millar and seconded by Keeney. With all in favor, the meeting adjourned at 10:38 p.m. Frank Boyles, City Manager Charlotte Green, Administrative Asst. 15