HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda & Minutes
NO EDA MEETING
PUBLIC FORUM - 7:00 P.M.
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
Date: September 18, 2000
WELCOME to this meeting of the Prior Lake City Council.
The Council appreciates your attendance and values your input.
AS A COURTESY TO OTHERS, PLEASE TURN OFF ANY CELLULAR TELEPHONES
AND PAGERS WHEN THE MEETING IS IN SESSION.
WHEN EXITING DURING THE MEETING,
PLEASE USE THE REAR DOOR TO THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Please remember that City Council meetings are cablecast live; therefore, for viewers at home to be able
to hear your comments, you must use the podium and speak into the microphone to address the City
Council. Before beginning, please state your name and address so that the recorder is able to have an
accurate record of the meeting.
Special assistance for the hearing impaired may be arranged by contacting City Hall 48 hours prior to
time of the Council meeting.
1. CALL TO ORDER and PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:.......................... 7:30 p.m.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
3. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 5,2000 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 Treasurer's Report
C) Consider Approval of Building Permit Report.
D) Consider Approval of Fire Call Report
E) Consider Approval of Refuse Hauler Permit for Tidy Disposal Inc.
F) Consider Approval of Resolution OO-XX Continuing City Participation in the Livable
Communities Program.
5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA:
6. PRESENTATIONS:
A) Presentation Regarding Sale of $1,125,000 General Obligation Bonds (Steve Mattson,
Juran & Moody)
091800
.-....-.... --.......
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE.
8. OLD BUSINESS:
A) Consider Approval of Resolution OO-XX Authorizing Negotiated Sale of $1,125,000
General Obligation Improvements Bonds of 2000.
B) Consider Approval of Resolution OO-XX Awarding Bid for Sale of 1993 Sun Voyager
Motorhome and 1999 Arctic Cat Snowmobile.
C) Consider Approval of Resolution OO-XX Approving Change Order #2 and Final
Payment for City Project 99-02 Lift Station Renovations.
D) Consider Approval of Resolution OO-XX Amending the 2000-2001 Capital Improvement
Program Relating to Raspberry Ridge Drainage Project and Fish Point Road Trail.
E) Consider Approval of Resolution OO-XX Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Band
Shelter at Lakefront Park.
F) Consider Approval of Resolution OO-XX Accepting Bids and Awarding Contract for
Boudins Manor Drainage Improvements (City Project 11-00).
G) Consider Approval 0 f 0 rdinance OO-XX Approving an Amendment to the Prior Lake
Zoning 0 rdinance Relating tot he Combination 0 f Nonconforming Lots Divided by a
Private Road by Under Single Ownership.
H) Consider Approval of Resolution OO-XX Approving Final Plat and Development
Contract for Wilds 5th Addition.
I) Consider Approval of:
1) Ordinance OO-XX Approving a Zone Change Request by Eagle Creek Villas,
LLC and Freedom Development and Consulting for Property Described as Lots
2, 3 and 4, Block 2, Holly Court.
2) Resolution OO-XX Approving and Amendment to PUD 82-12 (PriofWood PUD).
3) Resolution OO-XX Approving a Preliminary Plat to be known as Creekside
Estates for the Property Located in Section 2, Township 114, Range 22.
J) Consider Approval of:
1) Resolutions OO-XX and OO-XX Declaring Costs to be Assessed and Ordering
Preparation of Proposed Assessment Rolls for the 2000 Improvement Projects
(Project 12-00 Oak Ridge Area Street Reconstruction and Project 13-00
Fairlawn Shores Trail and Fish Point Road Overlay).
2) Resolutions OO-XX and OO-XX Establishing the Date of the Assessment
Hearings for the 2000 Improvement Projects (City Projects 12-00 and 13-00).
9. NEW BUSINESS:
A) Consider Approval of Resolution OO-XX Authorizing WSB & Associates to provide
Professional Engineering Services for the Ring Road between Duluth/Tower St. and
Toronto Avenue S.E.
B) Consider Approval of Resolution OO-XX Appointing a Person to Fill the Vacancy on the
City Council.
10. OTHER BUSINESS:
11. ANNOUNCEMENTS/CORRESPONDENCE
12. ADJOURNMENT
091800
. .... .-...---...--..T.......-...--....--....... .....-
3d-
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 5, 2000
CAI I TO ORnFR ANn PI Fn~F OF AI I FGIANCF: Mayor Mader called the meeting to order.
Present were Mayor Mader, Councilmembers Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, City Manager Boyles,
City Attorney Pace, Planning Director Rye, Public Works Director Osmundson, Police Chief O'Rourke,
City Engineer McDermott, Planning Coordinator Kansier, Assistant City Manager Walsh and Recording
Secretary Meyer.
APPROVAl OF AGFNnA:
FRIeSON: Proposed removing Item 9E (Consider Approval of Appointment of New City Councilmember)
because he was out of the country and had not yet had an opportunity to speak with any of the
applicants.
ROYLES: Proposed removing Item 8A (Ryan CUP) because the soil boring reports have been received
and Liesch & Associates had advised that they could proceed with the EAW.
MADER: Noted that the actions to consider the resolutions proposed for Linden Circle should be move
to Old Business. Also advised that each of the Councilmembers had received a letter received from the
Citizens Concerned for Ethical Government requesting to appear on tonight's agenda, and asked if any
Councilmember wished to add the request to the agenda.
No Councilmembers took the opportunity to add the request.
MOTION BY ERICSON, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried.
The Council meeting was interrupted by an individual calling for a point of order,
and the Mayor recessed the meeting until such time as the individual yielded the podium.
The Mayor resumed the regular meeting.
IUJADER: Noted that points of order can only be made by Councilmembers.
APPROVAl OF MINlITFS FROM AlIGIIST 21,2000 RFGIJl AR IUIFFTIN~
MADER: Noted that he would be abstaining due to his absence from the meeting.
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO APPROVE AUGUST 21, 2000 REGULAR
MEETING MINUTES AS PROPOSED.
VOTE: Ayes by Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried. Mayor Mader abstained.
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
DRAFT
September 5, 2000
CONSENT AGENDA:
(A) Consider Approval of Invoices to be Paid.
(B) Consider Approval of Resolution 00-75 Declaring Property Surplus to City Needs and
Authorizing Disposal of Same.
BOYLES: Briefly reviewed each of the consent agenda items.
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS
SUBMITTED.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA: NONE.
PRESENTATIONS:
City Council Candidate Presentations.
MADER: Reviewed the process for the presentations in connection with the staff report and noted that
many of the Councilmembers had previous opportunity to meet and talk with the candidates.
JOE ZIESKA: Discussed controlling the tax levy, spending and fees and the effects of Council decisions
on those issues, responsibility to provide high City services while matching growth with demand; did
not support significant public assistance for Downtown Redevelopment other than cosmetic; buffering
residential from commercial property; in support of maintaining and continuing to evaluate the need for
park facilities. Discussed the need to evaluate facts and handle stress.
ERICSON: Asked the applicant's position on the level of housing densities within the community
ZIESKA: Noted that his concern was having a multi-family buffer between commercial and residential
developments.
Liz MIHELICH: Acknowledged that being a new member of the community, she was not well versed in
all of the issues. Believed that one of her best attributes was that she could bring new vision to the
community, and is committed to learning about and working through issues. Discussed her wide variety
of work experience and how those items could relate to being a good Councilmember.
ERICSON: Asked how she might improve the Priordale Mall area.
MIHELICH: Discussed improving accessibility to the area, as well as attracting an anchor business such
as a book store or art co-op.
MADER: Asked what grade levels and subjects she had taught.
MIHELICH: Indicated she taught English and Creative Writing for high school students and would be
teaching some adult education classes.
MADER: Commented that the process used for filling the City Council vacancy includes the applications
themselves, as well as independent Councilmembers interviews with each of the candidates, and then
2
City Council Meeting Minutes
DRAFT
September 5,2000
the presentation process. Further noted that Jim Weninger was unable to attend the meeting, but had
submitted a letter that was to become part of the record.
MARY McKENNA: Discussed her work experience and personal history, as well as the Council's duty to
balance wants and needs both fiscally and in providing the appropriate level of City services. Further
discussed the debate over Downtown Redevelopment, and her ability to gather and evaluate issues.
Because the meeting was ahead ofschedule and the next candidate had not yet arrived,
the Council moved to the public hearing.
The presentations resumed after the Council action under Old Business
which was in connection with the Public Hearing.
VAUGHN LEMKE: Discussed that all citizens are accountable for the property tax levy through the voting
process, that the use of tax money for Downtown redevelopment needed to be approached very
carefully, the need to work for expanded commercial development, and his support for adding park
land in future development. Feels he has learned to adequately deal with stress in his capacity as an
air traffic controller.
MADER: Advised Mr. Lemke that the appointment of the Councilmember had been deferred for two
weeks and that Councilmembers may contact him during that time period.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Conduct Special Assessment Hearing for Linden Circle Improvement Project 14-00 and
Consider Approval of the following Resolutions: oo-xx Adopting the Assessment Roll for the
Linden Circle Improvement Project; and OO-XX Awarding Bid for the Linden Circle Improvement
Project. [Consideration of the Resolutions in Adopting the Assessment Roll and Awarding Bid were
considered under Old Business]
BOYLES: Introduced the improvement project in connection with the staff report.
TESCHNER: Discussed the assessment hearing procedure, the method of assessment, assessment
rates, assessment term and classification and methods of payment.
MADER: Noted that normally the costs for this type of project petitioned by the residents is 100%
assessed to the residents. Asked why, in this case, ~% is being picked uR-_by the City, ...I
I 0,000 O~.fN +ofJ' ~ 3,vu () proJ<<A .
McDERMOTT: Explained that the cost for the trunk sewer improvements need to be completed anyway.
The road improvement provides an opportunity to accomplish those improvements. _~
,;..ffKcvt (J/l (
GREG KLUGHERZ (5890 Hidden Oaks Circle): Noted that this was an 8o//assessment and asked how
the 8% .was established and what the interest rate is on the underlying bonds and if it doesn't create an
unnecessary arbitrage under the circumstances.
TESCHNER: Explained that the assessment floor is established in the assessment policy depending
upon what the bond issue rates are at typically 1 % over the net effective bond interest rate or a
minimum of 8%. The City needs to have a minimum of 8% to account for any type of delinquencies or
non-payment that the City may incur if the special assessments do not run their course, and capitalized
3
r-.
City Council Meeting Minutes
DRAFT
September 5, 2000
interest. The interest rate on the bonds has not been determined. The City will have a negotiated bond
rate. Staff will be coming back to the Council for authorization to negotiate the bond sale.
KLUGHERZ: Asked whether it would be worthwhile to look at the performance of assessments of this
type over an extended period in order to reevaluate whether a reserve is being accumulated and
whether the 8% should perhaps be reduced.
TESCHNER: Advised that staff, in connection with bond consultant does complete a cash flow analysis
on all outstanding bonds in determining the City's debt levies each year.
MADER: Asked if there were any other property owners who wished to address the Councilor appeal
their assessments.
No persons came forward to address the Council.
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ERICSON TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS
Consider Approval of Resolution 00-76 Adopting the Assessment Roll for Linden Circle
Improvement Project 14-00 and Resolution 00-77 Awarding the Bid for Linden Circle
Improvement Project 14-00.
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 00-76 ADOPTING
THE ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR LINDEN CIRCLE IMPROVEMENTS (PROJECT 14-00).
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried.
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 00-77
AWARDING BID TO VALLEY PAVING, INC. IN AN AMOUNT OF $73,888.75.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried.
Consider Approval of Resolution OO-XX Denying the Conditional Use Permit for Excavation of
Sand and Gravel for Ryan Contracting on Property Located in the Southeast Quarter of Section
22, Township 115, Range 22, Located on McKenna Road.
This item was removed from the agenda.
Consider Approval of Resolution 00-78 Authorizing the Award of Bid for Construction of Trails,
Basketball Court, and Hard Surface Area Pursuant to the 2000 Capital Improvement Program.
BOYLES: Review the item in connection with the staff report, and clarified that if the portion of the
wooden walking path was over $25,000, the staff would be required to come back to Council for
approval.
MADER: Asked if the additional $30,000 being considered complete everything associated with the
Glynwater trail.
4
City Council Meeting Minutes
DRAFT
September 5, 2000
BOYLES: Advised that staff is hopeful that it will be able to complete both segments of the Glynwater
trail and the wooden walking path all done within the $95,000.
OSMUNDSON: Explained the areas to be paved and the area of the boardwalk. Advised that the low bid
is just for the paving and bituminous of the trail up to the 1st Addition line. Then staff can come back
and determine how much work there will be to complete the boardwalk. There will be some work
subcontracted for removal and widening of the concrete curb for Crest trail.
MADER: Clarified that, looking at the map, the right end is the part covered by the bid from the paving
company, and the middle part (cross-hatched) is the area of the boardwalk, and the area to the left is
the additional trail area that would require bituminous. At this point, the staff is estimating that the
boardwalk and the additional trail area could be completed for approximately $35,000.
OSMUNDSON: Correct.
ERICSON: Asked if the boardwalk is similar to the Lakefront Park floating boardwalk.
OSMUNDSON: Explained that the boardwalk will not be floating, but is similar to the one in Raspberry
Ridge park.
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ERICSON TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 00-78
AUTHORIZING THE AWARD OF BID FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TRAILS, BASKETBALL COURT
AND HARD SURFACE AREA TO PRIOR LAKE BLACKTOP, INC. IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$64,447.50, AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PROCEED WITH THE TRAIL SEGMENT
IMPROVEMENTS NOT TO EXCEED $30,552.50.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried.
The Council took a brief recess, and then proceeded to the presentation
by the fifth Council member candidate.
NEW BUSINESS:
Consider Approval of Resolution 00-79 Certifying Proposed City of Prior Lake Tax Levy to Scott
County Department of Taxation.
BOYLES: Reviewed the process for the budget to date and the statutory requirement for the action
tonight in connection with the staff report. Advised the Council of the adjustments made from the
original proposal, including the addition of one police officer in 2001, and an hourly stipend for the
training time of Fire Department volunteers. Noted that although the budget increases, the property tax
levy is decreased resulting in a real 9% decrease in the City portion of real estate taxes. Further noted
that the Truth-in-Taxation hearing will take place December 4, 2000 as part of the regular City Council
meeting.
(verbatim transcript)
MADER: The Council has basically gone through this same budget at the budget workshop?
5
r'
City Council Meeting Minutes
DRAFT
September 5, 2000
BOYLES: That's correct, with the exception of the two modifications we made - additional police officer
and additional training dollars.
MADER: Yes, so other than that, the Council has already gone through the budget in detail?
BOYLES: That's correct Mayor.
MADER: Is there any additional information that the staff wants to present at the present time?
BOYLES: No.
MADER: If not, Ralph, I would have some questions of you if you wouldn't mind going to the podium.
From my standpoint, probably the most singly important decision that the Council makes each year is
the budget and the tax levy. The budget directly affects what the citizens can expect in the way of
service, and of course the levy directly affects what they are going to have to pay for that. And as a
result of that I think it is extremely important that that information in terms of what decisions the Council
has made, I think it is very important that that be clearly presented and communicated to our citizens. I
have watched with a lot of frustration over the last six or eight weeks as the newspaper has been
inundated with letters from people interpreting and translating what the Council has done from a budget
and tax levy standpoint. And that's very frustrating for me because from my perspective there's rather
serious misrepresentation taking place and I think that's unfair to our citizens. So, I want to walk
through some very, very specific questions and have them very simply and clearly answered, and I'll
ask Kelly to please include this verbatim in the minutes so we have a very accurate record of what kind
of discussion has taken place and what the actual parameters are. So, I'm going to go ahead and I
have quite a few questions so if you would keep the answers crisp, I would appreciate that. The first
question I have is it fair to say that you are probably the individual who spends the most time and
knows the details of this budget better than anyone else.
TESCHNER: That would be correct.
MADER: Ok, you have been involved with it from start to finish?
TESCHNER: Yes.
MADER: It's also been your job in previous years and with different City Councils, I think that is true
also.
TESCHNER: Yes.
MADER: Now, as compared to previous years, say the last five years.. ..how long have you been with
the City by the way?
TESCHNER: Approximately 25 years.
MADER: Ok, well let's not worry about 25 years, but let's think in terms of the last five years, as
compared to the previous five years, I believe this is the first year that the Council has asked the City
staff to consider tax relief in the planning process of the budget. Is that correct?
6
City Council Meeting Minutes
, DRAFT
fll(,.~ September 5,2000
TESCHNER: Well, actually we were directed the prior tear, too, to look into measures and we had a
three prong program and we talked about debt amo tizations and some debt restructuring and debt
retirement that initially took place at a workshop prec ding the 2000 budget and then there was some
changes that the Council made at the very last workshop. So, this is actually the second year where
there was a fairly significant direction by the Council to reduce taxes.
MADER: I might be wrong, but I would probably disagree with you on that. Yes, staff did do that, but I
think it was at the staffs initiative and I think the staff came to us with a proposal.
TESCHNER: That's correct.
MADER: Yes, the staff came to us with a proposal for a levy reduction and the Council rejected that and
we ended up basically where we were.
TESCHNER: Yes, that's correct.
MADER: It was looked at, but I think it. was at the staff's initiative. Is it fair to say that the fact that the
City Council this year made it very specific that we would like tax relief for next year. Is that the primary
difference in factors in terms of how you approached this year's budget than in the past years?
TESCHNER: Yes.
MADER: Other than the request from the Council, the Council was very specific in asking for some tax
relief, where did the other input come from? Where did you get all the other data that finally ended up
in this budget?
TESCHNER: As part of the budget preparation format between myself, the City Manager and the
department heads in the process, we sit down and we analyze and we take a look at new revenue
sources, we take a look at expenditure modifications, streamlining existing expenditures. As you are
aware, we added an element for next year for some restructuring components of City expenditures. We
take a look at the changes in state aids, and a very crucial element is new valuation that is provided by
new construction or residential growth in the community. So, we take a look at all the elements.
Existing debt, if there is any possible way that we can restructure any of those components on a year
to year basis, too. And those elements were much more reviewed and scrutinized this year to reach
the directive that the Council had given the City Manager for payable year 2001. I think we had a much
more intense role this year in basically looking under every rock and opportunity there was to provide
the tax relief that the Council wished for the residents for 2001.
MADER: Let me now go specifically to the budget itself. Now, according to numerous letters that keep
appearing in the paper. I think there have probably been ten or twenty letters some repetitive
somewhat. But according to those letters, including letters that just appeared this past Saturday, there
has been the statement that the Council dictated a 7% budget reduction for the year 2001. Is that true
or false?
TESCHNER: That would be incorrect. The 7% was relating to the property tax impact on the individual
resident. The budget actually went up, as Frank had stated, 2.48% for next year.
MADER: So the statement that the Council or Mayor dictated a 7% budget reduction is plain and simply
false. Is that correct?
7
- 'T--'
City Council Meeting Minutes
DRAFT
September 5, 2000
TESCHNER: That's correct.
MADER: Now, did the Council ever, through this budgeting process, dictate or even suggest any budget
reduction that you are aware of?
TESCHNER: Actually quite the opposite. The Council did give us the latitude and flexibility to come up
with a budget design that would accommodate the directive, and from staff's perspective that would
serve the best interest of the community.
MADER: Ok, next the Council's first look at a proposed 2001 budget... the first opportunity the Council
had to look at a budget.. .that came several weeks ago at our budget workshop. Is that correct?
TESCHNER: That's correct. was actually two opportunities for Council input. The first workshop was
actually scheduled for any Council input and that workshop did not occur because Council felt that staff
had needed direction in terms of the directive to the City Manager, and the workshop actually
conducted over at the Library/Resource Center was the first opportunity that the Council had to review
the document for next year.
MADER: So that budget proposal that we looked at that workshop did not contain any recommendation
for budget reduction. In fact it recommended an increase in the budget, and that is basically the same
budget we are considering tonight except for the two items that the City Manager pointed out.
TESCHNER: That's correct.
MADER: Ok, then let me summarize this very clearly. Is it accurate to say that neither the Mayor nor the
Council asked for a budget cut, that the staff never proposed a budget cut, and the budget being
considered tonight includes a modest increase, about 2.5%, not a cut?
TESCHNER: That would be a fair statement.
MADER: Lastly, did any of the writers of those letters who were saying that the Mayor and the Council
demanded these budget cuts, contact you for clarification or verification on the facts of the budget
process before putting their letters in the Prior Lake American? And if the answer is yes, I don't want to
know the names, I just want to know if any of them got clarification from you or requested it prior to
writing those letters.
TESCHNER: Well, to be truthful, I didn't read the letters. I am not familiar with the individuals. I did have
some contact from some individuals asking the tax impact of the proposed budget at the time the
Council had reviewed it. I do not know specifically as far as their letters go because I did not take the
opportunity to read those. So, the answer would be yes, I had input from some residents. I don't know
if those are the ones that wrote the letters.
MADER: Now, let me switch specifically to the levy itself. And I think it is important to recognize that the
tax levy is not the same as a tax budget. I think that is fairly clear, but there may also be some
confusion about it. But, what the Council asked the staff and City Manager to do, was to establish as
year 2001 budget that would yield a tax reduction.. .or set a target basically for a tax reduction of not
less than 7%. That target was set with the specific provision that that should be the real tax reduction
after taking into account increases in property value assessments. Is that correct?
8
City Council Meeting Minutes
DRAFT
September 5, 2000
TESCHNER: Market value adjustments on average of 7%. That's correct.
MADER: The assessment values that show up on the statement on which your tax is based.
TESCHNER: Right, as long as you had no modifications to your home value through additions or
finishing off basements or that type of situation.
MADER: Yes, we recognize if somebody has done a major remodeling job it's a completely unique
situation. Now, second, in the budget information you gave us and in the summary that Frank gave
this evening, it's been indicated that on the average, our taxpayers will receive about a 9% real tax
reduction, and again, that is after increase in assessment values. Is that correct?
TESCHNER: That's correct.
MADER: Now, why am I going down this road. I think I mentioned it, but shortly after the workshop there
was a news story in the Prior Lake American that talked about the budget, and that news story
basically implied or stated, and I'm not sure specifically which, that the levy reductions we were talking
about would probably be wiped out with property value increases. There was also a letter in the paper
Saturday, where the letter writer indicated the same thing and that he did not expect to receive
anything significant if anything at all because of increases in property values. Now, is my statement
correct...1 know you say you haven't read that, but if that is what was stated....again, those are wrong
or incorrect. Is that correct?
TESCHNER: Those are misrepresentations.
MADER: Now, one of the letters that I'll refer to in the paper on Saturday, the writer stated that because
of this increase in assessment value, in effect the taxpayers shouldn't expect anything like the
proposed tax reduction. And since property assessment information is public, I checked the
assessment values for taxes payable for year 2000 and 2001 on that specific writer's property. In his
case, his assessment went up about 6%. I want to comment that this is public information and not
information that isn't available. His assessment has gone up about 6%. Is he right in saying that he
won't get much if any tax reduction, or if that"s too subjective, can you tell me from a rule of thumb tell
what kind of a tax reduction he should expect based upon the fact that his assessed value has gone up
about 6%?
TESCHNER: He should realize a minimum decrease of 9% for payable 2001.
MADER: So it should be a decrease of 9% or more?
TESCHNER: Yes.
MADER: Now, I want to make a point. For any individual of course, the amount of an increase or a
decrease what might seem significant to one person might seem insignificant to another. But I
personally have to believe that for anyone who is struggling to make ends meet, or for example, a
senior citizen who might be living on a fixed income, I suspect they would be grateful for a 9%
reduction rather than to be cynical about it.
9
. .-. "".-1- H'
City Council Meeting Minutes
ttrn-Jrux. DRAFT
September 5, 2000
TESCHNER: I would agree\ with that, Mayor. Just one mment to add to that. Sometimes residents
misunderstand what their property tax represents. In thi case tonight we are talking about 25 cents on
the dollar, the City share of the property taxes. It is very mportant for residents to understand. It is very
easy for them to miss it. Many times residents consti te the property tax with the City of Prior Lake.
They omit the contributing factors of the school district, county, misacellaneous taxing jurisdictions
such as the transit authority, Metropolitan Council, mosquito control. They forget that so they are
looking for a 9% reduction of their total tax bill. That's not what we are talking about here. This is a 9%
reduction in the portion of the tax bill that the City Council control which is the City share of the property
taxes. I just wanted to make that clear.
MADER: I appreciate that you made that very clear. So then, basically, to summarize on the point we
have been discussing, it is accurate to say that most citizen will enjoy a significant percentage
reduction in the City portion of their real estate tax contrary to what has been reported in the Prior Lake
American.
TESCHNER: That's correct.
MADER: I appreciate your being candid. I'd like to maybe switched gears here and give you a chance to
sit down, and since Bill O'Rourke is falling asleep there against the door jam, I'm going to ask him to
come up and comment on the police budget. Mr. O'Rourke, would you please come forward? The
letters that I am referring to also have portrayed that budget cuts are jeopardizing our police force and
thereby compromising our citizens' safety. I have a few simple, fairly straight-forward questions I'd like
to ask you. First of all, how many police officers have we had on the force this year in terms of ...1
know that it varies as personnel situations changes.....how many have we actually had on the force?
O'ROURKE: We have actually had 18 officers until three weeks ago. Now we have 17.
MADER: Ok, Frank has told us we have included in the budget for next year 20. Is that your
understanding also?
O'ROURKE: It is my understanding that the 20th position was reinstated into the budget. That is our
authorized strength for 2000 and will be the authorized strength for 2001 based on this budget.
MADER: Have you heard from the Mayor or the Council asking or directing that we cut the police force?
O'ROURKE: I have not.
MADER:We also, in our police circle, we have backup to your police force from other communities or
agencies and you also provide backup and that's sort of a safety net because it's kind of hard to predict
when crimes are going to take place or when accidents are going to occur. But can you comment
briefly about that service that we have available, how that is settled.
O'ROURKE: Exactly. We have mutual aid primarily with the City of Savage, the State Patrol and with the
Scott County Sheriff's department. Occasionally, since the population in the northwest portion of our
City is sparse, so occasionally with the Shakopee police force. Primarily, with the limited resources
available or when the officers are out in the streets and are booking or involved in some other time-
consuming call, when something else happens we rely on Savage, State Patrol, Scott County Sheriff's
office to fill that gap and back our officers up if they are the only officer available at the time, or to
handle the call if all of our Prior Lake squads are tied up.
10
City Council Meeting Minutes
DRAFT
September 5, 2000
MADER: Ok, now let me go to maybe a more important question from the standpoint of the capability of
our police force. When it comes to police officers, which is most important, quantity or quality?
O'ROURKE: Without a doubt I'll take the quality any day.
MADER: Now please comment on your perspective of the quality of officers that you have working for
you.
O'ROURKE: Well, I'll do it in a round-a-bout way, Mr. Mayor and member of the Council. We are
authorized to have 20 officers for this year, and we attempted to hire two people last spring. We made
a conditional job offer in May and were turned down because that person accepted a job with another
department. But the second person that we had done a background investigation on didn't meet our
standards. And so therefore, we were forced to swallow a bitter pill and to realize we would not get our
staff up to authorized level for summer and to reinitiate the hiring process. We are currently undergoing
backrounding three individuals at this time. We will be lucky if we can get all three of them but we will
hopefully be making some progress towards that authorized strength of 20. The officers that we
currently have on the Prior Lake police department, I can only address that by mentioning a name.
Officer Wes Denning started a year ago, September 1 st with us. I haven't seen such one year
performance evaluations from supervisors in the past. He is extremely bright, capable young man who
is doing an outstanding job for us. But for the rest of the officers on the department; they are go-
getters, they like to work, they respond to calls, they respond to the needs of the community, and they
also would like to see us get up to the authorized strength. Because part of what that will do is, as you
suggest, there are times when we are short staffed. There are 3000 hours a year where we have one
squad that is primarily responsible to go out on the calls. That doesn't mean I'm not working, but I'm
not primarily responsible for answering calls. Getting up to the 20 level will allow us to take a bite out of
that 3000 hours and to make it an issue of service to the City, but also to address in a little bit of a way
the officer safety issues as well.
MADER: Bill, it would probably be a surprise to me, asking any chief, about the quality of his officer, it
would be a surprise to me to hear they were a bunch of clunkers. So, I'm going to say that there might
be bias on your part, but I'm going to ask you would it be a surprise to you to hear that a vast majority
of our citizens agree with you 100%, would you say that's probably true based upon the comments you
get?
O'ROURKE: That wouldn't surprise me, Mr. Mayor and I'm biased, but I'm probably only biased on the
last two, because those are the ones that I hired. Everybody else I inherited, so they could be better,
but I'm getting them there.
MADER: Ok, you might want to delete that from the record. Ok, considering the kind of officers you
have on board and the budget that has been set for next year, can your officers do the job that needs
to be done?
O'ROURKE: We can.
MADER: Ok. Bill, that's alii have and thanks for the candid comments.
GUNDLACH: Bill, we spoke once before. You've never been at 20 officers.
11
'T"
City Council Meeting Minutes
DRAFT
September 5, 2000
O'ROURKE: We have not. Twenty was authorized for this year, but we were never able to get there. We
had a retirement December 31st of 1999 so that spot has been unfilled as well as the 20th spot. These
things take time and right now there is a lot of competition.
GUNDLACH: Just like in the private sector for employees in general. Were you considering at any time
asking for any additional officers for that next budget year, or do you have that as a goal some years
out?
O'ROURKE: We talked about this at the budget workshop. Cities that are a population of 10,000 to
25,000 in the State of Minnesota average 1.3 officers per 1.000 people. The City of Prior Lake, if we
use 15,500 population, we are right at that. We should be at 20.1 officers. As we continue to grow with
the new developments that have been approved for the City as that population goes up, for every
1,000 people you're going to see me knocking on your door for 1.3 officers to maintain the level of
service at a minimum and that's where we are at. Will we need that in 2002? Maybe not, but as those
new housing development go into use, that's where we will have to go. And again, we could go back to
19, and like I said before, I could come back to you in two years and say I need four. It would be a
much larger pill to swallow than if we maintain it all along.
GUNDLACH: Sure, but it wasn't imperative. With 20 we are at a level where you would feel comfortable
we're at the 1.3?
O'ROURKE: Yes, sir.
MADER: Bill, thanks very much. I appreciate that. I just have a couple of questions, Frank, for you. The
Council, of course, has previously seen the budget presentation at the staff workshop, and you have
summarized some of that also tonight. So let me add basically just two questions. Is it true that the
budget that we are looking at tonight was prepared by you and your staff under your direction, but with
the only direction from the Councilor the Mayor being the tax reduction target that we gave you early in
the year?
BOYLES: That's correct.
MADER: Secondly, you have heard Ralph Teshcner and Bill O'Rourke's comments in response to my
questions. Is there anything you have heard tonight that you don't feel is precisely accurate to the best
of your knowledge.
BOYLES: Nothing.
MADER: I don't have any further questions or comments except to say that I think the staff has done an
excellent job and I'm certainly prepared to support the proposal from staff on both the budget and the
tax levy. Any other comments from Councilmembers.
GUNDLACH: I would agree. I think we put forth a challenge at the beginning of the year and I think
they've exceeding both our expectation and our desire and I'm very please to be putting this forth.
ERICSON: I would agree.
BOYLES: Thank you.
12
City Council Meeting Minutes
DRAFT
September 5, 2000
MADER: Jim Petersen, any comment?
PETERSEN: No, but I'll make the motion.
(End of verbatim transcript)
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ERICSON TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 00-79 CERTIFYING
PROPOSED CITY OF PRIOR LAKE TAX LEVY TO SCOTT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried.
Consider Approval of Recommendations from the Park Naming Subcommittee.
MADER: Commented that the City Manager had provided a resolution at the meeting in an attempt to
maintain a level of confidentiality.
ERICSON: Briefly reviewed the recommendation of the subcommittee to name the community
park/athletic complex on the former Busse property as Thomas Ryan Memorial Park, that athletic fields
within the park be named Fitzgerald Fields, and the street within the park be named Busse Boulevard.
Also that the street within Ponds Park be named Ponds Parkway.
MOTION BY ERICSON, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 00-80 NAMING
MADER: Commented that Thomas Ryan was a resident of Prior Lake who was' killed by friendly fire in
Vietnam. His family has not been notified. The information was brought to me by Pat McFadden who
was a classmate and lifelong friend of Thomas Ryan.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried.
MADER: Noted that the second action is to consider a policy for the renaming of city streets, and the
naming and renaming of parks, facilities, streets within parks, and public places. The primary change in
the policy is that the earlier policy asked that several public meetings be conducted to accept or reject
submissions for the naming of parks. It was recognized that public scrutiny of potential names was not
necessarily constructive in encouraging applications. Therefore, the policy has been changed. The
policy was also expanded to the naming of streets.
MOTION BY ERICSON, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO ADOPT THE POLICY FOR THE RENAMING
OF CITY STREETS AND THE NAMING AND RENAMING OF PARKS, FACILITIES, STREETS
WITHIN PARKS AND PUBLIC PLACES.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried.
Consider Approval of Ordinance 00-20 Amending the Zoning Ordinance to Create an Overlay
District for the Development of Senior Care Facilities.
BOYLES: Advised that Planning Director Rye would be giving the staff report, but advised that a 4/5ths
vote is required for the next two items which are zoning ordinance revisions.
13
HrH..
City Council Meeting Minutes
DRAFT
September 5, 2000
RYE: Reviewed the proposed revisions to the zoning ordinance to accommodate the need for senior
care facilities via an overlay district in appropriate areas within the community. Noted that regardless of
the overlay, the density of any project cannot exceed the density of the district in which it is located.
Also discussed locational criteria for the overlay district and applicable incentives to consider in
connection with the staff report.
GUNDLACH: Asked if with regard to Downtown with a higher density whether a high-rise would be
necessary to accomplish a 50 unit density. Also asked if there would still be limit as to height due to fire
codes.
RYE: Advised that a mid-rise building could be used, it would just be on a smaller parcel of land than
might be required in the R-4 district. 50 units could probably be accomplished in a three level building
with underground parking. Advised that there are a different set of building codes for structures over
three stories in terms of fire resistant construction.
Gundlach: Commented that the concept had come together well thanks to the efforts of the Planning
department.
Petersen: Agreed with Councilmember Gundlach.
MADER: Asked if the Council would still have latitude in terms of the density and incentives considered.
Also asked if senior overlay district only gets implemented when there is a specific application. Also
asked if the proximity to support facilities means that the project must be demonstrated to be nearby to
all of those items listed, or some. Lastly, asked about providing fee waiver as an incentive and if that
creates a precedent for other developments.
RYE: Clarified that the Council would still have the latitude based upon the specific project with regard
to density and incentives considered, and that the senior overlay district did only apply under a specific
application. Further noted that proximity to some or all of the support facilities listed were required with
final determination by the Council as to what is appropriate. There is a potential precedent set with
regard to waiving fees, but it could be argued that because we are encouraging this type of
development that there is a qualitative difference.
PACE: Advised that there is also an equal protection question dealing with senior care facilities. There
is some justification for treating the class differently. However, the Council will still have to apply the
criteria and have a rationale basis for its decision.
ERICSON: Supported the overlay in the Downtown area and R-4 districts, but concerned about applying
the overlay in other commercial districts due to the City's lack of commercial land available. The issue
is not only tax base, but also having places for people to go and buy goods and services. Suggested
modifying the ordinance, and possibly addressing other areas in the future after there has been some
chance to see how the overlay district will work.
GUNDLACH: Suggested including R-4, R-3 and R-2 because the density issues have been dealt with
there.
There was some discussion about the voting process and
incorporating the amendments.
14
City Council Meeting Minutes
DRAFT
September 5, 2000
MOTION BY GUNDLACH, SECOND BY PETERSEN, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 00-20 AMENDING
THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO CREATE AN OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
SENIOR CARE FACILITIES.
MOTION BY ERICSON, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO AMEND SECTION 1106A.400 TO APPLY
ONLY TO DISTRICTS R-2, R-3, R-4 and C-3.
A friendly amendment was offered to delete the second sentence on page 2 under section 11 06A.400.
The motion and second accepted the amendment.
MADER: Commented that he has mixed feelings about the amendment because the change would in
effect prohibit the Crystal Care development on the property adjacent to the Park Nicollet facility. It
would be a very positive project. Would support the motion limiting the overlay, but would ask the
Council to consider and expect that a re-zoning application for the Crystal Care project would be
forthcoming.
GUNDLACH: Advised that the only commercial district that the overlay would only apply in would be
Downtown. Suggested the property would need to be re-zoned for the Crystal Care project on that site.
Further commented that it wasn't his intention to kill any particular project.
ERICSON: Commented that he is suggesting this action with no particular project in mind and believed
that is how any zoning ordinance change should be approached. It is necessary to have commercial
areas available for commercial measures.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried.
VOTE ON PRIMARY MOTION AS AMENDED: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the
motion carried.
Consider Approval of Ordinance 00-21 Approving a Zone Change to the R-1 District of the Prior
Lake Baptist Church for Property Located at 5680 and 5690 Credit River Road.
BOYLES: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report.
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 00-21 APPROVING
A ZONE CHANGE TO THE R-1 DISTRICT OF THE PRIOR LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5680 AND 5690 CREDIT RIVER ROAD.
MADER: Asked if a proposed change to the Comprehensive Plan would follow and if there was a
procedure for changing one before the other.
RYE: Confirmed that a Comprehensive Plan amendment request would follow, but that there is no
preference or procedure for making the zoning change or Comprehensive Plan change in any
particular order.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried.
15
.. r-'
City Council Meeting Minutes
DRAFT
September 5, 2000
Consider Approval of Appointment of New City Councilmember.
This item was deferred to the next regular Council meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS I COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS:
GUNDLACH: Asked if the Council would consider starting the next regular meeting at 8:30pm due to the
Fall Community Fest.
The Council concurred with an 8:30pm start for the September 18th meeting.
Executive Session to Discuss Pending Litigation (Hagen, Boderman, Vierling, Markley Lake, T J
Towing)
Mayor Mader advised of the items to be discussed in Executive Session.
The Council adjourned to Executive Session.
The regular meeting resumed. The Mayor advised the items that were
discussed in closed session and noted that direction had been given and
no formal action was required.
A motion to adjourn was made and seconded. The meeting adjourned at 11 :OOpm.
Frank Boyles, City Manager
16