Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 27 12 City Council minutes 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES August 27 , 201 2 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7 :00 p.m. Present were Mayor Myser, Council members Erickson, Hedberg , Keeney and Soukup , City Manager Boyles, City Attor ney Rosow , Finance Director Er ickson, City Engineer / I n- spections Director Poppler, Public Works/Natural Resources Director Gehler, Fire Chief Hartman, Police Chief O’Rourke, Detective Cragoe, Community and Economic Development Director Rogness , Planner Matzke, Assi s- tant City Manager M eyer and Administrative Assi s tant Green. PUBLIC FORUM The Public Forum is intended to afford the public an opportunity to address concerns to the City Council. The Public Forum will be no longer than 30 minutes in length and each presenter will have no more than ten (10) minutes to speak. Topics of discussion are restricted to City governmental topics rather than private or polit i cal agendas. Topics may be addressed at the Public Forum that are on the agenda except those topics that have been or are the subject of a scheduled public hearing or public information hearing before the City Cou n cil, the Economic Development Authority (EDA), Planning Commission, or any other City Advisory Committee. The City Council may discuss but will not take formal ac tion on Public Forum presentations. Matters that are the subject of pending litigation are not appropriate for the Forum. Comments: Mayor Myser informed the audience that SMSC Chair Stanley Crooks passed away over the weekend. He c ommented on the phen omenal work undertaken by Crooks for SMSC and the surrounding community and asked for a moment of silence to honor him . APPROVAL OF AGENDA City Manager Boyles re quested that item 7B , SCALE One Stop Shop, be removed f rom this agenda an d- scheduled for a f u ture meeting. MOTION BY HEDBERG, S ECOND BY SOUKUP T O APPROVE THE AGEND A AS MODIFIED . VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg , Keeney and Soukup . The motion carried. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES MOTION BY SOUKUP , S E COND BY HEDBERG TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 6 , 2012 , MEETING AS PRESEN T ED . VOTE: Ayes by Myser , Hedberg and Soukup . Erickson and Keeney abstained due to their absence at the meeting. The motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA City Manager Boyles re viewed the items on the consent agenda. A. Consider Approval of Claims Listing B. Consider Approval of July 2012 Treasurers Report C. Consider Approval of Building Permit Summary Report D. Consider Approval of Animal Control Services Report E. Conside r Approval of Fire Department Report. Phone 952.447. 9800 / Fax 952.44 7 . 4245 / www.cityofpriorlake.com F. Consider Approval of Police Department Report G. Consider Approval of 2nd Quarter 2012 Investment Report H. Consider Approval of 2nd Quarter 2012 Financial Report I. Consider Approval of Resolution 12 - 123 Author izing a Special Hunt on the O'Loughlin Property J. Consider Approval of Three Resolutions Pertaining to the Sunset Avenue and County Road 12 Improv e- ment Projects: 1. Resolution 12 - 124 Ordering the Preparation of a Feasibility Report for the Sunset Avenue Im prov e- ment Project, City Project #13 - 011 and Authorizing Payment to Spring Lake Township for the Co m- pl e tion of the Feas i bility Report 2. Resolution 12 - 125 Ordering the Preparation of a Feasibility Report for the County Road 12 I m- provement Project, City Projec t # 12 - 002 3. Resolution 12 - 126 Authorizing Staff to submit a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Grant Applic a tion to the Minnesota Public Facilities Authority (PFA) and to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to Execute a Grant Agreement on Behalf of the City of Prior Lake for the Sunset Avenue and County Road 12 Projects K. Consider Approval of Resolution 12 - 127 Amending the Professional Services Contract with Bolton and Menk for the South Downtown Traffic Study L. Consider Approval of Resolution 12 - 128 App roving a Liquor License for the Cove for the Period A u gust 27, 2012 through June 30, 2013 M. Consider Approval of a Massage Therapy License for Kathleen Osness N. Consider Approval of Massage Therapy Licenses for Josie Blankenship, Alyssa Boese, Jessica Engel and A n drea Rivera O. Consider Approval of Resolution 12 - 129 Approving a Temporary On - sale Liquor License for Prior Lake Athletics for Youth (PLAY) P. Consider Approval of Resolution 12 - 130 Authorizing a Special Hunt for Mike Vierling Q. Consider Approval of Resolution 12 - 131 Declaring the Costs to be Assessed and Ordering Preparation of an Assessment Roll for the 2012 Improvement Project, and Establishing the Date of the Assessment Hearing for the 2012 Improvement Project (#12 - 011) R. Consider A pproval of Resolution 12 - 132 Ratifying the 2012 - 2014 Collective Bargaining Agreement B e- tween the City of Prior Lake and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (A F- SCME), Cou n cil #5, Local No. 3884 City Manager Boyles requested that i tem 5P, Consider Approval of Resolution 12 - 130 Authorizing a Special Hunt for Mike Vierling , be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion . Councilmember Keeney requested that item 5K, Consider Approval of Resolution 12 - 127 Amending the Pr o- fessional S ervices Contract with Bolton and Menk for the South Downtown Traffic Study , be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Mayor Myser requested that items 5G, Consider Approval of 2nd Quarter 2012 Investment Report , and 5H, Consider Approval of 2nd Q uarter 2012 Financial Report , be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. MOTION B Y KEENEY, S ECOND BY ERICKSON T O APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS MODIFIED . VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Soukup. The motion carried. Boyles: C ommented on item 5P, the Vierling hunt , that last year the Council discussed safety concerns in co n- junction with the Vier ling h unt in the area around CR 42 / CR 21 so resolutions have been prepared to restrict hunting to the area north of CR 42 if that is the Council’s preference. 2 08 27 2012 City Council Minutes Erickson : R ecalled the Council discussed the proximity of the hunt to residential areas and express ed a d e sire for the hunt to coincide with the noise ordinance. Asked Police Chief O’Rourke if concerns had been expressed for hav ing the hunt in the CR 42 / CR 21 area during the hours of 8 a.m. to sunset. O’Rourke : Replied that no new concerns ha s been expressed. Recalled last year’s conversation about i n- creased traffic when CR 21 was opened to the north. Noted that Mr. Vierling ’s request is for start hours of 7 a.m. Mo n day through Saturday, and 8 a.m. on Sunday. No complaints were received associated with the hunt , although there were calls about the legality of the hunt in ge n eral. Erickson : Commented that one of Mr. Vierli ng’s concerns was about the waterfowl in the CR 42 / CR 21 area where his cattle are pastured. O’Rourke: Added that Mr. Vierling’s application refers to development in the Jeffers area causing the geese to m igrate to his property. Erickson : Asked O’Rour ke for his suggestions to Council now that the CR 21 roadway is finished and the traffic has increased. O’Rourke: Replied that Mr. Vierling has proven to be responsive and aware of hunting regulations about shot not leaving the property and not being with in 500 feet of residences. There have been no complaints or obse r- vations of that happening. Erickson : Based on that, will support the hunt in both locations. Keeney : Commented that it is not clear that anything has changed on the Vierling property that would restrict the hunt from both locations. Hedberg : W ill support both locations. Commented that Mr. Vierling has been responsible in conducting the hunt and noted that whenever agricultural land is next to residential there will be unique problems to b e consi d- ered. Soukup : Stated she sees no issues with either propert y and will support the hunt on both. Myser : Recalled concerns from last year about public safety and asked how it will be determined that public safety concerns are becoming imperative and the hunt should be discontinued in the CR 42 / CR 21 a r ea. O’Rourke: Replied that there is quite a bit of land in that section of town available for development. If the Vie r- ling’s sell any of their property, or if the property west of them develops , it may change traffic patterns which could precipitate restrictions in the hunt . Also, if complaints arise, adjustments to the hunt may have to be made. Myser: Stated his preference to restrict the hunt to the area north of 42. Keeney : Commented on ite m 5K, the Downtown Traffic Study, stating his understanding that we are at the stage where the options should be reduced to a few and asked if there are specific options to consider at this point . Poppler : Replied that five options are being considered: 1) no build – use the 2005 baseline option for the A r- cadia intersection and everything else remains as is. 2 ) build a connection from Colorado to Pleasant and Arc a- dia and all other features on 21 and 13 remain the same. 3 ) build an alignment to Pleasant and connecting to Du luth . 4 ) build an access on Hwy 13 at Franklin Trail and tie into Duluth through Anna Trail to Arca dia. 5) build a hybrid of the developer’s concept which keeps Duluth as a through street with access at Anna and Franklin. Cost estim ates, wetland impacts, and traffic pattern models will be prepared for all of these co n cepts. Keeney : Expressed concern that the City is expanding the scope of the concept to suit one developer and that the City is setting a precedent of funding explorati on of alternatives for this development. Stated he is not sure wants to sup port that at this point. Boyles : Replied his understanding that some of the options could appear to be at t he motivation of one deve l- oper; but noted that City has long tried to con nect the South Village and downtown areas and when th e deve l- oper’s idea was brought forward, the City wanted to consider it. Erickson : C ommente d that of different suggestions, the third alternative seems least likely as it ravages the neighborhood. St ated that if it would reduce the cost of study and relieve anxiety for people in the area, he would be wil l ing to pull it from the study. 3 08 27 2012 City Council Minutes Poppler : Replied that the decrease in cost would be nominal . Noted that e ach alternative has an impact either to wet lands or homes . Three meetings have been held with the citizen /business group as well as the Technical Advisory Group . The groups that have been engaged have recommended these five alternatives for further study. Believes the alternatives should go thro ugh due process t o learn all of the facts. Soukup : Stated that downtown redevelopment is a hot topic with CR 21 going through middle of downtown . Noted that when a developer came through with his plan it was a concept we hadn’t seen before and seemed wel l worth exploring as it could possibly bring more economic development to the south side of dow n town. Hedberg : Generally agrees with discarding the third alternative as he would like to minimize the impact on the neighborhood; but believes the process sh ould be continued. Stated this study will define downtown for the long term. Myser: Concurred that he does not agree with the third alternative and could support removing it , but will let the process work . Encouraged the groups involved to eliminate the alternatives that seem like they will not work. Keeney: Stated he supports removing the third alternative now ; and, in general, cannot support having City i n- cur costs to acquire properties and build a road through a residential neighborhood in order t o provide a lower cost option for a specific commercial development. Alternatives that extend Arcadia through the neighborhood do not make sense. Not comfortable with where the study is going and cannot su p port it. MOTION BY SOUKUP , SECOND BY HEDBERG T O APPROVE RESOLUTION 12 - 127 AMENDING THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICE S CONTRACT WITH BOLT ON AND MENK FOR THE SOUTH DOWNTOWN TRAFFIC STUDY. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg and Soukup. Nay by Keeney. The motion carried. MOTION BY SOUKUP , SECOND BY KEENEY TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 12 - 130 AUTHORIZING A SP E- CIAL HUNT FOR MIKE V IERLING ALLOWING THE HUNT ON BOTH PROPERT IES. VOTE: Ayes by Erickson, Hedberg , Keeney and Soukup. Nay by Myser. The motion carried. Myser : Commented on 5G , the investment report, rega rding the amount of investments the City has in Fa n nie Mae and Freddie Mac. Asked if the City’s Financial Management Policy limits our exposure to certain kinds of debt and whether there is potential exposure with the amount of investment in Federal oblig ations. Erickson : Replied that the C ity invests in instruments allowed by State Statute 118A.03 and the City’s inves t- ment poli cy which allows investment in government securities up to 100%. At 42% we are in guidelines of both. State statute allow s for g overnment sponsored enterprises. There is discussion a bout whether there should be a change for the future, but until State Statute and investment policy changes, we can continue to use these i n- vestments. Myser : Cautioned that such investments should be monitored in the event that risk arises on a political basis. Myser : Commented on 5H , the financial report , regarding the General F und summary reflecting that revenues are exceeding expenditures by $ 1.2 million and asked what that covers. Erickson: R eplied that the first half tax revenue has been received ; compared to the expenses which reflect about 4.5 months of the year. Most expenditures for the recreation and streets departments occur during the summer months so the third quarter expenses will b e higher. MOTION BY HEDBERG, SECOND BY KEENEY TO APPROVE 2 QUARTER 2012 INVESTMENT REPORT ND AND 2 QUARTER 2012 FINANCIAL REPORT. ND VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg , Keeney and Soukup. The motion carried. 4 08 27 2012 City Council Minutes PRESENTATION LMC Recognition of Repres entative Mike Beard (Legislator of Distinction) City Manager Boyles informed the Council that the League of Minnesota Cities recognized 23 legislators for their actions and leadership, including Representative Mike Beard. He introduced Rep. Beard. Mayor Myser commented on the criteria for receiving the recognition and reiterated Rep. Beard’s characteristics of being co n- sistently accessible and strongly supportive of cities and SCALE. Myser read a proclamation expressing appr e- ciation of the City and its c itizens for Rep. Beard’s efforts. Councilmember Erickson commented that redistric t- ing would result in Rep. Beard no longer representing the City of Prior Lake and expressed his regrets for the City’s loss. PUBLIC HEARING Consider Approval of a Resolution Approving Modification of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Finan c ing (Redevelopment) District 1 - 1 Community and Economic Development Director Rogness reviewed the upcoming expiration date of TIF District 1 - 1. Council will decide whether to allow any unspent funds to go back to the taxing district or determine whether there are ways to use the remaining funds. Council directed the EDA to review it. The EDA hired Northland Strategies to help the City go th r ough the process . Actions incl ude approving a modification to TIF District 1 - 1 in order to amend the budget that would allow the expenditure of the remaining fund balance of a p- proximately $200,000. To allow flexibility, a list of potential properties has been identified for use of the funds. The funds can be used for redevelopment expenses (demolition, site improvements, acquisition and dispos i- tion). Recalled that the boundaries of the Municipal Development District 1 were amended to be coterminous with the city limits of Prior Lake ; so these funds could be used throughout Prior Lake. No comments have been received from the County or School District regarding the use of the funds. Introduced Tammy Omdal of Nort h- land Strategies, who was hired to help the City go through the process. Comments: Hedberg : Clarified that most of the $637, 000 budget has been expended and there is $ 200,000 remaining . Rogness : Affirmed . Keeney : Asked what the City portion would be if the funds reverted to normal property taxes. Rogness : A pproximately one - third of $200,000. MOTION BY ERICKSON, SECOND BY SOUKUP TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Soukup. The motion carried and the public hearing opened at 7:51 p.m. Comments: No person stepped forward to spe ak. MOTION BY HEDBERG, SECOND BY ERICKSON TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Soukup. The motion carried and the public hearing closed at 7:52 p.m. Comments: Hedberg : Commented that when the TIF district w as established, the other taxing jurisdictions presumed that the funds were to be used for redevelopment so no ne of them have b een planning to receive the funds for any other purpose. There are limited ways the City can use the funds. This would provide a meaningful tool for the EDA to enact its age n da over time. Soukup : Stated that it has been a priority to grow the C ity and encourage economic redevelopment. This is what the TIF program is set up to do. Will support. 5 08 27 2012 City Council Minutes Erickson : W ill support. Keeney : Stated he does not support of this method of funding economic development. In 1985, when this TIF district was formed, there were specific goals and those decisions were made in that context. That redevelo p- ment has happened. Now it is time to enjoy the returns of that redevelopment. Understand s that there are f u- ture goals to develop and those goals should be debated and stand on their own. Believes this money should not be repurpose d without a specific plan in place. Th e money should revert back to t he normal taxing process. Myser : Believes the City s hould use the tools available to kick - start economic development and will support use of these dollars for that. Believes there s hould be a plan and property should not be purchased piecemeal . Will sup port if EDA has a plan and strategy and would like an amendment to the resolution to that e f fect . Hedberg : Stated that the general outlines of such a plan are what Rogness presented . P roperties appropr i ate for redevelopment have been proposed and he supp orts that list ing . Without knowing which property owners might be willing sellers, he cannot say which should be pursued at this time. The EDA steered away from pro p- erties that were being offered that were not properties that could be meaningfully redeve lop ed . Some prope r ties were requested to be added to the list that are contiguous to downtown northwest and considered to be a red e- velopment block. Myser : Commented that he has seen individual properties that private developers could purchase and redeve l- op. Would like to see a targeted zone to acquire contiguous properties that a developer might want to acquire as a whole and that could be just i fied as a public purpose. Soukup : Concurred with Myser stating the list of proposed properties is a great sta rting point. Believes it would be good to have i nformation on Prior Lake as a whole, not just downtown. Erickson : Stated he will support the original proposal. Keeney : Generally is not supportive. Myser : Asked if there is consensus to have the EDA dev elop a plan and bring it back to the Council for Appro v- al. Keeney : Considering that a n ay vote will not be effective, will support Myser’s suggestion. MOTION BY SOUKUP, SECOND BY E RICKSON TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 12 - 133 APPROVING MOD I- FICATION OF THE TAX IN CREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ( REDEVE L- OPMENT) DISTRICT NO. 1 - 1 INCLUDING DIRECTION TO EDA AND STAFF TO DEVELOP A PLAN THAT WILL BE APPROVED BY COUNCIL. Rogness : Asked if the Council is asking to have filing the report with the State be held until the EDA plan comes back to the Council; or if this amendment is being approved knowing that a plan will be brought back to the Cou n cil. Soukup : Approving this amendment with direction to the EDA to further look into other areas that the Cou ncil can look at for redevelopment. Myser : Asked what the impact would be of having the EDA put forth a plan to be approved by the Council and attaching it to this resolution. Rogness : The p lan includes potential parcels the $ 200,000 could be used towards acqui ring . If the $200,000 is used for demolition on private property, or improvements on public property – such improvements would not have to have specific parcels identified. However, parcels cannot be acquired using this money unless it was identifi ed in this plan. Myser : Clarified – if in order to purchase property prior to using these funds to purchase property the EDA would have to come forth with a plan as to why they want to purchase that piece of property in an overall strat e- gy of acquisition and bring that back to City Council for approval. Asked what that impact that would have on this resolution. Rogness : Replied it would have to have been identified in this plan. If the EDA intended to acquire some or part – would have to come back with a plan that further substantiates the need for this money to acquire it, which would be workable. 6 08 27 2012 City Council Minutes Myser : Not sure that some of the parcels identified would make sense for purchase. Hedberg : Pointed out that the EDA bylaws give the “ power of the purse st rings ” to the City Council . The EDA is not authorized to make expenditures , which would include expenditures such as this. Bylaws already provide for expenditures recommended by the EDA and ratified by the City Council. Soukup : Asked if the $ 200,000 can be applied to more than what is in this report . Rogness : Replied these sites are only provided for acquisition and disposition of property. Myser : Stated he is comfortable with the motion as it stands if the EDA is required to bring the acquisition r e- qu ests to the Council. Soukup : Clarified that if acquisition is for any other land that is not in this report, this money could not be used. Tammy Omdal : Stated that t his district will decertify by the end of 2012. After it is decertified , the money in th e budget can be spent, but the plan cannot be amended. The budget must be in place b y the end of 2012 . Soukup : W ithdrew the motion. Rogness: Provided a technical change on the bottom of page 2, section 1A. The reference is to $ 292,000 which is suppose d to be $584,000 which matches the land/building acquisition and site improvement / prepar a- tion costs. Asked that the change be recognized in the resolution. MOTION BY HEDBERG, SECOND BY ERICKSON TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 12 - 133 APPROVING MOD I- FICATION OF TH E TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (REDEVE L- OPMENT) DISTRICT NO. 1 - 1 SUBJECT TO THE CHANGE IN THE PLAN MENTIONED BY ROGNESS. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg and Soukup. Nay by Keeney. The motion carried. Conduct a Public Hearing for the 2013 - 2017 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Street Reconstru c- tion Plan and Consider Approval of Two Resolutions Relating to the Capital Improvement Pr o gram (CIP): 1. Approving the 2013 - 2017 Capital Improvement Program 2. Approving the Street Reconstruction Program Finance Director Erickson identified the elements included as part of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) . City Engineer / Inspections Director Poppler reviewed the proposed 2013 streets projects. Public Works D i- rector Gehler re viewed the 2013 utilities, water quality, parks, facilities, vehicles and equipment projects. Eric k- son reviewed the transit and technology proposals . Erickson also reviewed the debt impact of the CIP on a per capita and tax levy basis ; the demand on tax levy that is already in place from previous actions ; and the impact of the CIP on rate changes for water, City sewer, Met Council sewer (pass through), stormwater, etc. Comments: Keeney: Asked if there is a schedule that requires adopting the CIP at this meeting . J. Erickson: Replied that CIP adoption has been timed to align with the budget process. Noted that planning needs to begin for the 2013 projects. MOTION BY SOUKUP, SECOND BY HEDBERG TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Ericks on, Hedberg, Keeney and Soukup. The motion carried and the public hearing opened at 8:29 p.m. Comments: John Zak , 14377 Raven Court NE, introduced himself as president of the Prior Lake Hockey Association. Joe Pankratz , 16318 Berens Court, introduced hi mself as the Prior Lake High School Hockey Coach. Zak stated that the Association has issue s with some of the outdoor facilities and desires to be part of the City’s budgeting process in order to develop more outdoor hockey rinks in Prior Lake. Noted the re are t wo outdoor rinks at Lake front Park and a third sheet is desired at that location. Provide d comparisons about the number of outdoor sheets in neighboring cities. Stated that the City has housed the Zamboni in a Quonset hut at Lakefront Park for te n years, but the Association has been informed that it will be torn down next year with the realignment 7 08 27 2012 City Council Minutes of CR 44 and Ridgemont Avenue . Suggested op tions for storage of the Zamboni including constructing a new shed, moving it to a different park, etc. Ask ed the City to consider some kind of storage option in Lakefront Park. Pankratz stated that due to the dedication and commitment of the Association, this request should be considered by City. Myser : T hanked them for the Zamboni and the resurfacing that t he A ssociation provides. Stated he is p erso n- ally open to considering this and asked what process should be followed for the City to do so . Boyles: Commented that it is late in this year’s CIP process , but this is an opportunity to look at long - term i s- su es of the A ssociation. Noted that Zamboni storage concerns are a short - term consideration and the Council may want to direct staff to work with the Parks Advisory Committee on that topic. Gehler : Replied they have proposed an extensive building which co uld ultimately serve the needs in the park, but the short - term need is finding a home for the Zamboni so a phased facility may have to be considered which could bring the cost down and might fit more easily into the CIP for 2013. Soukup : A gree d that fin ding a home for the Zamboni is the first priority. Commented that City staff, the Assoc i- ation and other community members can put together a collaborative effort. Noted that people from all over use the facil i ties and she woul d like to reach out beyond the C ity to accomplish such a goal . Hedberg : W ill support the effort to explore further. Stated that fundraising for capital outlay will play a big role in accelerating the ability to do this. Keeney : S uggest ed that moving the CR 44 / Ridgemont Avenu e project to 2014 would smooth out the CIP budget and would also solve Zamboni storage for another year. Asked if the facility being proposed would i n- clude changing room s. Zak : Stated that the Pavilion is being used as a changing room now and it is prop osed to include such rooms in a new facility. Keeney : Clarified that the Association is seeking a locker room style of facility rather than just an equipment shed and that would need to be worked into the parks planning process. Stated it would be diffi cult to get som e- thing of this magnitude for 2013 . He w ould like to find something to house the Zamboni for 2013, but a co m plete building will require some study. Seems operating expense for additional sheet would be minimal due to volu n- teers. Appr e ciate s that the quality of ice is better with the volunteers and Zamboni grooming it. Erickson : A sked about the centralization of ice sheets rather than having neighborhood ice sheets. Zak : Replied that it is essential to have neighborhood sheets. Having a third sheet at Lakefront Park is b e- cause the Zamboni is there. The Zamboni is not maximized, but the Association is not really able to move it around to other parks. Erickson : Asked what other costs there would be to put in a third rink assuming the boards can be found for $15,000. Gehler : Replied that a paved surface would be installed for approximately $ 20,000 which does not include staff time for grading, etc. Noted that the l ocation of a third rink would take up green space and other athletic assoc i- ations are discus si n g the shortage of green space. The hockey association would need to join in discussions with other athletic associations. Myser : Asked how much time staff needs for working on a solution. Boyles: Replied that all parties ha ve timelines they are interested in meeting and staff will work with all due haste. MOTION BY SOUKUP, SECOND BY HEDBERG TO DIRECT STAFF TO BRING THIS PROPOSAL TO THE PARKS ADVISORY COMMITTEE INCLUDING THE ISSUE OF FINDING IMMEDIATE HOUSING FOR THE ZAMBON I FOR THE UPCOMING SEASON. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Soukup. The motion carried . MOTION BY SOUKUP, SECOND BY ERICKSON TO CLOSE THE PUBL I C HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Soukup. The motion carried and the public hearing closed at 8:52 p.m. 8 08 27 2012 City Council Minutes Comments: Keeney : Asked what the impact would be on staff capacity and budget to move the CR 44 / Ridgemont Avenue project to 2014. Poppler : Replied this project would not be designed in - house. It is a st ate aid project with various steps that staff is not as familiar with. The Mushtown/Panama project will be designed for 2014 . Delaying the CR 44 / Ridgemont Avenue project would not impact staff capacity ; and MnDOT and the County are partners in funding and the y have budgeted accordingly. Additional funding from MnDot has been solicited. It is unknown if chan g- ing the timeline would impact funding. Keeney : Asked about the $80,000 increase in the equipment replacement plan . Gehler : Replied that the mo st significant change is for the 2021 - 2024 period where equipment was added that is reaching its life - cycle. Refurbishment was added in 2018. Some equipment had valuation changes. Total changes came to $ 1.2 million. Keeney : Asked if this is a plan that accurately budgets sustaining the fleet going forward. Noted that some of this equipment is scheduled out into the distant future and he seeks assurance that this plan sustains the fleet for a known cost . Commented that it w as surprising to see that big of a change in the plan year - over - year. Myser: C ommented that p erhaps the number of years reflected in t he plan will more accurately reflect the act u- al cost of maintaining fleet equipment . Keeney : Believes it should be a simple equation to take each p iece of equipment with its known cost divided by the number years in it s life cycle. Adding all of the equipment together should provide the amount needed to maintain the equipment. The complication of trying to include equipment that may last eight to 15 - 20 years into a 12 - year plan will have some equipment repeating and some not ; some expensive pieces of equipment come up, some drop off and it makes for many variations. Myser : Asked if it is possible to get that kind of information. J. Erickson: The idea of taking the estimated life and projected cost and coming up with an annualized cost for the equipment fund was proposed last year . It was discussed at the work session whether we could standar d ize the lengths of our plans, but each plan is so diff erent. It creates a complexity that we can seek to simpl i fy. Erickson : Commented that Well No 10 has been discussed about whether it needs to be drilled or if there will be other alternatives. Asked how it will affect the fund if we have a partnership . Gehler : Replied that We ll No . 10 remains in the CIP at a cost of $950,000 and another $1.5 million for storage. When considering a partnership with SMSC, service will be added. The cost may not go down, but treatment capacity will be added. Have had discussions about a purchasing plan over a period of time rather than a cap i- tal cost up front. That will affect the CIP over a 15 - 20 year time frame to pay back the capital costs. Erickson: Queried whether the total cost would remain the same and just be spread out over a period of years rather than incurring a s ignificant cost savings if partnered with SMSC . J. Erickson: If the City made an initial capital investment it would be funded with bond proceed s so the net i m- pact for debt service vs. a lease wo uld basically be a wash. If bond proceeds were not considered as a mech a- nism to pay for it, there would be a direct impact on rates. It was built into the plan to have flexibility in the event the joint study suggested an agreement should be put in plac e. Keeney : Asked if the difference between building W ell No. 10 vs. partnering with SMSC would incur an ongoing cost of water that factor s into water pricing on an ongoing basis . Gehler : Replied that the i nitial discussion is that SMSC would build the f acility and we would pay them back over time. We would buy water from them on an annual basis which would go back to rates . J. Erickson: That would be an offset that would be a reduction in the debt service portion of the water fund. Keeney : Concluded i t will cost about the same to buy water from the SMSC as to drill own well. Gehler : Replied that the SMSC partnership means we would not only get well capacity, but would get treatment and stor age. If we build the well, we would have to continue to seek source water in order to have enough. Keeney : Since we do not know if the plan can proceed, the capital must remain in the plan at this time. 9 08 27 2012 City Council Minutes Boyles : Stated that the City has conveyed the importance of this project to the Tribal Administrator and we ar e assured that, for the time being, the proposal has been incorporated into their budget . Soukup : Asked about the status of E agle C reek E states . Poppler : Replied they have prelim inary plat approval and are seeking grading permits. Wetland issues seem to be resolved. Construction of curb and utilities likely will occur next spring. Soukup : Asked if completing Fish Point Road is still on schedule for 2013. Poppler : Replied that is dependent on the developer, but expects it to occur in 2013. Soukup : Asked about the $ 380,000 cost to the City. Poppler : Replied that Fish Point Road is a collector road so the City will pay for oversizing the width of the road and the watermain. A water quality component to serve the needs of the Markley Lake watershe d will also be paid by the City. Soukup : Asked if there is currently a play structure in Enclave Park. Gehler : No. Soukup : Asked about the $50,000 transit grant. Kansier : Replied that we received a CMAC grant in 2009 and it has a local match. Since the c ost of buses from 2009 when ordered , to 2013 when delivered , may change, $ 50,000 was added to the CIP to cover th at contingency. Noted that amount may not be needed. Soukup : Queried about ridership levels and whether or not the bus is ne eded. Kansier : Replied that ridership is increasing and m ore ridership options result in increased ridership . A dding this bus will offer more ridership o p tions. Hedberg : Asked if the equipment planned for the parks in Enclave is appropriate for phase I. Gehler : Replied that the play equipment will be put in first and i n 2014 it is planned to provid e the shelter, court, ball field and other elements typicall y included. Hedberg : Asked if that will be contingent upon the developer finishing phase 2 . G ehler : Replied that it could be. Direction will be sought from the Council. Hedberg : Sought clarification about the Stemmer Ridge Road item. Poppler : A Stemmer Ridge connection to Howard Lake Road is proposed which would be developer driven. Hedberg : Commented that transit ridership is down on the Laker Link service and we are considering disco n- tinuing that . Kansier: Affirmed that ridership is down considerably and the budget proposal assumes the Laker Link will not be continued in 2013. MOTION BY HEDBERG, SECOND BY SOUKUP TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 12 - 134 APPROVING THE 2013 - 2017 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Soukup. The motion carried. MOTION BY HEDBERG, SECOND BY SOUKUP TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 12 - 135 ADOPTING THE STREET RECONSTRUCTION PLAN AND THE INTENT TO ISSUE GENERAL OBLIGATION STREET R E- CONSTRUCTION BONDS. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Soukup. The motion carried. Consider Approval of a Resolution Providing for the Vacation of a Portion of the Drainage and Utility Easements Located in Maple Glen 3rd Addition Planner Matzke displayed the location of the easement stating it was granted in 2005 with original plan. The easement is p roposed to be vacated as Maple Glen 4 Additi on will dedicate necessary easements for the a r ea. th Planning Commi s sion has recommended approval. 10 08 27 2012 City Council Minutes MOTION BY SOUKUP, SECOND BY KEENEY TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Soukup. The motion carried and the pu blic hearing opened at 9:28 p.m. Comments: No one stepped forward to speak. MOTION BY HEDBERG, SECOND BY SOUKUP TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Soukup. The motion carried and the public hearing closed a t 9:29 p.m. Comments: Hedberg: Asked if the new development extending the neighborhood will be called Maple Glen 5 . th Matzke: Replied that the f irst three additions have been platted ; the 4 addition will be the area to the south th and a future 5 addi tion will extend it further. th MOTION BY SOUKUP, SECOND BY KEENEY T O APPROVE RESOLUTION 12 - 13 9 PROVIDING FOR THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS LOCATED WITHIN MAPLE GLEN 3 ADDITION. RD VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Kee ney and Soukup. The motion carried. RECESS Mayor Myser called a recess at 9:30 p.m. RECONVENE The meeting reconvened at 9:37 p.m. OLD BUSINESS Consider an Appeal from Steve Higgins to the City's Determination to Revoke the Liquor License for the Bas e m ent Bar & Grill City Attorney Rosow reviewed the history leading to the City’s determination to revoke the Basement Bar & Grill liquor license. Spoke of condition s a ttached to the June 18, 2012 approval of the liquor license and that the third condition r eferring to the findings of the Police Department investigation that false and misleading info r- mation was submitted with the application was not met. Explained that the right to appeal was provided, that Steve Higgins, the owner of the Basement Bar & Gril l sought an appeal and it is scheduled for this meeting. The hearing process was described. Three alternative resolutions have been prepared for Council consideration. Stated that the Council is sitting as a quasi - judicial body and should decide the mat ter based on facts brought forward tonight. City Attorney Sara Schwarzhoff represented the City during the hearing. Noted that law a l- lows private data to be presented to Council to the exten t it needs to make a decision with respect to the ma t ter. Co mments: John Ar e chigo : introduced himself and announced he is representing Steve Higg ins of Basement Bar & Grill. Stated he has advised his client to make no statement during this appeal, but they are requesting the Cou n cil to keep conditional liquor l icensing in place until the criminal case has had a chance to take its course in a Court of law. Believes it will be more appropriate to take any measures following the outcome of the case . He stated that the City Co uncil has relied on the findings of th e Police Department investigation ; and that given the circu m- stances the “findings” is open to interpretation. There is no formal finding of wrong doing at this point. There has been an investigation revealing a belief of what has happened in the detectiv e ’ s report. C harges have been brought forward. The c omplaint has a statement of probable cause. Cautioned the City Council that the prob a- 11 08 27 2012 City Council Minutes ble cause statement is only a belief of what has happened , which allows the case to be filed in Court and a llows the individual to respond to the charges. C riminal charges are not evidence of wrongdoing and Hi g gins should have a chance to respond to allegations. Requested the City Council d efer to the C ourts for jud g ment. Schwar zhoff : P resented City’s case for rev ocation of the Basement Bar & Grill liquor license. Revocation is made on a false statement made in application for liquor license. Responded to statements by Ar e chigo. This hearing is separate from the criminal matter and is not contingent upon the cri minal matter . Council has no r e- quirement to postpone. Standards for the criminal case are different . The criminal case is trying to show fraud and they must prove it. This is a liquor license hearing and we are trying to show that Mr. Higgins made a fa lse or misleading statement in his application and as such the liquor license should be revoked . Called Detective Brad Cragoe of the Prior Lake Police Department to give background. Will be asking him some questions and providing document s . Presented th e resolution granting liquor license and the minutes of the City Council mee t- ing to be made part of the record. Rosow : S wore in Cragoe . Schwar zhoff : Asked Cragoe to introduce him self . Cragoe : Stated he is a detective with the Prior Lake Police Departm ent. Has been in law enforcement for 17 years; the last nine with PLPD. Schwar zhoff : Tell us why you are here tonight. Cragoe : I investigated the allegations of fraud involving the Basement Bar. Schwarzhoff : How did you become involved ? Why did it co me to your desk? Cragoe : C urrently assigned as one of two investigators. The City Clerk’s office sent the documents over and would be in the investigation: Schwarzhoff : What document began this investigation for you? Cragoe : It was a liquor license app lication submit ted sometime around the first of May by Basement Bar. There was a liquor license liability license included in the package. The City Clerk’s office had suspicions the doc u- ment had been altered. Schwarzhoff : Presented another document. As ked Cragoe to describe it. Cragoe : Document with a date in the upper right - hand corner of 4/26/2012 is the certificate of liability insurance that was submitted by Mr. Higgins on behalf of the Basement Bar along with his liquor license renewal this year. Schwarzhoff : Requested to make the document part of the record . R osow : It will be identified exhibit B; and we will identify resolution 12 - 100 and the attachments to it as exhibit A . Schwarzhoff : You mentioned that it was possible this document was alt ered or false . Could you explain that to the Council? Cragoe : The complaint originally was that city clerk noticed a difference in the font that was used in the doc u- ment . Drew attention to the date in the upper right - hand corner of 4/26/2012 and also th e dates of coverage l o- cated in the center of the document running from July 1, 2012 to July 1, 2013 . After contacting both the insu r- ance agent and the respective insurance company, which is Illinois Casualty, I received information from both that documen t was not authen tic and there was no coverage by this company at that time. Schwarzhoff : Based on those allegations that the document may have been altered or false, how did you begin your investigation? Who did you speak to first? Cragoe : I contacted M r. Higgins and I met with him an d interviewed him. During the course of the interview, he acknowledged that he had altered portions of the document. He stated they were limited just to the dates of coverage for the insurance policy. He stated he did tha t to coincide with the liquor licenses that run from July 1 to July 1. He stated he also updated the date in the upper right - hand corner from 1/26/2012 to 4/25/2012. Schwarzhoff : Was there a signature on this document? Cragoe : On the lower right - hand c orner there is the signature of Mike Werrell who is the insurance agent. Schwarzhoff : Did Mr. Higgins tell you if he had Mr. Werrell’s permission to alter this document. Cragoe : Mr. Higgins stated he did not have permission. 12 08 27 2012 City Council Minutes Schwarzhoff : T he insurance co mpany listed on the document is Illinois Casualty. During the interview did Mr. Higgins tell you who he believed he had insur ance t h rough for Basement Bar & Grill. Cragoe : He believed he had insurance through Founder’s Insurance . Schwarzhoff : What did y ou do after speaking to Mr. Higgins? Did you interview anyone else? Cragoe : Met with Mr. Werrell, the insurance agent, and he confirmed looking over the document that this was not authentic. He s tated he had Mr. Higgins as a client for a number of years , but he was no longer the insu r- ance agent for Mr. Higgins or the Basement Bar. Schwarzhoff : Of the policies that Mr. Werrell was involved in, were you aware of when that last policy expired ? Cragoe : State he has been unable to find any insurance that covered the Basement since December 15 of 2011 . Schwarzhoff : Did Mr. Werrell give indicate whether or not he gave Mr. Higgins permission to alter this doc u- ment in any way. Cragoe : Mr. Werrell said that he did not give permission to have any of his docu ments altered. Schwarzhoff : You mentioned before that you sought out information from insurance companies to confirm co v- erage. Can you tell us who th ose two insurance companies were that you sought out the information for? Cragoe : One was for the Illino is Casualty Insurance Company, which is the company listed on the document submitted by Mr. Higgins; and the other was for Founders. Schwarzhoff : And you searched for Founders why? Cragoe : Mr. Higgins stated that he thought that he had insurance through them. Schwarzhoff: As Mr. Rosow mentioned, some of the data involved in this case is private data because it is part of a criminal investigation. Once that case is decided, it will become public, but in the meantime it is private. The City Council is, under law, allowed to disclose private data if it is an issue under the Council’s authority such as a liquor license hearing and if the Council believes it is reasonable necessary to make a determination. Technically we are allowed to introduce this info rmation as long as the Council finds it necessary. I would like to walk a little bit of a line here – I would like to hand the documents the detective has mention ed to the Council and Mr. Higgins ’ attorney and keep them that way. Normally I would questio n the detective further on them, but b e cause of this private/public data line I don’t think it is necessary unless the Council has specific questions. If that is acceptable to Council, I will pass them out and have Cragoe testify as to what they are. Dis tributed do c- uments. Cragoe : The document with my name at the top is an email from a fraud investigator at Founders Insurance that I received along with two documents from the insurance company listing when the coverage was effective and when it was cance led. The d ocument with Ms. Schwarzhoff’s name at the top is a copy of an email I received from Illinois Casualty that listed when they had the dates for the policy for the Basement Bar. Rosow : The email with Det ective Cragoe’s name at is Exhibit C and th e email with Ms. Schwarzhoff’s name at the top is Exhibit D. Invited Council to read the documents. If any explanation is needed, let Ms. Schwarzhoff know that; otherwise t hey will be evidence before you. Asked if the Council ha d any questions for Schw ar zhoff . Schwarzhoff : Stated those were all the questions she had for Mr. Cragoe. In conclusion stated that the record is what is before the Council, Detective Cragoe’s testimony and the documents present. The case support ing revocation is that false an d misleading data was submitted to obtain the licensure. The certificate of insurance appears to have been altered and the conclusion by Detective Cragoe is that it was altered. It is against City Ordinance and provides grounds for revocation if someone presents false or misleading data on their liquor l i- cense application. Keeney : Asked if, at this point, there is any other proof of insurance that has been provided. Schwarzhoff : Nothing has been provided. The reason Cragoe looked into the two before the Council is b e- cause Illinois Casualty was listed on the certificate and Founders is what Mr. Higgins cited. That is why those two were looked into. Detective Cragoe has not checked every insurance company out there, but the two Mr. Higgins cited do n ot have coverage. As stated earlier, we are not trying to prove he did not have insurance, but are trying to show that he provided false and misleading i n formation on his application . 13 08 27 2012 City Council Minutes Keeney : Question goes more to providing proof of insurance is part of t he application. They failed to do that. Even if we can’t prove this was altered, the insurance company is denying that they have issued this. It seems like this is not proof of insurance. Schwarzhoff : That is correct. One of the things we discussed and there are multiple grounds that could come forward as revocation and one of those grounds would be lack of insurance . We didn’t do that. We thought this was cleaner. The issue is that the response argument is usually that “I have insurance no w so yo u should leave me alone.” That is the reason we didn’t present that particular case, but it is an issue in that we believe it was falsified because we don’t believe there was any insurance. Keeney : Asked if the City can also revoke on that basis at this point. Schwarzhoff : Lack of insurance required by both City ordinance and State law . Failure to have insurance for any amount of time is grounds for revocation. The response is usually that “I now have insurance.” That is not technically grounds for not revoking. The City could use it as an extenuating circumstance and they are allowed to do so. Erickson : Stated he was a little confused by the last answer so is asking if we have any knowledge that Mr. Higgins currently has insurance. Schwarzh off : We do. In May, Mr. Higgins presented a new insurance certificate. Does not know who that was with, but does not believe there is any dispute that he currently has insurance . That was presented - Detective Cragoe testified that the last he was awar e of was December. The next insurance proof we have is the one b e- fore you claiming Illinois Casualty in April. Prior to this meeting we have current insurance presented. It does not cover back, but it does cover currently. Soukup : The certificate of i nsurance that was given along with the most recent license a p plication is exhibit B. Schwarzhoff : The certificate dated April 26 was the certificate of insurance presented to prove insurance with the license renewal that was submitted in June. Soukup : E xhibit A is resolution and meeting minutes from June 18, 2012 meeting. When we passed this, the liquor license applica tion was given with Exhibit B as the copy of the insurance policy . After an investigation started, and there was determination this was not the insurance company that carried the liability or Founders , then another insurance was provided. Schwarzhoff: The issue initially arose in March when the City first suspected there might not be insurance. That is when the investigation began – in M arch. The investigation was not completed in time for the hearing you held on determining on whether or not to grant the license. That is when the license was granted conditio n- ally. We presented the application with the insurance certificate. We did no t know for sure at that time whether that was accurate or not. So, the Council, instead of simply revoking said we will grant conditionally, let the i n- vestigation be completed, and then we will make a determination. The investigation is completed. The l etter went out to Mr. Higgins that his license was going to be revoked. Since that time new insurance has been su b- mitted that he does currently have insurance. The insurance is not backdated, but it is current. I believe it o c- curred a f ter the license wa s granted and before tonight. Erickson : On the June 18 date that we passed this resolution, do we have evidence that he had insurance on June 18 date o r was the insurance he currently has established after that? Schwarzhoff : We have no evidence that he had insurance on June 18. The only evidence of insurance pr e- sented for that date was the altered certificate. The current insurance presented was after that date. Rosow : Believes the insurance currently in place was as of May in this year, but we did n ot have that certificate in June when we issued the licensed. The only certificate we had in June was exhibit B. Erickson : Restated that to the best of our knowledge, at the time we granted the license, he had actually did have ins urance but it was not listed as with the company that was submitted. Schwarzhoff : Correct. When you made your decision in June you were relying on a certificate from Illinois Casualty. He later provided proof that he had insurance that backdated to May, so he had it when y ou made your decision but he had not presented any evidence of that until after you made your decision. Soukup : Clarified that the application that was given to us for this license , he gave us exhibit B. Schwarzhoff: Correct. 14 08 27 2012 City Council Minutes Ar e chigo : Asked Cragoe if he is aware that the Basement Bar is currently insured. Cragoe : As he understands it, the Police Department contacted the Basement, shut them down, and a day or two after they were able to get an insurance policy with a different company other than Werre ll Agency. I don’t recall the name of insurance company. Ar e chigo : Not asking for the name of the insurance company; to your knowledge, is it insured today ? Cragoe : Yes. Ar e chigo : Do you recall what date that was when it was shut down for a day or tw o and then he got the insu r- ance policy. Cragoe : B elieve it was in May. The policy was taken out a day or two after the Police Department shut him down. To clarify, the application for the liquor license and the certificate of liability in question was submitted on or about May 1 to the City Clerk. Ar e chigo : During your investigation were you aware Mr. Higgins owns another bar in Burnsville? Cragoe : Yes, he disclosed that information to me during the interview. Rosow: Do you have anything further you would like to present? Ar e chigo : Yes. He called attention to the June 18 meeting. The Chief of Police was here and he made co m- ments to the Council. He indicated at that time that the Basement Bar was insured at that meeting. Reiterated opening remark s. The Council is relying on conclusions of Det ective Cragoe in this matter. A very r espected and thorough investigation has taken place. We are not questioning the validity of the investigation itself. We are asking the Council to defer to the Courts and let them make a conclusion rather than relying on an individual officer’s conclusion s. The function of our law enforcement agencies are to investigate matters and turn over their findings of investigation to an appropriate agency, whether a city atto rney’s office or a county attorney’s o f- fice and the matter is taken from there. W e are asking for a little more time to let the matter pick up where it is currently at and continue its course before the Council makes any formal decision. Making a decisio n at this point would be premature and rob Mr. Higgins of an opportunity to appropriately address the se allegations. The information the Council has before it has one side of the story – there are always two sides to every story. The insurance agent invo lved in this case has his own credibility issues ; his own motivations and biases that could possibly explain some of his actions that were taken in this matter. The Council is in a bit of a tough position – I am in a tough position – asking the Council fo r some time when I understand that you probably want more i n- formation than I can give tonight. Just asking for the Council’s faith in Courts and let it play out. Mr. Higgins and the Basement Bar have a good reputation in the City for the two years that t hey have been here. They have a good working relationship with the City. There have been no major issues, to my knowledge. There was no m a- licious in tent. The establishment was not operating without insurance for any prolonged period of time. It was no t done to fraud any body. It was not done to avoid paying insurance. Thankfully , there were no significant i n- juries or anything that occurred during the brief lapse of insurance. Valid insurance was secured when the co n- fusion was brought to Mr. Higgins’ attention. He is a responsible bar owner. We are just asking for a little more time here. Myser : Clarified that there have been two occasions of opportunity for Mr. Higgins to submit proof of insurance as coverage is part of the law that is required by the City of Prior Lake . Wants to verify that on each occ a sion, exhibit B and exhibit C are the two pieces of insurance that have been submitted twice by Mr. Higgins. Schwarzhoff : No, he submitted the one from Illinois, exhibit B. The Founders came u p because he made a statement when Detective Cragoe asked him about that policy because it is in the name of Illinois Casualties, Detective Cragoe asked if he had insurance through Illinois Casualty and Mr. Higgins informed him that he thought it was throu gh Founders. He did not present proof of that insurance. Myser : It is valid that Mr. Higgins presented this certificate as his proof of liability and we were able to verify this was not a valid certificate. At no time have we received a valid certificat e during that period of time. I unde r- stand that after the bar was closed down, it appears that insurance was secured at that point. But we have not seen valid proof that maybe this was a mistake and there was valid insurance during this period of time. Schwarzhoff : T he only thing we have seen since is in that after the application was submitted and before the hearing, he did submit evidence that he had insurance in May. The application came in on May 1 with this i n- 15 08 27 2012 City Council Minutes formation. He o btained new insuranc e in May sometime. That information was not substituted with the applic a- tion and was not presented at the June 18 hearing. It was only after he was shut down by the police that he presented another certificate. Myser : S haring thought s. This is the opp ortunity to present some information that this document – whatever happened to this – there was no valid insurance, this is what was submitted. It was not valid or authorized to be modified by the agent, Mr. Werrell. This is your chance and I’m not heari ng any evidence as to why this doc u- ment wasn’t false and misleading as determined by the Detective and, in essence, corroborated by the insu r- ance agency and the potential insurer. I’m finding no reason or justifica tion to give you the chance that is being asked. Ar e chigo : I can’t comment on the validity of any certifica tes the Council has before it at this point. You are co r- rect that we haven’t submitted any documentation. What the Council has before it is what the Council has b e- fore it. As far as the validity of any of the documents, I can’t comment on that. Myser : I was h oping you would present evidence to lead him to a different conclusion. Keeney : Asked at what point to we deliberate among ourselves and is that the next step of the process . Ros ow : F rame d the discussion . Obviously the applicant being subject to the criminal case has been advised not to make a statement. That is understandable because anything he said could be used against him in a Court of law. What Ms. Schwarzhoff has presen ted – the foundation of it is exhibit B, the certificate of liability i n- surance as the proof of insurance at the time the application was made. It is the City’s contention that certif i cate was altered and was misleading. As she stated earlier, the presen tation to the Council is not being made upon a case he didn’t have insurance at the time. The case is being presented that the evidence of insurance was fraudulent and the City is entitled to rely upon the evidence present ed to it in connection with any a pplication and, in particular, with a highly regulated industry you need to be able to trust that information. That is the City’s case - not that he didn’t have insurance, but that the evidence of insurance was not accurate; was fraudulent and misleading. The insurance that he did have, as testimony was heard, was taken out a day or two after the establishment was shut down and, to our knowledge, continues through today. So the existence of insurance currently is not an issue. The issue is whether you b elieve the certificate of insurance was fraudulent and then to decide what is, if any, the penalty for that. You have the opportunity to revoke . You have the opportunity to revoke with a fine up to $2,000. You have the opportunity to say we will suspend the license for a number of days, and, in addition, impose a fine. Or you have the opportunity to say, we understand all that and we d e cide not to revoke, suspend and/or impose a fine. Those are basically the choices. Erickson : A couple of situations I see as grievous: 1) documents were altered from everything it looks like; and 2) insurance lapsed during the last license period . I would l ook to the City to see how that is tracked for the f u- ture. They were shut down, but it appears there was a perio d of time before we knew th at the insurance was no longer there and they were in operation from the first of the year until March without insurance which is not a good thing for the City or for Mr. Higgins. It is a tough situation. You hate to hold someo ne’s future, their wishes and their dreams in your hands, but al so hate to have situation where the City has a vacant building on a main street. Will listen to the other Council members . I checked into this and it has cost the City in excess of $2,000 so far in staff time so I would be in favor of a fine to recoup expenses . The maximum fine is $2,000 and we have already incurred expenses well in excess of $2,000. The fact that he has insurance now - I know that is not what we are looking that, but I am looking at how we can do what is best for the City. It may be best for the City to not close it down for good. But, he needs a very strict slap on the wrist. First reaction is to not revoke the l i cense but instead suspend it for a period of 30 days , wh ich I realize is a major hit but not as bad as it could be . Revoking the license would be a death penalty to the business and the City would have a vacant building. Keeney : Find s it somewhat persuasive that there is a history here of canceling insurance shortly after license renewal season in Prior Lake. Questioned what the license renewal period is in Burnsville. Is it at the beginning of the calendar year? If the insurance policy was valid at the time, wh y is there need to get another policy which ju st further gels my conclusion that the City was not given truthful information about the insurance situation at the time of the application. Citizens of Prior Lake should not have to bear the cost of this. This is a highly reg u- lated industry. Owners of these types of establishments have a responsibility under our ordinances to provide 16 08 27 2012 City Council Minutes the proof needed to make determinations. We do this so these industries are not a burden on our citizens . If we are to go forward, I am not sure (if we revoke) what their ability is to reapply. I would go that route where we would require a new investigation, new license fee and start over. I don’t know if revocation is a permanent penalty or if that can be a penalty with the right to reapply. That is where I am incline d to go. The credibility of our invest i gator – that is the job of the Police Department to investigate for the purpose of issuing liquor licens es and for the purpose of regulating them. They are charged specifically with those investigations, not just fo r cri m- inal pu r pose, but also for the purpose of the City Council to make these determinations and I am going to have to go with our Detective as having provided the most credible of any evidence here and have come to the co n- clusion that this was not a trut hful applic a tion. Rosow : Statutes 340A.402 provides that no retail license may be issued to a person who has had an intoxica t- ing liquor or 3.2 percent malt liquor license revoked within five years of the application. Keeney : So it would be pretty permane nt if it is revoked . Asked about the maximum fine. Rosow : Replied that it is $2,000 for each violation and we are presenting one violation. Hedberg : Rosow advised that this is quasi - judicial body and it has some important implications. One is that the standard we have for reviewing information is more flexible and not as high as criminal proof. We have stan d- ards of integrity and performance on the part of a license holder, especially a liquor license holder , is way higher than a criminal conviction sta ndard. This is a highly regulated industry and we n eed to have business owners and operators with unimpeachable public trust to run these kinds of businesses. There is no need for us to wait for criminal proceedings. I suggested that we needed to let th e process of the investigation play out. But we didn’t need to wait for any subsequent criminal proceedings. We a lso have lots of flexibility in terms of what penalty and we can take a lot of other interests into consideration and it is appropriate for u s to do so - whe ther interests of owner of building with rent to collect, the impact to the City of an empty building . Recalled that prior to the Basement opening, the location was empty for a number of years. Very dismayed by this whole thing. It cuts to the kind of integrity we expect the owner of a liquor establishment to have this kind of communication and information . Would hate to see that become a vacant building. Tend to lean toward some kind of formul a- tion not unlike what Councilor Erickson po inted out – a suspension for a period of time, a maximum fine, and a l- low Basement to continue to operate after the suspension period until the completion of the criminal procee d- ings. If there is a criminal conviction, there is another step we should take. Asked the City Attorney if a convic t- ed felon can hold a license. Rosow : Replied t he Statute says no retail license may be issued to a number of people – one of them is a pe r- son who has had a license revoked; or to a person who at the time of the violat ion owns any interest of more than five person; to a person not o f good moral character or repute ; or to a person who has a direct interest in the manufacture. You may also refuse to renew the license of a person who, within five years of the license a p- pl ic a tion; has been convicted of a felony. Hedberg : Reiterated that we have a fair amount of discretion in figuring this out. Would make the condition contingent on further review at the completion of any criminal proceedings and if there was a convicti on then we would reserve the right to revoke completely at that point. In the interests in trying to keep that building occ u- pied and paying taxes is an important interest to the City. This isn’t the way to run a business in town. We need to have a fairl y strict penalty. Soukup : W hen this first came up, we discussed it and said to let it play out in Court and see what is going to happen . We aren’t attorneys; we don’t know the law. What has been provided to us tonight is overwhelming. We are sitting up here representing our community and our residents, people who come here and our business owners, putting our best foot forward and we are doing what we can to make this a safe and wonderful comm u- nity . It is offensive to have someone come in and stomp on that and say they don’t care . I don’t understand that we continue to do this… w hat are we inviting; what are we saying is acceptable here. Are we inviting people who run their business this way to come into Prior Lake and saying this is fine ? Because it ’s not. This is a re s- taurant that serves booze and a lot of it. This is a recreational community. This is not my first saying it and I hope it is going to be my last time saying it. There are massive responsibilities that come along with the distrib u- tio n and consumption of alcohol. This doesn’t seem to be a concern of this business owner, Mr. Higgins. I see 17 08 27 2012 City Council Minutes you own another bar as well. In my opinion, when I look at this, I would like to look at our bylaws and see if we can amend to a larger fi ne to as sure that if this happens again there is more than a $2,000 fine. I think all of our costs should be… I would like to have this reviewed. I cannot believe how many man hours have been put into this. It is all of our taxpayer dollars that are going to t his. Mr. Higgins seems to think this is fine, it doesn’t ma t- ter, I’m going to pay $2,000 which is a slap on the wrist. It is absolutely obnoxious. When I look at this, and when I listen to what Council members are saying , I agree the maximum fine should be awarded. We can r e- voke this license and say to others that we won’t let them take advantage of our City. I don’t want people like this coming into our City and thinking this is how you play the game here and it is fine. Support revoking the l i- cense and having the maximum fine. Myser : After having a change to clarify that misleading information has been presented without a determination whether there is a criminal act here. It appears there is a pattern of behavior of canceling policies. It is c l ear this is misleading information. This license should be revoked. Suggested that in order to finalize it and make it so that the owner of the property can find an appropriate owner and operator of the bar who has proper stan d- ards. Would like to make t he case to support a revocation; be done with this and move on and let them find a tenant who will properly operate a bar and work within the City laws. Would have not been in support of a f i ne, we have license fees and this is a matter of due course to g et into issues, but will accept what the majority wants . Erickson : Still support s a 30 - day suspension and fine of $2,000 with the premise that he screwed up royally . There is a possibility that a 30 - day suspension will be a death penalty for the bar. I would still allow him the glimmer of hope that comes with a 30 - day suspension and a fine of $2,000. Believe th is sends a clear message that if this happens again, there would be no question about revoking the license. Keeney : W hen we collect the fee f or liquor license, it is not to cover costs of going beyond initial investig a tion; it is to cover the cost of the initial investigation and compliance checks so we are not money ahead on this. It is really hard to say we are going to put someone out of bu siness. I cannot stress enough and we have said this during other proceedings, that we are serious about this. I think for us to follow through on th at, means we have to impose the penalties we say we are going to. This was not a simple mess up of some confusion over insu r- ance documents, this is a pattern; an intentional process. I cannot find leniency with someone who does that to my City and to the residents of my town. I sorry, I just can’t. Revo c ation will get this over with. The building will be sold or leased to someone else and there will be a differe n t business there. I can’t face the residents of this town by not upholding a high standard for businesses that deal in alcohol because it is one of our top safety concerns. It is highly regulate d for a reason. Will support revocation. Hedberg : Will vote for revocation . Rosow: Reviewed the resolutions in the packet. MOTION BY SOUKUP, SECOND BY KEENEY TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 12 - 136 AFFIRMING THE RE V- OCATION OF THE 2012 - 2013 LIQUOR LICENSE FOR TH E BASEMENT BAR & GRILL OWNED BY STEVE HIGGINS AND IMPOSING A MAXIMUM FINE OF $2,000 . VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Hedberg, Keeney and Soukup. Erickson opposed. The motion carried. NEW BUSINESS Consider Approval of a Resolution Approving a Major Amendment to th e Planned Unit Development known as Jeffers Pond and a Preliminary Plat to be known as Jeffers Pond 6th Addition Planner Matzke reviewed history of the Jeffers Pond mixed use development. Displayed a map of the area and provided site details. Displayed c onceptual home models. Discussed impervious surface and stormwater ma n- agement plans. Stated that the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommends approval of the PUD and preliminary plat. Comments: Soukup: Clarified that this is a differen t builder from the original developer. 18 08 27 2012 City Council Minutes Matzke : Replied that Ryland Homes is the new builder and the conceptual home designs shown are theirs. Noted that the City does not enforce the homeowner association covenants. Central Bank has ownership of the lot s and has some say about the homeowner covenants. Hedberg : Commented that the Council has heard concerns several times from residents who have bought into a neighborhood believing they would have certain design standards and then a new developer comes in and may make changes to that. Cannot understand why Ryland Homes could not have a constructive dialogue with existing homeowners and make minor adjustments to resolve their concerns. Feels concerns about the inte r- ests of the existing residents. Matzke : Believes it will remain an association community, but if residents choose to dismiss their association the City would have no authority over that. Hedberg : Two residents raised the issue over what it would take for the street to be a public street. Th ere are many private streets with association communities. Believes there are many reasons to move away from private streets. Private streets are not subjected to water quality improvements from street sweeping and snow/ice pr o- grams. Would like the City to consider a broader policy discussion about the large inventory of private streets and what to do with them long - term. Poppler : There is a process ( in 2009 adopted a priv ate street section in City Code) where a private street can be converted to a publ ic street. This street would have no right of way outside of the curb. The outlot is the street. The street is a 32 - foot street which meets standards, but there is no space for the right - of - way eas e- ments. There are three owners, different from the bank . The process requires 100% of the owners to su p port. Hedberg: What kind of dialogue can be had with neighbors and is there a way to reach accommodations so they are satisfied. Mike Ramme of Ryland Homes : Stated he met with the architectural review co mmittee prior to the Planning Commission. Three members of the association board were present and they discussed style, price point, etc. Stated that Ryland Homes knows what sells and what people like. Stated they have had dialogue with neig h- bors. Beli eves what they are building will improve the values of the homes in that neighbo r hood. Hedberg : Asked if any accommodation or adjustment was made in design to help satisfy the owner’s concerns. Ramme : M any comments were regarding the interiors. Stated Ryland Homes h ave offered that fronts could be all stone or brick to add similarity of the neighborhood if the purchaser would want that feature. Hedberg : Commented that he is m indful that this is the third development in Prior Lake and is respectful of t he fact that they have been successful developments. This is a recurring situation and would want them to do all they can to satisfy current homeowners that the finished development will retain the features they were told they would have when they purchas ed. Keeney : Understand s the City has avoided getting involved in the covenant enforcement business. Sought clarification of what is being modified in the PUD. Matzke : Replied that changing the lot layout from 15 lots to 13 lots is the main modificatio n. Some setbacks are modified. Keeney : Asked if d esign standards are part of the PUD. Matzke : Affirmed that they are not . Keeney : Clarified that the City is n ot relaxing any of our standard requirements for materials on the houses. Matzke : Correct. We have general requirements for residential standards. Keeney : Main thing is the lot size and setbacks to make this a compact neighborhood with small yards. This is not a significant change to the character of the PUD. If this moves things forward and finishes the neighbo r- hood, should be better for all concerned. Erickson : Commented that v alues will probably go up. Stated his c oncern is the private road vs. public street. Believes the City should not have private roads. Understands th ere will be a private road and a public road in the same development. Maintenance, snow clearing, sweeping and future reconstruction will all be the respo n- sibility of the homeowner , but they will pay full taxes. Believes that leads to inequity. Asked if Ryland could co n- tribute to make this a pu b lic street. 19 08 27 2012 City Council Minutes Ramme : Stated that Ryland Homes has committed to repairing the street after construction and will snowplow during construction, marketing and selling the homes. Erickson : Asked about future maintenance and stated that if this were made a public street, the City would be responsible for mowing the grass on the island. Poppler : Noted there would be additional snow removal. Erickson : Would like to see the City not allow private streets in future planning. Poppler : If the 50 - foot standard were applied, this neighborhood would not have been able to have double fronted streets as there would not have been enough space. Matzke : Lots would be smaller, setbacks would be smaller, impervious surfaces would be different. Some of the benefits with PUDs are the private streets and there is less cost to the City. Erickson : Would like to see fewer private streets in future developments as believes there will be more pro b- lems in the future. Myser : Sounds like it could be a policy discussion. Clarified timeliness of conveyance of governance to assoc i- ation and whether the association has control over architectural control. Matzke : Replied that c ovenants can be more restrictive than City standards and that will be a civil ma tter b e- tween the association and the developer. Rosow : Commented he has not reviewed the covenants, but comments reflected in email s are fairly common elements for when control of the association transfers. Asked if deeds of purchases were more than five years ago. If th e covenants provide that deadline , then control would have switched to the association . Does not b e- lieve that would affect the City . Myser : So City would not be drawn into any issues between developer and association. Rosow : There wo uld be no legal basis to draw the City into it. MOTION BY SOUKUP, SECOND BY KEENEY TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 12 - 137 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELO P MENT (PUD) FINAL PLAN KNOWN AS JEFFERS POND. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Soukup. The motion carried. MOTION BY HEDBERG, SECOND BY SOUKUP TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 12 - 138 APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF JEFFERS POND 6 ADDITION SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED TH HEREIN. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Soukup. The motion carried. Due to the late hour, item 10B, Consider Approval of a Resolution Adopting an Amendment to the 2012 Prior Lake General Fund and Economic Development Authority budget was deferred to the September 10 , 2012 City Council meeting . ADJOURNMENT With no further comments from Council members, a motion to adjourn was made by S oukup a nd seconded by H edberg. With all in favor, the meeting adjourned at 11:36 p.m. __________________________________ ________________________________ Frank Boyles, City Manager Charlotte Green, Admin. Assistant 20 08 27 2012 City Council Minutes