Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda & Minutes REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MARCH 3, 2003 7:00pm Fire Station No.1 1. CALL TO ORDER and PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 7:00 p.m. 2. 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. Items to be considered as part of the Council's regular agenda may not be addressed at the Public Forum. Topics of discussion are also restricted to City governmental topics rather than private or political agendas. The City Council will not take formal action on issues presented during the Public Forum. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: 4. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 21, 2003 MEETING MINUTES: 5. 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 Monthly Fire Call Report for January 2003. C) Consider Approval of Resolution Approving the Common Interest Community No. 1079 (Deerfield Condominium) Fourteenth Supplemental CIC Plat. D) Consider Approval of Temporary 3.2 Non-Intoxicating Liquor License for the Church of St. Michael AprilFest. E) Consider Approval of Stipulation Regarding Road Right-of-Way and Utility Location. 6. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA: 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE. 16lOQQ Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 8. A} B) 9. A) 10. A) B) C) D) E) PRESENTATIONS: : 2003 Legislative Report (Minnesota State Representative Mike Beard and State Senator Claire Robling) Municipal State Aid Presentation (Bud Osmundson, Director of Public Works) OLD BUSINESS: Consider Approval of a Resolution Approving the Cooperative Agreement with Scott County for Cost-Sharing of Aerial Photography and Digital Mapping Services. NEW BUSINESS:: Consider Approval of a Report Regarding the Prior Lake Dance Program. Consider Approval of a Resolution Supporting Improvements to the Intersection of 150th Street and TH13 Including Overlay, Right and Left Turn Lanes. Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing Purchase of One Tandem Axle Cab and Chassis Truck and Appurtenant Equipment through the State Cooperative Purchasing Program. Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing Purchase of a Commercial Mower and Utility Maintenance Vehicle through the State Cooperative Purchasing Contract. Consider Approval of a Resolution Accepting the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Programs (SWPPs) for the City Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) and for the City's Public Works Facilities as Prepared by WSB & Associates, Inc. 11. OTHER BUSINESS/COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: 12. ADJOURNMENT 030303 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES February 18, 2003 CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Present were Mayor Haugen, Councilmembers Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, City Manager Boyles, City Attorney Pace, Assistant City Manager Walsh, Public Works Director Osmundson, Community Development Director Rye, City Engineer McDermott, Assistant City Engineer Poppler, and Administrative Assistant Meyer. 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. Items to be considered as part of the Council's regular agenda may not be addressed at the Public Forum. Topics of discussion are also restricted to City governmental topics rather than private or political agendas. The City Council will not take formal action on issues presented during the Public Forum. No persons were present to address the Council at the public forum. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Zieska: Requested adding an Executive Session to discuss the City Manager salary adjustment. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY BLOMBERG, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 3.2003 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Petersen: Requested a correction on Page 6 referring to County State Aid Highway 82, not CSAH 42. MOTION BY LEMAIR, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APROVE THE FEBRUARY 3, 2003 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AS AMENDED. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, and LeMair, the motion carried. Council member Zieska abstained because he was absent from the previous meeting. CONSENT AGENDA: (A) Consider Approval of Invoices to be Paid. (B) Consider Approval of Treasurer's Report. (C) Consider Approval of Building Permit Report. (D) Consider Approval of Animal Warden Monthly Report. (E) Consider Approval of Resolution 03.21 Approving the Final Plat and Authorizing Execution of the Standardized Development Contract for McCormick Acres. (F) Consider Approval of Appointments to the Scott County Transit Committee. Bovles: Reviewed the Consent Agenda items. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ZIESKA, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS SUBMITTED. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT February 18, 2003 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA: NONE. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Public Hearing to Consider Approval of a Resolution Ordering the 2003 Public Improvement Project and Preparation of Plans and Specifications. Bovles: Explained the steps throughout the process as the City Council reviews the need for these types of improvements. Poppler: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report, reviewing the discussions and concerns expressed by the residents at the informational meetings, including the location of the sidewalk on 150th Street, the road width on Condons Streets, street lighting, and the 100% assessment for the gravel portion of Hope Street. LeMair: Asked about the reaction of the neighborhood to street lighting, and if the City has a policy with regard to where street lighting is placed. Poppler: Clarified that the reactions were mixed about adding street lighting on 150th Street, but that since 150th Street is a collector, the City would like to add street lighting. Also advised that the City would work closely with the homeowners so that the placement of the street lighting had a minimal impact upon the homes. McDermott: Clarified that lighting standards are in place for new development, but there no standards for reconstruction because the cost is typically assessed 100% to the neighborhood. On 150th Street the City is proposing to pay for the lighting since it is a collector street. Bovles: Added that the City has provided some motivation for neighborhoods to have street lights because the City has historically paid the electrical charges associated with the lights, which is the larger cost over the long term. Zieska: Asked where else in the City there is a sample of the light pole. McDermott: Advised there is a new pole at the intersection of Fish Point and County Road 21. Blombera: Asked for clarification as to whether there would be street lighting included in the Condons, Mitchell Circle, and Hope Street project. Poppler: Advised that the option was proposed for neighborhood consideration. Given the comments at the informational hearing, street lights are not included in the project for that area. Hauaen: Asked if street lighting were incorporated into the Condon, Mitchell Circle, Hope Street area, who would pay for it. Poppler: The costs would be included in the assessment at a rate of $740 per household since these are not collector streets. Bovles: Added that there several older street lights that exist and that would remain if new lights are not included. Mayor Haugen declared the public hearing open. Ron Buckeve (14987 Pixie Point Circle): Commented that 150th Street is the last street in the area to be renovated. Asked why the estimate prices are made public before the bids are received. Noted that Pixie Point assessments were 23% higher 2 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT February 18, 2003 than the original estimates. Concerned that the estimates do not reflect the actual costs and that the project would proceed despite the estimate and the residents are on the hook regardless. Also asked why the costs for the 150th Street project is so much higher than the other projects in the area, and if it could have been lower if connected with another project in the area. Commented that lot size should not have anything to do with the assessment because to get to any of those neighborhoods, you have to utilize 150th Street. Would have rather had the whole area reconstructed at once, rather than having continual construction over the last three years. Believed that there is no immediate benefit to the properties from the overlay. Further asked if the sidewalks and lights were not included as part of the project, could those funds be used to offset the costs of the reconstruction. McDermott: Advised that the estimates are public information and that State statute requires the City to advise the residents of the cost of the project. Also advised that the overall project cost for the Pixie Point project was not as high as 23% over the original estimate. Most of the time the estimates are very close, and often less. There can be extenuating circumstances that can affect the assessable costs of the project, such as the cost of bituminous. Hauaen: With respect to evaluating the actual costs of the project, did not believe there was a magic number where the Council would automatically stop the project. Rather, the benefit of the each project is weighed against its costs and other impacts. Poppler: Explained that the assessments for the 150th Street project are higher than other area projects because the assessable portion of the project must be distributed over a fewer number of properties. The properties along 150th have larger front footage. McDermott: Added that reconstruction projects are targeted for a specific not to exceed dollar amount per year due to the cost of money and the City available funding. As such, if 150th would have been joined with the Pixie Point project, the overall project and its corresponding costs would have been much too high. Teschner: Explained that the standard is to maintain the costs of improvement projects at about $1 million to $1.25 million per year in order to mitigate the overall tax impact the public is paying for the project, eliminating spikes in the property tax levy. Noted that for improvement projects, the general public pays for 60% of the total costs. The benefiting properties pick up the remaining 40%. Improvement projects are also sized up by like parcels, and 150th Street has significantly larger front footages than the properties on Pixie Point. If the projects had been consolidated, smaller parcels end up subsidizing the larger ones. The alternative is to have the larger parcels pay a fair share on a stand alone project. Also noted that typically the City avoids having a whole area under construction at the same time, without providing some of the area streets at their current service level. Lastly, explained that the oversizing of the project, which includes those items necessary to meet the standards for collector streets, are funded from the Collector Street Fund. To allocate those funds to offset the assessment would not be appropriate use of the funds. Ken Eells (6240 150th Street): Concerned with safety of the sidewalk if placed on the north side of the 150th Street, given the current street design and site lines. Suggested lowering the speed limit in the area, and increasing the elevation of his driveway. Poppler: Advised that the sidewalk placement will help and the Eells driveway will lengthen by about 4 feet. The solution will not be perfect, but the topography is difficult. Also commented that for the cars driving the road, increasing the elevation would create a lesser sight line. Bovles: Advised that State statute provides that the minimum enforceable speed limit is 30 miles per hour on a public street. Recommended speed signs can be installed, but there is no mechanism for enforcing a lesser limit. 3 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT February 18, 2003 HauQen: Suggested that the speed wagon be placed on 150th Street to monitor the current speed for additional enforcement. Joel LonQ (5194 Hope Street): Asked if his property was included in the 100% assessment for Hope Street. Did not believe there was a need for sidewalk, new storm sewer, or curbing. Also asked if new sewer and water was part of the improvement. Did not believe the current facilities are worn out, and if they are the project was improperly constructed in the beginning and the City should have some recourse against the original contractor for the repair. Poppler: Pointed out the five lots that are proposed to be assessed at 100%. Mr. Long's property is not included. Also advised that certain areas would get new sewer and water, particularly near Mr. Long's property. Teschner: Explained that staff reviewed the lot that is referred to as the swamp, and has determined that based upon current City ordinances, the lot is actually eligible for one buildable unit. Bovles: Explained the process for reviewing the need for improvement projects, such as running a camera through the pipe to view its integrity. In the pipe, along portions of the area, joints are no longer aligned, roots have worked there way into the pipe and the pipe is crushed. The areas where the pipe has good integrity are not being replaced. Also noted there have been several water main breaks in the area as well. The streets have also been bored in various locations to evaluate soil samples. Rebecca Radcliff (5785 150th Street): Concerned about the cost overruns, especially in light of the economy and the political impacts upon oil prices. Asked if the State budget shortfall impacts City funding sources for the project. Added concern about the placement of street lighting and the spill of lighting. Also asked about liability associated with clearing sidewalks. Also concerned about speed on 150th for cars, particularly since the roadway will be shared with pedestrians, and is shared with snowmobiles. McDermott: Advised that all of the funding sources for the project are internal and in place. Also advised that the Council reviews the particulars of the project at several additional steps. In the event bids came in exorbitantly higher than the estimates, the Council can choose not to award the project at that time. Further advised that the City would enter into a contract based upon the unit bid prices and the contractor would be held to that bid. The 23% increase referred to earlier was an increase from the engineer's estimate to the actual bid. Further advised that the City staff will work with the property owners as the street lighting design is prepared. Also advised that the Parks Advisory Committee will be reviewing the City's snowplowing policy for plowing of sidewalks to determine which sidewalks will be cleared by the City. This sidewalk has the potential to be included because it is on a collector street. Teschner: Added that from a bidding perspective, this job will be submitted earlier in the year and will be easier to fit into a contractor's construction schedule. The previous year's project was bid later in the construction season, and probably affected the bid costs. Zieska: Also noted that with the financial issues at the State level, there may not be the number of road construction projects available as in past years which should also give us more favorable bids. HauQen: Commented that liability for snowplowing sidewalks is related to negligence on the part of the property owner. Certainly the homeowner's insurance will come into play and will defend the property owner in the event of a suit. But, the determining factor is the issue of negligence. For example, in the height of a snowstorm, if someone falls on your sidewalk, there is a question if there is any negligence on the part of the property owner. On the other hand, if a property owner doesn't shovel their sidewalk for a week and its icy and packed down, then there is the initial appearance of negligence on the part of the property owner and some exposure exists. 4 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT February 18, 2003 Larry Nickelson (15543 Ridgemont Ave. SE): Asked how many units of assessment his lot would be subject to. Poppler: Explained that the lot would be assessed three units. McDermott: Explained that there is some consideration typically given for corner lots. In this case, the property is dividable into three buildable lots, which makes it different than a typical one unit corner lot, and that is the rationale for the assessment. Sharon James (6220 150th Street): Concerned that placing the sidewalk on the north side will make it more difficult to connect to the parks. Also asked if it will be the City's responsibility to remove the trees that may be impacted by the sidewalk placement. Poppler: Explained that the water main and sanitary sewer placement is best kept within the street, and by holding the line on the south side of the street and reducing the width on the north to make way for the sidewalk, we are able to accommodate the utilities within the street. Crosswalks will be added and there are good site lines where it will cross 150lh to Green Oaks Park. There will also be a crosswalk at Fairlawn and 1501h. Noted that the sidewalk will be within the right-of- way, but once the design is finalized there will be another informational meeting. Dave Lewis (15643 Mitchell Circle): Asked the rationale for assessing two units to the Mitchell Pond Homeowners common area. Poppler: Explained that the property could ultimately be divided into two buildable parcels. Teschner: Explained that the premise for assessing properties within a project area is how many buildable units there are, and the potential benefit at the maximum use of the property. Jim Klein (5765 15()fh Stree~: Asked about the proposed 5 foot bike path along his outlot when along Fairlawn Shores there is already a designated walking path marked on the street. Concerned about creating bigger safety issues given the blind intersection at 1501h. Osmundson: Explained that the idea was to connect 150th Street trail to Indian Hills park. Added that the idea was that it's always safer to have a walkway off of the actual street. Was not aware of the safety issues at the intersection and believed other alternatives could be considered before it gets built. GreQ McClenahan (5212 Hope Street): Discussed the history of the development of the area and his property located on the gravel portion of Hope Street. Did not believe that there was an assessment for the improved roads within the Mitchell Pond development at the time the developer installed the roads. Further discussed the current street size and cul-de-sac. Believed a 24 foot road works well, as does the 30 foot wide cul-de-sac and the current gravel surfacing. Believed there is not enough right-of-way to enlarge the cul-de-sac. Believed that the road project does provide some value to the properties, but that his support is directly related to the costs. Did not believe the value of the improvement was equal to the proposed $13,000 assessment. Quoted the City's assessment policy, stating that "while there is no perfect assessment policy, it is important that assessments be implemented in a reasonable, consistent and fair manner. There may be exceptions to the assessment policy or unique situations or circumstances which may require special consideration and discretion by the staff and Council." Believed his circumstance was an exception to the policy based upon the legal standard. Also suggested that the gravel portion of the project could be bid as an alternative, or having the neighbors do the project themselves under a development agreement. Believed the best choice was to continue with the full project, bringing the assessments for the properties on the gravel portion in line with the other homeowners. 5 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT February 18, 2003 Hauaen: Again clarified that the reference to a 23% increase from the engineer's estimate was on one project, and that most projects come in under the engineer's estimate. Gave the example of the project on CSAH 42 & CSAH 83 where the final total was approximately $400,000 less than originally anticipated. Dan Loftus (5204 Hope Street): Also a homeowner along the gravel portion of Hope Street. Did not believe the $13,000 assessment was a fair and equitable distribution of the costs of the project. Would support the project at a 40% assessment. Bovles: Clarified that the City's special assessment policy is based under the assumption that each homeowner pays for at least one complete roadway. That payment can be in the form of a special assessment, or it may be built into the cost of a property, such as when a developer installs the roads. The five parcels where there is no improved roadway have never paid for that one roadway. So the theory is that those properties should pay 100% for the particular improvement just as the homeowners on the improved roadway had done through the their original purchase price. Grant Leonard (5230 Hope StreeO:Repeated that the homeowners on the north side of Hope Street did not pay an assessment when Frank Wicker installed the roadway. Discussed his property commonly known as the swamp parcel, and did not believe that it was a buildable lot. Zieska: Commented that there was quite a bit of discussion on whether a buildable pad existed on the swamp parcel. It does appear that under the current zoning criteria there is room for one unit. At the special assessment hearing, it may be appropriate to discuss the option of deferring the assessment until such time as the property is built upon. He would be in support of that, although he cannot speak for the remainder of the Council. Ralph Vetter (5780 15()1h Street): Echoed the concerns about the overall costs of the project and any excessive increase over the currently proposed assessment. Concerned with a sewer pipe replacement to the lift station that is located near his property. Advised that he recently installed a new 250 foot driveway, and asked how any destruction to private properties would be handled. Poppler: Advised that the pipe would remain within the easement and any damage to private property would be replaced at the City's expense. All utility costs are being paid for through the City's portion of the project, not the assessable portion of the project. Jim Reisop (5917 15()1h Street): Suggested that staff review with the neighborhood fixing some of the past parts of improvements that are incomplete. Asked about State aid funding for 150th Street. Would consider realignment or improvement of his driveway, particularly when associated with the safety issues and line of sight. Also commented that anyone not comfortable with the amount being assessed does have the ability to have an appraisal done before and after the improvement. Also requested an assessment roll. Lastly, asked about the number of units being assessed for a property that was considered three lots, combined to two lots, and now it is used as a single site. McDermott: Advised that the City has several large projects coming up that will exhaust the limited State aid funds available to the City. The City chose not to pull State aid funds for this project. In addition, there are some challenges associated with curves and existing topography in the 150th Street area that may not allow us to meet State aid standards. The City is considering removing this street from its State aid system. Clarified that with respect to homes that sit on more than one lot, if the home straddles a lot line or is placed such that no portion of the property could accommodate another home, it is one unit assessment. Teschner: Added that the lots in the area are very close in terms of front footage. 6 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT February 18, 2003 Claire Peske (5220 Hope Stree~: Commented that her assessment for the improvement to the gravel portion of Hope Street is not fair in comparison to the rest of the neighborhood. Stated her agreement with her neighbors that were in a similar situation. Rex Rovicek (5827 150th Stree~: Concerned about the potential for increases in cost of the engineer's estimate. Believed it important to have a mechanism to cap that cost, or to postpone the project until such time that the bids prices would be less impacted by economic and political circumstances. Was not sure determining assessment based upon lot length was fair, given that anyone using the road gets the same benefit. Opposed to street lights, and concerned about the snowmobile traffic on the south side of 150th Street, and in the area in general. Asked if overhead electrical lines will be buried as part of this project. McDermott: Advised that burial of overhead lines is not being proposed as part of the project. McClenahan: Believed that even under the assumption that everyone pays for a road at least once, his point is further justified in that it doesn't appear that a good number of the property owners in the Mitchell Pond development have been assessed for past improvements. Further commented that he has lived in Prior Lake for 10 years and has never been given a credit on his property tax because he lives on a gravel road. Commented that he has paid for a lot of the 60% through his property tax for many roads in the community and believes the community can now pay to have his portion of the road improved. Lastly, suggested to his neighbors that they get an appraisal done together. Teschner: Clarified that the assessment policy extends far beyond one geographic area and is developed for the overall benefit of the community as a whole. Historically, the City over the past 30 years, has assessed 100% of any unimproved streets. From an equity standpoint, the Council should consider how property owners in the past have been treated and that future improvements are treated in the same fashion. Stated that there is a distinguishable value between homes with paved roadways and those that have gravel. Joel Lona: Provided some history of the development of the area around Hope Street. Believed the project should be one price for the whole block. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ZIESKA TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. Zieska: Explained the process at this point and the action that the Council is voting on. Also advised that residents should feel free to contact any staff or Council members by phone, in person, or by email to discuss the project. Teschner: Advised that there would be another informational meeting, as well as a public hearing on the assessment. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ZIESKA, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 03.22 ORDERING 2003 IMPROVEMENTS AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CON DONS STREET, HOPE STREET, MITCHELL CIRCLE, AND 150TH STREET. LeMair: Thanked the residents for each of their input noting his appreciation for the feedback. Blombera: Also thanked the residents for their input and advised that each of their concerns will be considered as the Council reviews the specifics of the project. 7 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT February 18, 2003 Petersen: Noted that he is always concerned about costs. But would like to see the project move to the bid stage to see what the actual costs will be. Repeated that there are several times upcoming that the Council can choose not to proceed with the project. Hauaen: Commented that timing is never perfect for spending money, but believed the improvements are necessary. Concerned about safety and speed, as well as the issue of snowmobiles in the area of 150th. Cautioned residents that estimates are rarely increased by 23% across the board when bids are received. The fact is that actual costs are very often much less than the engineer's estimate. Lastly, he believed there will be additional dialogue as to the assessments for the gravel portion of Hope Street. However, someone paid for the road projects along the way whether by special assessment or otherwise. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. The Council took a brief recess. Public Hearing to Consider Approval of a Resolution Ordering the CSAH 23/ Five Hawks / TH 13/ 170th Street / Tower Street (Ring Road Phase III) Improvement Project (City Project #02-06) and Preparation of Plans and Specifications. McDermott: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report. Mayor Haugen declared the public hearing open. Jim Weninaer (Spring Lake Road): Supported the Ring Road project and commented on congestion at the Five Hawks intersection. Concerned about alignment of County Road 12 and the impacts the realignment of 170th Street will have upon the County Road 12/ TH 13 intersection. McDermott: Advised that 170th as realigned will be a right-in / right-out only, with a center median installed on TH13. Believed this would address many of the issues with the County Road 12/ TH13 intersection. John (Michael) McKinlev (16961 Mushtown Road): Asked if other properties in the area will become commercial once CSAH 23 is vacated. Believed a 100% assessment to his property will break the bank. McDermott: Explained that the City's assessment policy provides that first-time improvements are 100% specially assessed. Believed that the installation of the Ring Road will lead to the opportunity to improve other commercial properties in the area only when it is finally identified who the ultimate owner(s) are of the vacated roadways. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY PETERSEN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. Petersen: Believed the 100% assessment is difficult, but that the project is a good one. Would like to see if the 100% assessment issue can be addressed at the appropriate time. Zieska: Echoed Councilmember Petersen's concerns about the impact to the business owner. Believed this Council is amenable to revisiting the issue further down in the process. 8 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT February 18, 2003 LeMair: Empathized with Mr. McKinley, but believed the process needed to proceed. Hauaen: Concurred. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY LEMAIR,TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 02.23 ORDERING CSAH 23/ FIVE HAWKS I TH 131 170TH STREET I TOWER STREET IMPROVEMENTS (RING ROAD PHASE III) AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. Hauaen: Added that there is discussion currently taking place to redevelop the Priordale Mall area, and that that would certainly emphasize the value of the Ring Road project to the area and the surrounding land. PRESENTATIONS NONE. OLD BUSINESS: Consider Approval of a Report Regarding the Proposed City Hall / Police Station / Community Center with respect to the following: (1) Criteria for Site Selection; (2) Refinement of Sites for Further Consideration; (3) Establishment of City Council Subcommittee. Bovles: Reviewed the agenda in connection with the staff report. LeMair: Believed it is important that the site location is tied to the redevelopment effort of the Downtown area. Zieska: Believed that availability and the size of the lot is of equal importance so that there is room for the facility to grow as the community grows. Petersen: Also believed that it was important for the facilities to stay in the Downtown area, where there is good access to CSAH 21 and TH13. Blombera: Believed it important to remember that we have been given a road map by the community, in which it states that the facility should be a gateway to Downtown and Lakefront park amenities. Also believed the site should make sense logistically from an access and size perspective, and that land not be taken that removes viable commercial property from the community tax rolls. Hauaen: Noted that this process is one of evaluation and that there is no exact timeline as to when a facility will be built, or what it will look like. It is important to plan for our future, and the current facilities prohibit the full use of our staff capabilities and limit the services that could otherwise be provided. Positives in moving quickly include the current cost of money. The process at this point is similar to when an individual would buy a home. Some money is being set aside, information is being gathered, but we just haven't decided yet. Reviewed each of the proposed criteria and asked Councilmembers to comment. LeMair: Believed it important that the project be tied to Downtown redevelopment. Zieska: Concurred. Suggested that the gateway criteria could be encompassed in the criteria that states consistency with the 2020 Vision. 9 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT February 18, 2003 Petersen: Believed it critical to keep the City Hall and Police facilities in the Downtown area where access to CSAH 21 and TH 13 is best. Blomben~: Believed if the item was critical to the long-range planning committee, it is reason enough for her support. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY BLOMBERG SUPPORTING THAT CRITERIA #1 IS THAT THE SITE BE A GATEWAY TO DOWNTOWN AND CONSISTENT WITH THE 2020 VISION. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. MOTION BY LEMAIR, SECOND BY BLOMBERG SUPPORTING THAT CRITERIA #2 IS THAT THE SITE BE NOT LESS THAN 5.5 ACRES. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. MOTION BY LEMAIR, SECOND BY PETERSEN SUPPORTING THAT CRITERIA #3 IS THAT THE ZONING BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE USE OR ABLE TO CHANGE. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY LEMAIR SUPPORTING THAT CRITERIA #4 IS THAT THE PROXIMITY TO MAJOR THOROUGHFARES AND ACCESS IS REQUIRED. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. Zieska: Believed the remainder of the proposed criteria are part of the process and need not be included. All Councilmembers concurred. LeMair: Commented that availability and cost may be two separate issues, but are undoubtedly included in the process. Did not believe availability was necessarily critical because a timeline had not yet been identified. The cost of the site and estimated construction factors could eliminate some properties. Zieska: Agreed. Petersen: Commented that he is often questioned why the City is planning a new facility given the current economic and political climate. Believed a plan is very important to guide our future action. Would like to see the timeline remain open until such time that the impacts of the State budget deficit upon Prior Lake are more fully identified. MOTION BY LEMAIR, SECOND BY BLOMBERG SUPPORTING THAT CRITERIA #5 THAT THE AVAILABILITY AND COST OF THE SITE MUST BE CONSIDERED. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. Hauaen: Discussed sites eliminated in a work session that were not included in the initial analysis, including a parcel at CSAH 42 & County Road 18, the Shepherd of the Lake Church which was part of an idea for a community center facility only, and a site by Pond's Edge which is the new Post Office site. Suggested adding the 5 acre parcel along CSAH 21 between Duluth Avenue and West Avenue to the list of sites to be considered. Zieska: Suggested that a subcommittee be appointed and charged with the job of reviewing the sites against the criteria identified. 10 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT February 18, 2003 Councilmembers concurred. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPOINT MAYOR HAUGEN AND COUNCILMEMBER LEMAIR TO THE CITY HALL / POLICE STATION / COMMUNITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT SUBCOMMITTEE. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing Payment to Scott County for Construction of CSAH 42 and CSAH 83 Improvements, City Project 02-01. McDermott: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report. Zieska: Asked what happens to the $300,000 that was saved on this project. McDermott: The money remains in the Construction Fund for future projects. Bovles: Explained that money such as the Construction Fund are funded by development fees and must be used for designated types of projects through which the funds were collected. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY LEMAIR, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 03.24 AUTHORIZING PAYMENT TO SCOTT COUNTY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF CSAH 42 AND CSAH 83 IMPROVEMENTS, CITY PROJECT 02-01. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. NEW BUSINESS Consider Approval of Report Regarding 50 Foot Versus 75 Foot Setback Requirements from the Ordinary High Water Mark (904'). Rve: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report, discussing the history of the setback ordinance, the rationale for the Planning Commission's recommendation that the 75 foot setback be reinstated which it was with the adoption of the new zoning ordinance in May 1999, compliance with DNR and state rules, and consistency in application of the ordinance. Concluded that there appear to be significant reasons to retain the 75 foot setback, although it is ultimately a police decision for the Council. LeMair: Asked if the City is required to abide by State standard for impervious surface and height, if we adopted the State standard for a 50 foot setback. Also asked what setbacks are on other area lakes. Rve: Clarified that if the idea is to be consistent as possible with the State standards, the Council may want to consider impervious surface and height as well. Believed the setbacks are different from community to community because of the structure of the lake and the level of development and land available. Petersen: Believed changing the setback just exchanges one set of issues for another. Noted that the Planning Commission strongly supports the 75 foot setback, because of lake creep, and the affects upon water quality. Blombera: Did not see any compelling reason to change the existing 75 foot setback standard. Rve: Commented that variances are typically only granted past the 75 feet if it means the lot is otherwise unbuildable. 11 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT February 18, 2003 Zieska: Supports the Planning Commission recommendation. Hauaen: Did not support an ordinance amendment at this time, but suggested staff take it to the Lake Advisory and Planning Commission as a discussion item for an informal recommendation. Zieska: Believed the issue is dead given the past viewpoints of the bodies. LeMair: Believed it important to gather all the information and have a full discussion. Blombera: Commented that additional information never hurts, but she is not inclined to change the setback. MOTION BY HAUGEN, SECOND BY PETERSEN, TO DIRECT STAFF TO TAKE THE ITEM TO THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND PLANNING COMMISSION AS A DISCUSSION ITEM FOR INFORMAL INPUT. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen and LeMair, Nay by Zieska, the motion carried. Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing Execution of a Labor Agreement between the City of Prior Lake and Teamsters Local #320 Representing Sergeants for the Period 2003-2005. Walsh: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report. MOTION BY LEMAIR, SECOND BY PETERSEN, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 03.25 RATIFYING THE 2003-2005 LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE AND TEAMSTERS PUBLIC AND LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL #320 REPRESENTING SERGEANTS. Hauaen: Commented that this contract appears to be consistent with other union contracts and is comparable to other similar cities. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. Consider Approval of 2003 Goals and Objectives. Bovles: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report. Petersen: Believed this is a very good set of goals, and very aggressive. LeMair: Concurred. Blombera: Asked if under City Financial Resources other programs would be analyzed as well as the Dance program. Bovles: The idea is that all programs will be evaluated similar to the review currently underway for the Dance program. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY LEMAIR, TO APPROVE 2003 CITY MANAGER / CITY STAFF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AS PROPOSED. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. 12 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT February 18, 2003 OTHER BUSINESS Zieska: Commented on the proposed State impacts by Governor Pawlenty upon city budgets. He understands that everyone must contribute to the solution, but it is irresponsible of the State to try to manage the funds of local governments, such as freezing employee salaries. Prior Lake has done a commendable job in managing its growth, and its budget, much better than the State appears to have done. Local elected officials are responsible to their constituents and the State has no right to mandate management of city funds. Hauaen: Added that even though cities will absorb some of the State budget shortfall, it is the job of cities and local elected officials to manage that growth. Also advised that Representative Beard and Senator Robling will be in attendance at the next meeting to make a formal presentation on the State budget shortfall. Executive Session to Discuss City Manager Compensation Package Zieska: Advised that the during the City Manager's formal review, the City Council indicated strong support for the accomplishments of Frank and his staff over the course of the past year. Added that there is Council consensus to increase the City Manager's salary under the guidelines similar to those for settled union contracts. Proposed a 3% increase to the base salary, a 1.3% market adjustment, and a $1700 deferred compensation contribution. Also recommended aligning his current contract with the calendar year which means extending it through December 31, 2003. LeMair: Thanked the City Manager for its efforts over the course of the past year, and congratulated him on the strides made. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY HAUGEN, TO APPROVE A 3% INCREASE TO THE BASE SALARY, A 1.3% ADJUSTMENT FOR MARKET, AND A $2500 DEFERRED COMPENSATION CONTRIBUTION, AND ALSO REALIGNING THE CITY MANAGER'S CONTRACT TERM WITH A CALEDAR YEAR WHICH MEANS EXTENDING THE CONTRACT THROUGH DECEMBER 31,2003. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. Frank Boyles, City Manager A motion to adjourn was made and seconded. The meeting adjourned at 11 :14pm. 13