HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda & Minutes
FORUM: 7:00 P.M. - 7:30 P.M.
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
Date: April 3, 2000
1 CALL TO ORDER and PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ......................... 7:30 p.m.
2 APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
3 CONSIDER APPROVAL OF MARCH 20,2000 MEETING MINUTES.
4 CONSENT AGENDA: Those items on the Council Agenda which are considered routine and non-
controversial are included as part of the Consent Agenda. Unless the Mayor, a Councilmember, or member of
the public specifically requests that an item on the Consent Agenda be removed and considered separately.
Items on the Consent Agenda are considered under one motion, second and a roll call vote. Any item removed
from the "Consent Agenda" shall be placed on the City Council Agenda as a separate category.
A) Consider Approval of Invoices to Be Paid.
B) Consider Approval of Disposal of Excess City Equipment.
C) - Consider Approval of Elimination of Fees.
5 ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA:
6 PRESENTATIONS:
r PUBLIC HEARINGS:
10 AI 11 J..-A) Public Hearing to Consider Approval of Resolution OO-XX Denying the Vacation of the
~ Lake Access and Right-of-Way for Kneafsey's Street Adjacent to Lots 4 Through 15,
Kneafsey's Cove.
a OLD BUSINESS: 'L'-
A) Consider Approval of Resolution OO~ Approving the Final Plat and Development
.11'1 -t Contract for Glynwater Third Addition.
18 ~o~ ~ B) Consider Approval of Subcommittee Report Regarding City Council Bylaws.
~ I{~~~ C) Consider Appointment of Official City Bank.
9 NEW BUSINESS:
A) Consider Approval of Proposal to Retain a Consulting Engineer in Preparation for
Development of a Jordan Well on the West Side of Prior lake.
B) Consider Approval of Report Regarding City Status with Respect to Suburban Transit
Association (STA). ._-- 00-23
C) Consider Approval of Initiation of an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Allowing
Garages and Accessory Buildings in Front Yards.
D) Consider Approval of Initiation of an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to Allow
Fences in Front Yards with More Than 25% Opacity.
10 OTHER BUSINESS/COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS:
A) Executive Session to Discuss labor Negotiations and Sportsman's Litigation.
11 ADJOURNMENT
16:?CQ~~le Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
-
-r---~'--
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 20,2000
CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Mader called the meeting to order.
Present were Mayor Mader, Councilmembers Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson. City Manager Boyles,
City Attorney Pace, Finance Director Teschner, Planning Director Rye, Planning Coordinator Kansier,
City Engineer Osmundson, Parks Director Hokeness, Parks Maintenance Supervisor Friedges,
Assistant City Manager Walsh, and Recording Secretary Meyer. Councilmember Schenck was absent.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO APPROVE THE AGENDA.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM MARCH 6. 2000 REGULAR MEETING.
ERICSON: Requested a clarification to his comments on the ring road layout on page 4 of the draft
minutes to include that the layout concept is preliminary and he supports the layout in general. but that
does not mean he necessarily agrees with every portion of the plan.
.
PETERSEN: Clarified that on page a under his comments regarding the purchase of three vehicles, he
asked the difference between purchasing an Aerostar van and a full-size Ford van.
GUNDLACH: Noted that on page 5 in the discussions regarding the ring road, fifth paragraph from the
bottom, his suggestion was that staff contemplate having Franklin Trail come to a liT" intersection at the
ring road.
MADER: Briefly reviewed the revised pages of the draft minutes distributed immediately prior to the
meeting, including page 1 under Approval of Agenda, and two instances on page 9.
MOTION BY GUNDLACH SECOND BY ERICSON TO APPROVE MARCH 6, 2000 REGULAR
MEETING MINUTES AS AMENDED.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA:
(A) Consider Approval of Invoices to be Paid.
(B) Consider Approval of Treasurer's Report.
(C) Consider Approval of Building Permit Report.
(D) Consider Approval of Animal Warden Monthly Report
(E) Consider Approval of Fire Call Report.
(F) Consider Approval of Temporary 3.2 Non-Intoxicating Liquor License for the Church of Sf.
Michael AprilFest.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
".r-
City Council Meeting Minutes
March 20, 2000 Regular Meeting
DRAFT
(G) Consider Approval of Waiver of Outdoor Concert Permit Fees and Clean-Up Deposit for Church
of St. Michael AprilFest.
BOYLES: Briefly reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda.
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA: NONE.
PRESENTATIONS: NONE.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE.
OLD BUSINESS:
Consider Approval of Resolution 00-19 Authorizing WSB & Associates to Provide Construction
Observation Services for Developer Installed Improvements.
BOYLES: Reviewed the item in connection with the staff report, as well as the recommendation by staff.
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ERICSON TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 00-19
AUTHORIZING WSB & ASSOCIATES TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION SERVICES
FOR DEVELOPER INSTALLED IMPROVEMENTS, AND DIRECTING THAT THE COUNCIL
RECONSIDER AND REVIEW THE CONTRACT AFTER SIX MONTHS.
MADER: Asked if the fee is automatically established for each project, and if estimates had been
received from various bidders regarding the number of hours to complete the projects identified. Asked
how the fee is then established.
OSMUNDSON: The percentage collected with the Developer's Agreement is a maximum amount. The
project costs and budget are monitored and the fee is typically about 4% of the construction costs. A
cost estimate was not given when staff solicited proposals because the estimates were not yet
received from the developers. It is difficult to determine the amount of time needed for observation on
these types of projects. Explained that before each project, staff will know the approximate costs of
construction and from that the fee is set by staff based upon the Developer's Agreement. His
recommendation is that it takes about 4% of the construction costs to perform adequate construction
observation.
MADER: Asked if the establishment of a fee comes back to the Council for consideration, and why the
contract was open-ended. Offered a friendly amendment that the contract be accepted but reviewed
after six months.
BOYLES: Noted that historically the item would not come back to the Council, but it could. Clarified that
the fees are paid by the Developer, and the intent is that adequate construction observation assures
taht the improvements are installed to the City's standards.
2
City Council Meeting Minutes
March 20, 2000 Regular Meeting
DRAFT
OSMUNDSON: Explained that the contract is open-ended so the process doesn't have to be repeated
and a relationship can be established and have someone who knows the City's standards and
practices.
MADER: Asked staff to estimate the cost of the contract.
OSMUNDSON: Answered that without knowing the extent of the Glynwater 3rd project, it is difficult, but
the estimate would be somewhere in the range of $100,000 including the first phase of the Deerfield
project which is a large project that will probably be $1 million itself this year.
MADER: Asked if WSB was the second lowest bidder. Offered a friendly amendment to direct that the
contract be reviewed and reconsidered by the Council after six months.
OSMUNDSON: Indicated that there were two bidders under WSB, but did not have the experience of
WSB, and could not assure that Prior Lake projects would be their top concern.
Councilmember PETERSEN and ERICSON accepted the amendment.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, petersen,~, and Ericson, the motion carried.
Consider Approval of Resolution 00-20 Authorizing Bolton & Menk, Inc. to Provide Construction
Staking SeNices for Candy Cove / Lakeside Manor Improvements (City Project 99-11) and 2000 City
Improvement Projects (City Projects 12-00 and 14-00).
BOYLES: Briefly reviewed the agenda item in connection with the agenda report.
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 00-20
AUTHORIZING BOLTON & MENK, INC. TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION STAKING SERVICES FOR
CANDY COVE I LAKESIDE MANOR IMPROVEMENTS (City Project 99-11) AND 2000 CITY
IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (City Projects 12-00 and 14-00).
GUNDLACH: Because of the wide range of estimated hours, asked how bidding firms determine their
number of hours.
OSMUNDSON: The bidders are supplied the estimated project costs and construction plans. For that
information, the firms then determine how many hours they believe it will take to complete the project.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS:
Consider Approval of Resolution DO-XX Denying a Zone Change Request by Eagle Creek Villas,
LLC for Approximately 12 Acres Located in Section 2, Township 114, Range 22, Scott County,
Minnesota.
MADER: Noted that he had received a letter from the Eagle Creek Villas Townhome Association
supporting the denial of the application.
3
City Council Meeting Minutes
March 20, 2000 Regular Meeting
DRAFT
KANSIER: Reviewed the history of the property and its development, as well as the request by Eagle
Creek Villas to rezone the property from PUD to R-4 and the application to amend the Comprehensive
Plan. Also discussed the criteria for amending the zoning map, the Planning Commission
recommendation to deny the zone change request due to the natural amenities on the site, the staff
rationale for approving the rezoning request. Noted both a letter from the applicant and opinion from
the City Attorney regarding the history and status of the request under City ordinance.
GUNDLACH: Asked when Holly Court was platted? Commented that it seemed odd that two of the lots
platted were wetland.
KANSIER: Clarified that the property was platted in 1977 prior to the Wetland Conservation Act.
ERICSON: Asked where the road is proposed and where the most significant wetland is located.
KANSIER: Explained that under the concept submitted, the road would not go through, although the
actual alignment for Five Hawks Avenue is right-of-way granted to the City by easement. When
discussed in 1997, the Council felt that the road should not go through, but the right-of-way was to be
used for pedestrian connection instead. The most significant wetland is located on the southwest
portion of the site.
MACER: Noted that the property discussed in item 9A is approximately 12 acres, while the other
property is approximately 1 acres. Asked for clarification in the current Compo Plan designation. Further
asked how the zoning and comprehensive plan designations affect the proposed density for the
property.
KANSIER: The property requested for rezoning is presently designated high-density residential uses on
the Compo Plan and the zoning is a PUD. Under the 1975 Zoning Ordinance in effect at the time the
property was originally platted, one section defines a PUD as a zoning district. In another section, it
discusses that a PUD is a conditional use. The City Attorney and staff have determined that the intent
was that a PUD was its own zoning district. Ideally, the density of a PUD should be based on the
underlying Comprehensive Plan designation. The confusion comes in at this point. A map from 1975
puts the property in a conservation district. On the Comprehensive Plan it was shown as medium-
density residential, although there was no high..;density residential designation. There is no
documentation as to any zone change. The smaller 1 acre parcel is designated low-to-medium density
and the zoning is R-3 which is medium density which is consistent with its current designation.
MADER: Asked if according to our PUD designation today and Comprehensive Plan, is there any
provisions in our zoning ordinance that requires a PUD to conform with the densities as defined by the
Comprehensive Plan.
KANSIER: Explained that under the current ordinance, a PUD is specifically an overlay and density and
development is defined by the underlying zoning district. The underlying zoning district should be
defined by the Comprehensive Plan. Had we choosen to eliminate all of the PUD designations at the
time of the adoption of the 1999 zoning ordinance, we would have zoned this property R-4 to be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff did not do this because PUDs were intended to be their
own zoning districts.
4
City Council Meeting Minutes
March 20, 2000 Regular Meeting
DRAFT
PETERSEN: Noted that the 1 acre parcel is buffered on either side by wetland lots 1 and 5 owned by the
DNR.
MADER: Asked if the concept plan submitted has any affect on the decision to rezone the property.
KANSIER: If the property is rezoned, it is not subject to any development plan. However, any future plan
would have to meet all the criteria of the R-4 zoning. The issue before the Council is the rezoning and
Compo Plan amendment and not the merits of any development plan.
GUNDLACH: Asked how much of the 12 acres is wetland, and whether the density calculation is based
upon the upland. Also asked if there is access to the westerly portion of the site along Roanoke.
KANSIER: Recalled that approximately 4 acres is wetland, and the density calculation is based upon the
upland. Noted that access would be difficult due the to the wetland and the creek. Most likely, to
develop that portion, if it is developable, access would come off of Roanoke.
fACE: Pointed out that if the property were rezoned and designated R-4, as staff understands, the
applicant would then request a conditional use permit, but does not preclude the applicant from
requesting a PUD, whic~ncr~aseK the den~ity. I. L r ~
pt'fIYiibfht prD~,dl 6~fj) ~P'7 ~ c\v\
GUNDLACH: Asked the criteria in requesting a CUP.
KANSIER: Explained the requirements of a CUP application, including detailed site plans, utility plans,
road plans, building plans and building elevations. Also discussed the public hearing process, as well
as the review and approvals required from the Planning Commission and City Council.
MADER: Commented that there is concern that the Council does not want to initiate a step whereby we
are precluded from regulating the density of development at the next level.
.eAcE: Clarified that Councilmember Gundlach's direction seems to be how the Council can give input
and direction as part of the CUP process, including what studies could be required and what other
information is necessary so that the Council has a comfort level about how the project affects the
health, safety and welfare issues.
KANSIER: Noted that part of that input and process could be initiated at this point through direction to
staff as part of the public record. The applicant could request that their concept plan be brought to both
the Planning Commission and Council for input.
MADER: Noted that the Planning Commission's decision was unanimous. Further suggested that due to
the many issues involved and confusing nature of this matter, a workshop with the City Attorney be
conducted so that the Council is clear on all the implications of its decision.
fAcE: Asked staff regarding the 50-day deadline on this application.
KANSIER: Advised that the City is well within its deadline of May 31 st.
MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO DEFER THE REZONING REQUEST AND
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST ISSUES UNTIL NO LATER THAN APRIL 17,
5
I
r
-.,. .--<.----.~......."~^'--....---,"---..---.-.. '-__"___'_'~~~__,~,_.____._o__.,._."
City Council Meeting Minutes
March 20, 2000 Regular Meeting
DRAFT
2000, AND TO DIRECT STAFF TO SET UP A WORKSHOP FOR THE COUNCil WITH THE CITY
ATTORNEY SO THAT THE COUNCIL IS CLEAR ON ALL IMPLICATIONS OF ANY DECISION.
ERICSON: Commented that he believed that the Council could proceed at this point.
fACE: Noted that the applicant's counsel had requested to address the Council and without adding new
evidence into the record, may be able to provide some clarity regardinailthe histarv of this d~VeJOpme~r:lt. I .
~ ~~H~ '-IN ~1!f~ .~. ~ 11 :wrLv
MADER: Asked if this could be addressed in the workshop. Commented that without also d1loWlng the -. 0
persons opposing the development an opportunity to speak, he was uncomfortable allowing the
applicant to speak at this point.
~\':>\~t~
eAcE: Advised that th e is not any more advice to provide from her perspective. The Council knows
what the Compo Plan is that state law requires that zoning conform to the Compo Plan within a period
of time. ooking at this in a light most favorable to the apPlicant,~er interpretation is that the PUD
designation is a zoning district. Also noted that 4/5th vote is requir d to approve. The Council ShOUld..
separ~te the actions before it tonight from any application whic is anticipated as the \basip for
rezomn';;, -jl.. C011,aJ Mt.......... · w~J, 0" [J" rr<f J "" ./)uI ~
~ i The Council took a 5-minute recess. ~ .
MADER: Clarified that the City Attorney has advised that the law provides that there needs to be
compatibility between the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan, but that should not be interpreted
to mean that the zoning has be to changed to correspond with the Comprehensive Plan any more than
the Comprehensive Plan would have to be changed to correspond to the zoning. Either one could , I
change, or both could partially change. Asked the City Attorney if that is a correct analysis. ~ ();~ ~ C~
( l./,+h ol,(~\.-
fACE: Advised that she would like more time to consider the answer and proposed to h3\/A. tbat V\4'11. ~
-.worrnation at the workshop. ~
MADER: Further noted his discomfort with the many viewpoints on this issue, and further noted his @ ~'
reluctance in allowing any counsel, applicant or opponent to address the Council at this point.
ERICSON: Noted that the whole issue is a real mess, and that that additional input from the apPlica~nt ,_
the opponents, and counsel may be helpful. ~y!.(. . 1).
1L = p.w w 'w ... 1:-<
fACE: Noted that Mr. Sellegren (the applicant's counsel) had concurred in BR . the PUD in the A~
context of a use district. fJl
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, petersen~nd Ericson, the motion carried.
Consider Approval of Resolution OO-XX Denying an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
Requested by Eagle Creek Vii/as, LLC for the Property Described as Lots 2, 3 and 4, Holly
Court. (Case File #00-13).
This item was discussed in general as part of Item 9A above, and is
included in that action for deferral until not later than April 17, 2000.
6
City Council Meeting Minutes
March 20, 2000 Regular Meeting
DRAFT
Consider Approval of Ordinance 00-05 Approving an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
Relating to Institutional Signs (Case File 00-007).
TOVAR: Reviewed the ordinance change request from Evangelical Lutheran Church to allow
illuminated signs for institutional uses within residential zoning districts on arterials and to allow an
increase in height from 6 feet to 8 feet, together with the Planning Commission and staff
recommendations. Noted that the applicant has also asked to address the Council regarding their
request to waive the fee.
ERICSON: His only comment was that if fees are waived for non-profit organizations in one instance,
that policy should be consistent.
MADER: Agreed to having consistency in such policies. Asked staff to comments on past practices is
waiving fees. Also asked for clarification as to the ordinance changes requested.
BOYLES: Noted that in the past the City has refunded application fees for permits for non-profit
organizations doing fund-raising events, but did not believe that policy applied to ordinance.
amendments or zoning changes.
TOVAR: Explained that illuminated signs would be allowed on arterial roads as defined in the Compo
Plan, and clarification would be added to define that freestanding signs can be no higher than six feet
above the adjacent grade or the centerline grade of the road, whichever is higher.
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 00-05 AMENDING
THE ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 1107.808 REGARDING INSTITUTIONAL SIGNS.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried.
MADER: Indicated that the City Attorney has suggested that is would be appropriate to require the fee
at this time, and direct staff and counsel to establish a policy for waiving such items, at which time this
particular fee may be reconsidered.
MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO REQUIRE THE FEE AT THIS TIME AND
DIRECT STAFF AND COUNSEL TO RESEARCH AND RECOMMEND A POLICY SETTING OUT
CRITERIA BY WHICH FEES MAY BE REFUNDED.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Nay by Ericson, the motion carried.
KoRY.McDoNALD (2850 Hawk Ridge Road) (sign committee chair for Evangelical Lutheran Church):
Thanked staff and the Council for the action to correct the ordinance. Commented that the Church
feels penalized by having to pay the fee for an amendment that other churches already had in place
with no regard to the regulations.
Consider Approval of Resolution 00-21 Approving the Final Plat for Knob Hill 5th Addition.
BOYLES: Briefly reviewed the item in connection with the staff report.
7
-~._-~...---,._,"._",.._~.. I
T
City Council Meeting Minutes
March 20, 2000 Regular Meeting
DRAFT
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY GUNDLACH, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 00-21
APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT FOR KNOB HILL 5TH ADDITION.
MADER: Asked if there are any changes from the preliminary plat to the final plat.
RYE: Stated that there were no changes.
ERICSON: Commented that had he been included in the decision making process at the time the project
was initiated, he would not have voted in favor. At this point, because of the status of the project, there
appears to be no alternative because the developer has complied with the preliminary plat conditions.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried.
Consider Approval of Report Regarding Park and Library Referendum Finances and
Improvement Projects.
BOYLES: Gave the history of the Referendum, the improvements accomplished, the costs of those
improvements to date and the amount remaining. Further noted the cost-saving steps taken, discussed
why some projects are not yet complete, and the options for Council to consider for what happens
next.
MADER: Asked the total costs to complete the projects defined in the original Referendum document?
BOYLES: Clarified that in the report when it is indicated that an item was "not included" it means that the
item wasn't specifically identified from a dollar perspective on that first January 1997 memorandum.
Did not intend to imply the numbers weren't included in the Referendum, just that a specific number
was not identified. Much depends on the definition of when a park is complete. With purchasing,
grading, lights, irrigation and assuming a concession stand, the total to complete Referendum projects
is $2,401,000.
MADER: Noted that in his calculation of the numbers provided, the total calculation to complete all
projects is over $11 million dollars to complete the Referendum projects. Further explained his
calculations. Further noted his concern with approving additional park improvements without knowing
the final price tag. Suggested revisiting the numbers so that the Council has a more complete picture,
and can balance additional expenditures for parks with other large-scale improvements needed within
the City. Noted that the overrun appears to be $3 million in excess of the original $7.8 million
Referendum. Given the status of the funds, he is unprepared to proceed with agenda items 9F or 9G.
ERICSON: As a point of clarification, noted that in a previous work session, he questioned how interest
money could be used, not using the bond proceeds for anything else. Also expressed concern that the
actual costs for completing projects seem to be consistently higher than the projected costs.
Suggested a more concise report.
GUNDLACH: Asked how much had been spent to date, and if all checks cleared for what is underway,
what would be the price tag?
BOYLES: $7,147,965 to date has been spent. Advised that the funds are pooled money and cannot be
specifically labeled as trunk funds, or Referendum funds, or interest earnings. $8,422,526 to complete
8
City Council Meeting Minutes
March 20, 2000 Regular Meeting
DRAFT
the projects underway, leaving approximately $500,000 of the $8.9 million, plus an estimated additional
$200,000 in interest earnings, for a the total remaining of approximately $700,000.
There was additional discussion among the Council, City Manager and Park & Rec. Director Hokeness
regarding the costs to complete the projects underway.
MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO DEFER ITEMS 9F AND 9G NOT lATER THAN
APRil 17, 2000, AND DIRECT STAFF TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONSIDERING
THE COSTS TO COMPLETE THE PROJECTS IDENTIFIED BY THE REFERENDUM AND IN THE
CONTEXT OF THE CITY'S OVERALL ABILITY TO FUND OTHER LARGE-SCALE UPCOMING
PROJECTS.
PETERSEN: Asked if the Council's earlier direction to complete the restroom/concession facility is being
tabled because there is some concern regarding the start of the construction season. Noted that
clarification is needed to avoid misinterpretation of the numbers and so the costs are clear.
ERICSON: Suggested imposing a timeframe not to exceed due the start of the construction season and
projects that need to be completed this year.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried.
Consider Approval of Resolution OO-XX Authorizing the Preparation of Plans and Specifications
for Trails and Playground Equipment as Identified in the 1999 and 2000 Capital Improvement
Program.
This Item was deferred as directed in Item 9E above.
Consider Approval of Resolution OO-XX Authorizing Expenditures for Miscellaneous Park
Capital Improvement Projects and Park Capital Equipment as Identified in the 1999 and 2000
Capital Improvement Program.
This Item was deferred as directed in Item 9E above.
OTHER BUSINESS I COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS:
BOYLES: Noted that staff would probably bring to the Council for consideration requesting authorization
to select a consulting engineer to develop a program for completing new Well No. 6 as a Jordan well
versus a FIG/Mt. Simon/Hinckley well. Also advised that the City staff will monitor the Metropolitan
Council's Regional Taxi and Passenger Services Task Force, rather than appointing a representative.
Further noted he is seeking Councilmember input on the materials distributed regarding a proposed
Dick Underferth memorial. Lastly, advised that the City has begun street sweeping in the areas around
the lake and working outward. The process typically takes 6 weeks to complete. Staff has proposed
leasing two sweepers which is within the budget and cutting the sweeping time to two weeks.
MADER: Does not believe it is critical to sweep streets quickly except around the lake, unless the
incremental costs are minimal. Suggested bringing the cost differential numbers to the next meeting for
9
.
"T
City Council Meeting Minutes
March 20, 2000 Regular Meeting
DRAFT
consideration. Also reminded Council members that a appointment needs to be made to the Suburban
Transit Authority.
GUNDLACH: Suggested that the appointment could possibly be a staff member.
ERICSON: Noted that tonight was the deadline for additional input on the revisions to the Council
bylaws, and that he and Councilmember Gundlach would be finalizing the document for consideration
at the April 3, 2000 regular meeting.
made and seconded. The meeting adjourned at 10:42 p.m.
I
- -.-----."
Kelly
10