Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout051997 Regular 7:00 p.m. - FORUM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Date: May 19, 1997 1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Andren called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Present were: Mayor Andren, Councilmembers Kedrowski, Mader, and Schenck, City Manager Boyles, Assistant City Manager Tremere, City Attorney Pace, Attorney Brokl, Attorney Merritt, Planning Director Rye, Planner Kansier, Finance Director Teschner, Parks and Recreation Director Hokeness and Recording Secretary Oden. Councilmember Greenfield was absent. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Mayor led the Pledge of Allegiance and welcomed everyone to the meeting. Annexation MOTION BY ANDREN SECOND BY KEDROWSKI TO AMEND THE Spring Lake AGENDA TO INCLUDE AS THE LAST ITEM UNDER NEW BUSINESS CONSIDERATION OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE SPRING LAKE TOWNSHIP BOARD AND THREE PARTY AGREEMENT PROPOSED BY SPRING LAKE, AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND DEFER AGENDA ITEM 8B PINNACLE PARTNERS TO JUNE 16, 1997. Upon a vote, ayes by Andren, Kedrowski, Mader, and Schenck, the motion carried. 3. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES A. Emergency Meeting April 30, 1997 MOTION BY SCHENCK SECOND BY KEDROWSKI TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 30, 1997 EMERGENCY MEETING. Upon a vote, ayes by Andren, Kedrowski, and Schenck, abstention Mader, the motion carried. B. Regular City Council Meeting May 5,1997 MOTION BY KEDROWSKI, SECOND BY SCHENCK TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 5, 1997 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. 16200 Eagler6reek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 4Lij7-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Upon a vote, ayes by Andren, Kedrowski, and Schenck, abstention Mader, the motion carried. 4. CONSENT AGENDA: A. Consider Approval of Invoices to be Paid. B. Consider Approval of Treasurer's Report. C. Consider Approval of Resolution 97-XX Approving Prior Lake Optimist Premise Permit Renewal for Lawful Gambling. D. Consider Approval of Fire Call Report for April. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI, SECOND BY SCHENCK TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A, B, C, D. Upon a vote, ayes by Andren, Kedrowski, Mader, and Schenck, the motion carried. 5. PRESENTATIONS: A. None. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Public Hearing - Continuation of Board of Review. Board of Review Continuation . The Mayor went on to item 7 A so that the Public Hearings would not take place until 8:00 p.m. in accordance with the public notice. . The Mayor called the Public Hearing to order at 8:00 p.m. City Manager Boyles reviewed the previous Board of Review Public Hearing. He said the assessor has recommended changes in 32 of 38 properties. If the property owners still have concerns, they can go to the County board. . County Assessor Arnoldi said all of the changes were made in the Wilds that were requested, because increase in values have not occurred. The 1995 assessment of the Wilds was around 12 million, the 1996 assessment was 22.5 million in market value. The 1997 assessment, with the reductions, considering the increase in valuation of the golf course is at 24 million. In the parcels where there was a recommendation of no change the property owners were recommended to appeal to the County Board June 16 if they were still in disagreement with the assessor. 51997.DOC 2 . Councilmember Mader asked Mr. Arnoldi if he'd said that the appreciation had not occurred and whether he meant depreciation. . Mr. Arnoldi said yes. . Councilmember Mader asked what LBT on his report represented. . Mr. Arnoldi said Land Buildings and Total . Councilmember Mader said if the price was realistic, if economy improves, the property values could go back up. . Mr. Arnoldi said this decrease was for one year. . Councilmember Mader asked whether since this was one area the County Assessor would look at it again to recapture tax value if the economy improves. . Mr. Arnoldi said it would be addressed yearly. . Councilmember Mader said with the assessment hearing, all the people with big houses were getting breaks and others weren't, but he was glad of the recommendation if they were going to look at it yearly. MOTION BY ANDREN SECOND BY SCHENCK TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Upon a vote, ayes by Andren, Kedrowski, Mader, and Schenck, the motion carried. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI SECOND BY SCHENCK TO APPROVE THE COUNTY ASSESSOR'S REPORT. County Assessor Report Upon a vote, ayes by Andren, Kedrowski, Mader, and Schenck, the motion carried. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI SECOND BY SCHECNK TO ACCEPT ALL OTHER V ALUATIONS IN THE COMMUNITY WHICH PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT APPEAL. Upon a vote, ayes by Andren, Kedrowski, Mader, and Schenck, the motion carried. 51997.DOC 3 51997.DOC B. Public Hearing to Consider Approval of Ordinance 97-XX Approving the Annexation of 230 Acres located in the North 1/2 of Section 12, Spring Lake Township. Annexation . The Public Hearing for items 6B and 6C was deferred to June 2, 1997. . City Manager Boyles introduced the item. He said the City Council approved in concept the Annexation Task Force Report, which was submitted to Township with a request that they conduct public informational meetings and convey their position to the City. As a separate but related action, property owners of the 230 acre and 31.25 acre parcels using a different methodology for annexation which is provided for under Minnesota Statutes, submitted a petition to the City Council requesting to be annexed by ordinance. Therefore, the City must provide a 30 day notice to the general public to conduct a public hearing to consider an ordinance which may result in annexation. . After the annexation petition was received, notice put in the paper, and a public hearing scheduled, there were a number of meetings involving Township Board, residents and property owners. As a result of these meetings, the township board adopted a resolution authorizing annexation of the property and asked the Prior Lake City Council to adopt the same resolution and continue the Public Hearing until June 2 to afford them the opportunity to better prepare if the Public Hearing occurs. . The Joint Resolution, if approved by the City Council, would approve the annexation of the property through the Minnesota Municipal Board's 30 day review and comment process. If the Minnesota Municipal Board finds everything to be in order, then the annexation would take place and the method by ordinance would not have any standing. Consequently, it is recommended that the Public Hearings be continued until June 2nd, at the request of both the petitioner and the Township Board. The Joint Resolution approving annexation has been added at the end of the agenda. MOTION BY ANDREN SECOND BY KEDROWSKI TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO JUNE 2ND 1997. . Councilmember Mader asked whether that means there would be no decision on annexation this evening. . Mayor Andren said no. 4 . Councilmember Mader said no it does not mean that or no there would not be. . Mayor Andren said it does not mean that. . Councilmember Mader said he was confused. He said if the Council makes a decision to annex tonight and then continue the Public Hearing to talk about annexation, what is he missing here? . City Attorney Pace said the Public Hearing would be canceled if alternative means of annexation were adopted by the Council, which is what is on the agenda later to do it by Joint Resolution as opposed to by ordinance. Upon a vote, ayes by Andren, Kedrowski, Mader, and Schenck, the motion carried. C. Pubic Hearing to Consider Approval of Ordinance 97-XX Approving the Annexation Annexation of 31.25 Acres located in the NE 1/4 of Section 12, Spring Lake Township. . Item 6B and 6C as a Public Hearing item were continued to June 2, 1997. 7. OLD BUSINESS: A. Consider Approval of Abbreviated Developers Agreement with Frauenshuhfor Park Nicollet Clinic. Frauenshuh Par Nicollet Clinic . City Manager Boyles introduced the item. He said the Council discussed at the May 5 meeting the short form developers agreement between the City and HealthSystems Minnesota. The issues of the soil contamination would not be an issue until time of platting and is excluded from the agreement. The road issue will be clarified by the Torrens process and is therefore also excluded from the agenda. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI SECOND BY SCHENCK TO ADOPT THE DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT WITH HEALTHSYSTEMS MINNESOTA FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PARK NICOLLET CLINIC. Healthsystems Minnesota . Councilmember Mader asked about road being open or closed, whether it is part of the total issue. 51997.DOC 5 . . . . . . . . . . 51997.DOC City Attorney Pace said it is not. The issue has been disconnected because the property where Health Systems is building the clinic is subject to a Torrens proceeding. In terms of the legal issue, development of the clinic site is two separate issues. There is a judicial process underway where the City has been named a party. She said the access will remain open in order to avoid any kind of injunction. All parties will go through the Torrens proceeding. The court will decide who owns property. Councilmember Mader clarified that it does not conflict with actions on the developers agreement. He asked with regard to contamination, if it is on the Park Nicollet property because of leakage from EZ Stop. City Attorney Pace said they will be required to clean up any contamination when they put in utilities. There is a remote chance of contamination. Councilmember Mader said there is a reference that HealthSystems Minnesota is aware that the City would recommend against such provisions, which would give them a waiver. He asked if the City had now changed its position on that. City Attorney Pace said as originally drafted, the agreement included no language on indemnification because they believed the issue was remote in time and not germane to the preliminary agreement. At insistence of the attorneys representing Health Systems Minnesota, the agreement that was presented to the Council include that language. Although indemnification in the agreement is for the Council to decide, it is the City Attorney's and the staff s recommendation against including such language. Councilmember Mader said so the action this evening is mute on the point of liability for contamination. City Attorney Pace said the agreement does not address issue of contamination. Councilmember Mader asked whether when property is dedicated to the City, then the City will be in a position to take action against EZ stop or negotiate with Health Systems Minnesota for a waiver. He asked if there could be a situation where the City would inherit the contamination problem without recourse. He said he is looking for an assurance that the problem which is not on City property does not put the City in a position that will create unlimited liability. City Attorney Pace said that would not happen. Councilmember Mader said he was comfortable with the agreement, then. 6 . Mayor Andren called the question. Upon a vote, ayes by Andren, Kedrowski, Mader, and Schenck, the motion carried. 8. NEW BUSINESS: 1998-2002 CIP, Resolution 97-41 A. Consider Approval of Adoption of 1998-2002 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Approval of Resolution 97-41 Authorizing Fund Transfers to Establish Revolving Equipment Fund. . City Manager Boyles introduced the item. He said the staff could give a complete report on both items or a cursory report to the Council. He said there were two items, one a motion and second to approve the CIP as proposed or with amendments, and two, to adopt Resolution 97-41 which would approve the establishment of an equipment revolving fund to finance the City's over the road vehicular needs in the future. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI SECOND BY SCHENCK TO ADOPT THE 1998-2002 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. . Councilmember Mader asked if that included the equipment fund. . Councilmember Kedrowski said that was the second item. Upon a vote, ayes by Andren, Kedrowski, Mader, and Schenck, the motion carried. . Mayor Andren said the Council discussed the revolving equipment fund at the workshop, but if Finance Director Teschner would give an abbreviated presentation, those that were not in attendance at the workshop may appreciate it. . Finance Director Teschner presented the advantages of the equipment matrix, which provides a regular replacement schedule, and the revolving fund would be established as the funding mechanism. It provides a long term replacement program which would be a permanent fixture. Staff has proposed five financing sources for the equipment fund. Presently there is $302,000 in a supplementary equipment fund. There is a 1996 surplus of $250,000 to be allocated to the revolving fund. He is proposing a $200,000 general fund appropriation as well. A contribution of $250,000 sewer and 51997.DOC 7 51997.DOC water fund would be needed. He said the City would need a supplemental tax levy of $10,000 per year for next 12 years to continue to finance the fund. He said this establishes a regular replacement schedule, reduction on equipment maintenance costs, increased operational efficiency and safety, and eliminates interest dollars spend on equipment certificate financing. Currently the equipment trade-in value is worthless on most equipment, because it is beyond its useful life. A positive community image is another advantage. From a taxpayer standpoint, the City was spending about $120,000 in interest dollars, which would be saved and put back into the equipment fund. There would be reduced liability exposure from outdated equipment. He gave the example of a box on a truck where hinges were rusted, and it became detached from the truck. He showed the equipment matrix. . Councilmember Mader asked about the Equipment Certificate Financing. . Finance Director Teschner said they had issued about $900,000 in equipment certificates in the last 4-5 years. He said the certificates were debt instruments. The City would issue bonds over a maximum of a 5 year period. The practice has been to issue debt over a four year period , and the City must pay interest on it. He said on $900,000 over last 5 years, the City is spending $1,020,000 to finance those pieces of equipment. He said this would eliminate the debt financing and substitute a revolving equipment fund. . Councilmember Mader asked about the $308,000 in a building fund. . Finance Director Teschner said it was in the equipment fund right now. . Councilmember Mader said when he first became involved with the Council, he asked about the equipment certificate, and he was given an aggressive endorsement of the certificates. He said what has changed now so that is no longer a good method. . Finance Director Teschner said this method eliminates the interest associated with a debt instrument. . Councilmember Mader said a year ago, he was told equipment certificates leveled out payments. Has something changed so it is not a good method. . Finance Director Teschner said it is still a good method and levels out debt. He said it is a timing thing, and the City would need to wait about 8 . 51997.DOC every 4 years to go into market to finance equipment needs. The City has outgrown the stage when equipment certificates provide sufficient capital to provide needed equipment. . City Manager Boyles said the City is trying to look at the financing needs in the future. He said of the 28 present pieces of Park Maintenance equipment, 13 or almost 50% are past their replacement date. Public Works equipment is similarly beyond its useful life span. Resolution 97-4 MOTION BY SCHENCK SECOND BY KEDROWSKI TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 97-41 AUTHORIZING FUND TRANSFERS TO ESTABLISH A REVOLVING EQUIPMENT FUND. Upon a vote, ayes by Andren, Kedrowski, Mader, and Schenck, the motion carried. B. Consider Resolution 97-XX Denying an Appeal by Pinnacle Partners of the Planning Commission Denial of Variances to the Setback from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHW), the Setback from the Top of a Bluff, and Variance to Allow Construction within the Bluff Impact Zone for Property Located at 15408 Red Oaks Road. This item was deferred at the request of the petitioner to the June 16, 1997 City Council meeting. Pinnacle Partners C. Consider Approval of Resolution 97-42 Approving the Final Plat and Res 97-42- Developer's Contract for Windstar Addition. Win ds tar Addition MOTION BY KEDROWSKI, SECOND BY SCHENCK TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 97-42 APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT AND DEVELOPER'S CONTRACT FOR WINDSTAR ADDITION. Upon a vote, ayes by Andren, Kedrowski, Mader, and Schenck, the motion carried. D. Consideration of the Joint Resolution Passed by the Spring Lake Township Board and Three Party Agreement Proposed by Spring Lake Township. MAYOR ANDREN: The next item of business will be the item that we amended the agenda for, and that is to consider the joint resolution 97XX and the three party agreement regarding annexation. Joint Resolution Spring Lake Township 9 . . . . . . 51997.DOC CITY MANAGER BOYLES: Mayor and members of the City Council, you are correct. The item that is before you is actually four distinct and separate actions. In the first place, you received the report from the Annexation Subcommittee which indicated that the subject 260 acres should indeed be annexed to the City of Prior Lake. That was one of two immediate recommendations. The other immediate recommendation was the old Dunn parcel. The report also provides financial information. I've tried to communicate that information based upon a school or no school scenario. It seems to me that the first question is do you wish to continue with the annexation of the 260 acres as was recommended by the Annexation Task Force. If the answer to that question is yes, then the second question is how to go about doing that. You have in your packet before you a joint resolution. That resolution has been adopted by the Township Board at their May 15 meeting, and that resolution would be the resolution that the City Council would enter into should they decide to annex the parcel by the joint resolution process as opposed to the ordinance process. The benefits of annexing the property through the joint resolution process, is that all parties basically agree, passively or actively in the process. And, accordingly, the Minnesota Municipal Board only goes through the review and comment process which is generally a 30 day process. This is certainly faster than the ordinance process which could require as much as a year. So, that is the second issue before you. If you do choose to annex by joint resolution, then it would be appropriate, since you've already continued the public hearing to June 2nd, it would be appropriate for the Council to direct the staff to prepare the amendments in the Comprehensive Plan which would effectuate this annexation and incorporate the property within the City's MUSA boundaries in order that some of the extensions can take place expeditiously. Those are the three actions before the Council. I would be glad to explain those more thoroughly should you desire. And, by the way, we did hand out a new agreement that should be before each of you. The agreement is very similar to the previous agreement, but I think it provides for some additional clarifications of some of the issues. MAYOR ANDREN: OK. Thank you. Councilmember Mader..? COUNCILMEMBER MADER: Pardon? MAYOR ANDREN: Councilmember Mader, do you have any comments or questions? 10 . 51997.DOC COUNCILMEMBERMADER: Yes I do. To me, I guess, annexation, it can be a very emotional issue and a very divisive issue in a community, and I don't think that its likely to think of annexation as a win win situation in terms of everybody getting exactly what they want. But hopefully, whatever is done benefits the majority of people and hopefully not at a high expense to others. There are some critical annexation issues, at least from my perspective, and that has to do with what's the financial implications both to those who are doing the annexing and those being annexed. And, then also, what are the benefits to those who are being annexed and those who are doing the annexing? And, while I'm not opposed to this annexation, I'm not going to support it this evening in terms of a decision, because there's a couple critical issues that at least in my mind haven't been answered, particularly as it relates to financial. I believe City Manager mentioned that the annexation report that was submitted to the Council was in February. I think it was actually at the April 7th meeting that we received that report and then sent it on to Spring Lake Township. And, that was an activity that had been worked on and studied and debated and discussed, certainly lots of information in the paper. Some public meetings, some less than public meetings, but a fairly considerable time went in that. And when we received that report, there was a financial analysis included directed to the City Council that basically said here's going to be the benefits of annexation for the City of Prior Lake. In that analysis, it indicated the assumption that that annexed area would have 700 homes, that that was being used for the basis of the calculations, and I had some difficulty with that and questioned that considerably because the total parcel is 260 to 270 acres. As I understand it, there will be a 60 acre commercial and industrial development. There is I believe about 40 acres of wetlands, and there is a potential for another 100 acres for a high school. So, when I did the mathematics, to me, that came out to about 80 acres available for housing, and it is a little difficult for me to understand 700 homes on 80 acres and to use the 700 homes as a basis for revenue calculations. That discussion went on for some period of time, and I was assured several times that, the 700 was a good number and that in fact without a high school, it could be 900 homes, and that the lowest case scenario would be 500 homes with a high school. And so that an average of 700 was considered to be conservative. I have to say I still had a problem with that, but that was the data. It was also indicated in that analysis that during the first five years at least there would be no tax revenue from the commercial and industrial development, and the implication therefore that that would be totally supported with TIP funds. And while I also am not unilaterally opposed to TIF financing, I think there has been enough press both, well particularly at the state legislature, and so forth, as to how these TIF programs don't always turn out to benefit the taxpayers as they are supposed to. Now, that was April 7th. 11 . April 23rd, I went to the Spring Lake Township Public hearing to hear what was going to be said there about this development, and here's what I heard. There would be 28 single family homes built. That compares to 700 homes being used for our analysis in Prior Lake. The representative for the developer indicated there would be about 100,000 square feet of commercial and industrial, and that if single family homes were deleted altogether, there might be as few as 200 and certainly less than 400 homes. And he went on to say to the Spring Lake Township people that they should clearly understand that there is no real significant tax windfall or tax benefit. Now, all of this is a matter of public record. And it was very frustrating to me that in Prior Lake what I was hearing is a very, very optimistic of a large number of the type of tax benefit this would contribute to the City. In Spring Lake Township, I am hearing exactly the opposite, and incidentally, there were some of the same people at both meetings. And it left me clearly with a problem of which of this data is valid? How do you make a decision on something as critical and emotional as annexation when you are getting numbers as different as the ones I have mentioned. I am not convinced that TIF should be used to subsidize industrial development for what is basically virgin property. We don't have to worry about blight. I don't think we are an area that is grossly underemployed. It's property that's not even in the City at the present time. To make our decision on the implications that as soon as that's annexed into the City, we'll begin to spend taxpayer dollars to underwrite it with some sort of hope and promise that it will come back in the future, but no definition of how much that is, I frankly just can't support it. Now again, I'm not suggesting that I think the annexation of this area is a bad idea, but I can not support it when I don't understand what the real facts are." . MAYOR ANDREN: Are those your comments, Councilmember Mader? . COUNCILMEMBER MADER: Yes. . MAYOR ANDREN: Councilmember Kedrowski? . COUNCILMEMBER KEDROWSKI: In looking over the issue, I served on the Annexation Task Force, so I have been all the way through the process. At our meetings, we had the input of the township board supervisors. We have had some input of this Council. I have heard nothing negative from the Citizens of Prior Lake and those who live in Prior Lake. All I have heard is positive encouragement, that this is something long overdue, that we should have considered a long time ago. The only thing I have heard is that they appreciate the fact that from our perspective, especially when the report was released, that this is to be somewhat of a cooperative effort, that we weren't going to try to shove it down somebody's throat and take the entire township, or anything like 51997.DOC 12 that. This was to be incremented, we were to go out there and sell this proposal and with the property owners in this area here, it is 100% cooperation. Every property owner we are considering tonight wants to be annexed and has agreed to the proposition, and the Township Board has voted to approve the joint resolution. As far as the annexation in terms of financial analysis one way or the other, everything we talked about tonight is just projections. Any discussion in terms of firm data or firm analysis on what is going to happen in this area in the future are just projections. And, I mean, we could talk about this all night until the cows come home, and assume that this area is going to develop one way or the other. There will probably be developed a 60 acre industrial park. Whether they use tax increment or not, that had not been brought up. That has not been an issue before this Council. It will go to the EDA first, and it will come back to the Council. At that time, they can petition us for that privilege. And with the history of Prior Lake City Council and its use of tax increment in the past has been extremely fiscally conservative in its approach and its manner. I don't believe the City's ever gone out and built speculation buildings or speculated in terms of risky business ventures. Everything that we have done has been fairly prudent and responsible. We try to facilitate development, not to create it. And as far as the rest of the property is concerned, whether or not it goes to the School District or not is a moot point. These are private landowners, and they have the right to settle with a School District if they choose to or not. That is their issue and that is their right to do that. As far as the rest of the land in terms of development, whether it is single family development or R-l, R-2, R-4, it really doesn't matter. Again, the property owner has to present the Council with a plan or a plat of some type of development. In this case, we are looking at virgin land as proposed and it is an opportunity for a decision of whether to add substantial potential tax base at a minimal cost to the City. I guess it is a taxpayer savings. We have willing participants here, willing to come in on their own and a township that has agreed to allow them to come in. I think we have no option but to support this annexation. . MAYOR ANDREN: . Councilmember Schenck? . COUNCILMEMBER SCHENCK: I think it first needs to be recognized that we are responding to a petition. The petition is 100% supported. Second of all, the facts and figures, everything presented to us is pure concept. That is what we need to recognize, but first and foremost, we are responding to a petition. . MAYOR ANDREN: 51997.DOC 13 . . . . . . . . . 51997.DOC The chair is in want of a motion. COUNCILMEMBER KEDROWSKI: Madam Mayor MAYOR ANDREN: Let's go down the line. Does the City of Prior Lake wish to annex this parcel of land? COUNCILMEMBER KEDROWSKI: I believe that we should annex this area as presented in the annexation report. What area is this called? CITY MANAGER BOYLES: Area 2. COUNCILMEMBER KEDROWSKI: Area 2. COUNCILMEMBER SCHENCK: If that is a motion, I'll second that. MAYOR ANDREN: Motion is by Councilmember Kedrowski, second is by Councilmember Schenck. Is there further discussion? I'll call the question. COUNCILMEMBER MADER: Yes further discussion, please. Just a couple brief points. I have heard the comment that those who own the property would like to be annexed, and I understand that, since most of it's owned by a developer who is going to have it developed, that makes sense and I have no criticism of that, but I am not sure that that's meaningful criteria, because that property is part of Spring Lake Township, and the perception I have had is that the vast majority of people in Spring Lake Township are not in favor of allowing a part of their community to be annexed. If I can draw an analogy, if we suddenly all heard tomorrow that the Priordale mall area, the two or three owners of that area, were prepared to sell it to the Dakota Community for expanding their operations, I don't think anyone would be up here saying "Oh, they have the right to do that and it's none of the rest of our business." The perception I have, and I would be glad to have this corrected, but the perception I've had is that the vast majority of people in Spring Lake Township do not want to have that parcel annexed into Prior Lake, and I think they should have consideration. Secondly, and again, please don't interpret that to mean that I am opposed to annexation, but that is another issue. Secondly, with regard to reference of the school and that sort of thing, I hope it will not be interpreted that I am opposed to a school up there. What I am opposed to is the idea of proceeding with an annexation using some financial data that I can't find is on solid ground, and to move along with a project that implies, I've heard reference that there has been no discussion about TIP for this at the City Council meeting. But as a matter of fact the report that was prepared with a financial statement clearly spells out that TIF financing will be 14 . . . 51997.DOC utilized and at least five years into the program the City of Prior Lake will receive basically no benefit because of that TIP financing. So, I don't want to leave the impression that I have closed my mind on annexation, but based on what I've seen, I can't in good conscience vote for it. That's all I have. Thank you. MAYOR ANDREN: With all due regard to our neighbors in Spring Lake who we certainly do respect as neighbors, our job at the Prior Lake City Council meeting is to represent the best interests of the City of Prior Lake. The people that live within the corporate limits and the people that pay taxes in their community. I understand that there are a number of people in Spring Lake that don't wish their portion to be annexed. But I think that this portion of land does meet a lot of goals and objectives that the community of Prior Lake has told us that they wanted. When this was first brought forward, it came forward in concept form. It met a number of Prior Lake objectives. The first was that it met the Liveable Communities objective. We are mandated by the Met Council to provide affordable housing, and that was one of the components of the concept that was brought in. The second item that it did was that Prior Lake has made a promise to its residents to encourage, and in fact I believe it is in our mission statement and it's also in our City Council goals and objectives, we have made a promise to the people of the community that we will have robust business growth and we will encourage business and industry to locate within our community. Now, years ago, when we started doing this, the people of Prior Lake were told that the benefits of this may not come to you tomorrow morning, but there will be benefits. It also meets that goal. One of the other goals it meets, having a school site is between the school and the business owners. The school site needs to have sewer and water. We do not extend sewer and water without the purchase of the property being within the City of Prior Lake. Now, that school is going to be for many people in the area. It is not just for the residents of Prior Lake, so should the School District choose to purchase and should the developer choose to sell to them. It is going to be a benefit for all of us, Prior Lake will be providing sewer and water to that, and we do not provide sewer and water without it being in the corporate limits in Prior Lake. Other things that should be looked to is that all of the financial statements on here are generally all in concept. Our Finance Director is a wonderful person, and he is extremely good, but he can't look fifteen years into the future either. He gives us the benefit of his expertise from the many years of experience that he has. What I recommend is that down the road the City of Prior Lake will have a very high commercial valuation, and the impact in additional taxes with or without a school is within the range of $250-$300,000 per year. That does come to Prior Lake and it does offset costs. As far as TIF is concerned, that is determined by a Public 15 Hearing. Prior Lake has very little property in TIF. I think we are supposed to be at 2% by County policy and we are really quite below that. We have been very prudent in the use of TIF because we do know how it affects the School District and the County. But with TIF, a lot of people don't understand that this is a development tool, and what it is is delayed gratification. That is the best term I can use for it. What happens is if the City Council chose to annex this property, the land that would possibly become commercial, we would receive all of the current value in taxes from that land. The only thing we would not receive is the increased value of buildings that go on that property. That money will be taken and put back to support the infrastructure and things that are needed for that, so that down the line, 10 years or whatever the terms of the TIF is, all of it goes back on the tax roll. So people aren't losing something they had to begin with. If you are getting a tax valuation of $1 ,000 and a building went on it for $500, it is the $500 that would be used to promote and generate more infrastructure and more business who seek to locate in Prior Lake. We do not lose the $1,000. If annexation doesn't go through, we haven't lost anything to begin with, because zero from zero is zero. We don't have the land, the people of Prior Lake have lost nothing. But down the road they are going to get a considerable amount of money. I do support the annexation. I do support the joint agreement. I do support the three party agreement. So, with that, the chair is in want of a motion regarding... . COUNCILMEMBER MADER: Madam Mayor, Madam Mayor? . MAYOR ANDREN: I am sorry, the chair is in want of a motion. . COUNCILMEMBER KEDROWSKI: We already made a motion and the question was called. . MAYOR ANDREN: I now call the question. All in favor say... . COUNCILMEMBER MADER: Further discussion? . MAYOR ANDREN: All in favor say aye. . Ayes by Andren, Kedrowski, and Schenck. . MAYOR ANDREN: Opposed? . COUNCILMEMBER MADER: No further discussion allowed? . MAYOR ANDREN: I'm sorry. I called the question. Councilmember, you had two opportunities. 51997.DOC 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51997.DOC FROM AUDIENCE: Point of order. MAYOR ANDREN: I am sorry, this is not a public hearing. How do you vote, Councilmember Mader? COUNCILMEMBER MADER: I vote nay. MAYOR ANDREN: Three ayes, one nay, Councilmember Mader. The chair is in want of additional motion. COUNCILMEMBER KEDROWSKI: I'll move we accept the joint resolution as forwarded by staff between the City of Prior Lake and Spring Lake Township, and Deerfield Development MAYOR ANDREN: The motion is by Councilmember Kedrowski, COUNCILMEMBER SCHENCK: I'll second it. MAYOR ANDREN: Second Schenck. Further discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Ayes by Andren, Kedrowski, Schenck. MAYOR ANDREN: All those opposed say nay...Did you vote nay, Councilmember? COUNCILMEMBER MADER: Nay. I would have liked to have said something, Mayor, but since you so quickly went to the vote after you said discussion, I guess it's pointless. MAYOR ANDREN: Councilmember, you have had ample time to discuss this. All of us have. COUNCILMEMBER KEDROWSKI: I'd like to move we direct staff to prepare an amendment to the comprehensive plan to move the City Boundaries to include this area MAYOR ANDREN: The motion is by Councilmember Kedrowski, second by COUNCILMEMBER SCHENCK: I second it. 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51997.DOC MAYOR ANDREN: All those in favor say aye. ayes by Andren, Kedrowski, and Schenck. MAYOR ANDREN: All those opposed say nay. COUNCILMEMBER MADER: Nay. MAYOR ANDREN: One nay, Mader. CITY ATTORNEY: You need a motion to authorize execution of the third party agreement. MAYOR ANDREN: The chair will entertain a motion to authorize the execution of the third party agreement. COUNCILMEMBER KEDROWSKI: I'll move such a motion. MAYOR ANDREN: The motion is by Councilmember Kedrowski. COUNCILMEMBER SCHENCK: I'll second it. MAYOR ANDREN: Second by Councilmember Schenck. Further discussion? All in favor say aye. Ayes by Andren, Kedrowski, and Schenck. MAYOR ANDREN : All those opposed say nay. COUNCILMEMBER MADER: Nay. MAYOR ANDREN: The ayes have it. One nay, Councilmember Mader. Is there anything further? One of the things that the attorney has told me is that in light of the fact that the Spring Lake Township Board and the City of Prior Lake have entered into these agreements, this can go straight to the Municipal Board. We could continue the hearing but basically its a moot point since we have agreed. So what we could do is move the reconsideration of the Public Hearing. COUNCILMEMBER KEDROWSKI: I'll move for reconsideration. MAYOR ANDREN: OK the motion to reconsider is made by Councilmember Kedrowski. 18 . COUNCILMEMBER SCHENCK: second. . MAYOR ANDREN: Second is by Councilmember Schenck. . SPECIAL COUNSEL TERRY MERRIT: Mayor and members of the Council, I suggest for the benefit of the propertyowners that the Council delay dealing with the reconsideration. The continuance should be honored until the June 2nd meeting. . COUNCILMEMBER KEDROWSKI: I withdraw the motion. . COUNCILMEMBER SCHENCK: I withdraw the second. . MAYOR ANDREN: It will be on the agenda June 2nd as a continued public hearing. 1. OTHER BUSINESS: There was no other business. Sally Schmidt resign 2. ANNOUNCEMENTS/CORRESPONDENCE: . City Manager Boyles reviewed the update. He said Sally Schmidt resigned the EDA.. He mentioned a City web page could be considered. . Councilmember Schenck said he was concerned with lot surveys required for deck replacement. . City Manager Boyles said the resolution provides that once in Shoreland District or flood zone, a resident does need a survey. Otherwise, residents may document their lot corners and setbacks in the field. The concern is the cost of the survey. This is a common concern. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI, SECOND BY SCHENCK TO DIRECT STAFF TO SEE IF THERE IS A MORE EFFECTIVE WAY TO ACCOMPLISH THE CITY'S POLICY ON DECK REPLACEMENT WITHOUT REQUIRING A SURVEY. Upon a vote, ayes by Andren, Kedrowski, Mader, and Schenck, the motion carried. YMCA grants . Councilmember Mader said he received something about grants to the YMCA and asked if anyone knew about it. 51997.DOC 19 . Councilmember Kedrowski said Bumsville was soliciting contributions to make the YMCA a regional south of the river project. . Councilmember Mader said he received a letter regarding incorporation of Spring Lake Township. . Councilmember Schenck said he received the letter and it was from Ernie Peacock. . City Attorney Pace said the City had not received anything. 3. ADJOURNMENT 51997.DOC 20