Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 09 16 City Council Minutes 1 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES May 9, 2016 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Present were Mayor Hedberg, Councilors Keeney, Morton, McGuire and Thompson, City Manager Boyles, City Attorney Schwarzhoff, Assistant City Manager Olson, Finance Director Uram, City Engineer / Inspections Director Poppler, Public Works / Natural Resources Director Gehler, Community / Economic Development Director Rogness, Police Chief Elliott, Water Resources Engineer Young, and Executive Assistant Schroeder. PUBLIC FORUM City Manager Boyles reviewed the process for the public forum and explained that items sched- uled for public hearing or items for which a public hearing has been held but no final action taken, are not eligible for discussion on the public forum. Lloyd Erbaugh, 17291 Marshfield Lane: Stated he chairs the Economic Development Advisory Committee but these thoughts are his own point of view. Explained his concerns about the current Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) infestation that could affect the thousands of trees in Prior Lake. Ques- tioned when is the best time to do something with all of the trees over the next 20 years and when is the right time to act. Asked where the infestation in Prior Lake is and what is being done to con- tain EAB and remove the infested wood. Questioned if the City Council agrees that it is a good idea to spend $150,000 per year for 20 years. Questioned what is being done this year so the largest trees might survive. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION BY MCGUIRE, SECOND BY THOMPSON TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Thompson Aye ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ Nay ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Abstain ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Absent ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ The motion carried. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MOTION BY THOMPSON, SECOND BY MORTON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 25, 2016 REGULAR MEETING AS PRESENTED. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Thompson Aye ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ Nay ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Abstain ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Absent ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ The motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA City Manager Boyles reviewed the items on the consent agenda. DRAFT 05 09 16 City Council Meeting Minutes 2 A. Consider Approval of Claims Listing B. Consider Approval of a Resolution 16-059 Approving Forecast Adjustments by the Metro- politan Council in 2020, 2030 and 2040 with Respect to the SMSC Properties C. Consider Approval of a Resolution 16-060 Authorizing the Purchase of a Chassis for Unit #464 a Tandem Axle Dump Truck D. Consider Approval of an Ordinance 116-10 Amending Section 1102 of the Prior Lake City Code as Subsection 1102.1600, Expansion of a Nonconforming Restaurant Use E. Consider Approval of a Resolution 16-061 Approving a Contract for Animal Control Ser- vices for 2016-2019 and Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Enter into an Agree- ment with 4 Paws Animal Control Services LLC MOTION BY KEENEY, SECOND BY THOMPSON TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. Schwarzhoff: Stated agenda item 5E for the Animal Control Services Agreement will have some minor changes made to the contract regarding the insurance for the sole proprietor work that will be completed. Hedberg: Commented on item 5B for the Metropolitan Council Forecast Adjustments. Ex- plained the Metropolitan Council met Prior Lake and Shakopee staff and with the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SMSC) staff to reclassify the land owned by the SMSC so the forecasts would not show land for the city’s potential development. Stated there was a good out- come for Prior Lake forecast showing a reduction of 2,900 people and 1,000 household reduc- tions. Added the Metropolitan Council realized land owned by the SMSC is really outside the land use control of either city whether it is in fee status or trust status. Stated the Metropolitan Council also acknowledged that once the SMSC buys land they will not develop until it is in trust. The motion carried. PRESENTATIONS 6A Police Week Proclamation Chief Elliott presented on this topic dated May 9, 2016 Hedberg: Read the Police Week proclamation and declared May 15th to May 21st 2016 as Police Week in the City of Prior Lake. RECESS Hedberg declared a recess at 7:15 p.m. for the Spring Lake Township Board Supervisor Kelley, Supervisor Kowalski, Supervisor Berens, and Clerk Nielsen to reconfigure the dais for the joint public hearing with the City Council and Spring Lake Township. RECONVENE Hedberg reconvened the meeting at 7:19 p.m. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Thompson Aye ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ Nay ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Abstain ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Absent ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ DRAFT 05 09 16 City Council Meeting Minutes 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS 7A Public Hearing for Revisions to City Code 703 Public Waters Relating to Water Surface Use Management Public Works / Natural Resources Director Gehler and Water Resources Engineer Young presented on this topic dated May 9, 2016 Hedberg: Asked if he takes someone waterskiing from the shoreline of his home is it permitted to head straight out through the 150’ zone. Gehler: Answered it is permitted as long as you are taking the most direct route. Hedberg: Suggested that since the public input received to date suggests that the most conten- tious proposed change is the limitation of high bow operation south of Twin Island that the public hearing focus upon that topic first. Asked if anyone objects to that suggestion. MOTION BY MCGUIRE, SECOND BY THOMPSON TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:34 P.M. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Thompson Kelley Berens Kowalski Aye ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ Nay ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Abstain ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Absent ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ The motion carried. Christopher Crowhurst, 1918 Lakeview Drive: Stated he is in support of everything besides the controversial issue since he lives on Spring Lake. Explained he is an active and passive user of Spring Lake but frequently he finds himself and his family in danger while being passive users on numerous days throughout the year. Believed the introduction of the 150’ no wake zone should create a safety route for passive users, simpler to enforce since it will mirror Prior Lake. Stated it is a shame that regulation is necessary and that there is only a 150’ area for passive people to en- joy the water but he will take that over nothing. Explained in 2014 the rising waters affected his home and lake users both passive and active did not consider how the slightest wakes affected their home. Stated it took too long to introduce no wake restrictions on Spring Lake so the intro- duction of consistent and automatic regulation when the water reaches the high water mark is common sense. Suggested a majority of current boat users may not even know the speed limit so the proposed regulations will bring clarity and simplification for both of the lakes and law enforce- ment. Asked that sense, logic, and fact rather than emotion drive us forward and thanked the WSUM Taskforce for the opportunity to be heard. Kirt Briggs, 14914 Lori Road SE: Stated he applauds the ordinance changes to bring con- sistency across Prior Lake, Spring Lake, and state law. Explained he is in opposition to the bow- high regulation. Believed any change made in one lake will create a ripple effect in other bodies of water driving activity to other areas of Prior Lake or Spring Lake. Stated that enforcement issue will draw on our already finite law enforcement resources to the end of the lake where calls are not coming in and the ordinance will stretch the resources. Concluded that he does not support any ordinance regulating sustained bow-high. Chris Short, 3442 Sycamore Trail: Stated he has 130’ of lakeshore where the retaining wall has fallen down and his family cannot fish on their floating dock without being tipped over from boat waves. Explained on a windy day between his property and the DNR access there may be ten boats going back and forth at a time but he does not believe people understand how the traffic in the narrow area causes danger. Concluded he does not like to see an ordinance put in place but hopes it will make boat users think about their speed. DRAFT 05 09 16 City Council Meeting Minutes 4 Tom Quinn, 1796 Spring Lake Circle, Jordan: Stated he is a resident of Spring Lake and does not want to see any ordinances on that lake; he is not in favor for the 150’ restriction on Spring Lake but he understands the concerns others have and he can live with the restriction. Stated an- other concern of his are the buoys. Asked who regulates the buoy process and who will monitor the buoy permits because there are some buoys out already that are almost interfering with the ski course. Concluded he is in favor of the no wake zone during high water. Nick Modders, 3598 Willow Beach Street: Stated he lives south of Twin Isles since 1974 and has seen many things happen on Prior Lake. Explained the bow-high boats can provide a lot of enjoyment for others but as he watches the entertainment on his patio, he sees how the waves affect the docks. Stated he is surprised that the Willow Beach Association docks are still intact. Suggested if boat users could see what they are doing, they would understand the impact the waves have and go to a bigger part of the lake. Noted his appreciation to the task force and hopes the presented ordinance passes as is. Jeff Petschl, 3856 Green Heights Trail SW: Stated he owns other properties located at 3859 Green Heights Trail SW, 3950 Green Heights Trail SW, 3915 Green Heights Trail SW, and Lot 7 Green Heights First Addition all on or across the street from upper Prior Lake. Believes the pro- posed restrictions are complaint driven from others observations and are not based on Prior Lake Research and measurements. Stated there is no research, evidence or science to support the or- dinance and it would be irresponsible for the City, Township and DNR to pass an ordinance with- out evidence. Noted that the report from the WSUM Taskforce states the word education over 30 times but the taskforce is not going to provide education. Stated concerns regarding implementa- tion and enforcement of the 150’ marker buoys on a current restriction. Asked why are there going to be more rules if the current rules cannot even be enforced. Added that Prior Lake is one of the top 10 busiest lakes in Minnesota according to the Prior Lake Association information and there is a shockingly low number of citations on Prior Lake. Added that according to the final report there is only one sheriff occasionally supplemented by temporary employees for all of Scott County lakes and rivers. Asked how the new restrictions with be publicized and enforced. Stated these restrictions are just going to crowd other parts of the lake. Concluded it is the property owner’s re- sponsibility to maintain and improve their property. Provided his points on paper. Jeff Young, 16270 Park Ave SE: Agreed with Petschl’s points. Stated he has lived on Prior Lake for 39 years and in his youth would ride the whole shoreline south of Twin Isle almost every day. Explained this is nothing new, instead wake boarding and surfing is just getting more popular. Asked why that shoreline is any different from the other areas of the lake because it is not a spe- cial area. Noted he lives between Wagon Bridge and Charlie’s on Prior which has a lot of traffic. Stated as long as boaters are 150’ away it should be uniform around the lake. Agreed it is the property owner’s responsibility to maintain their shoreline. Mike Myser, 3857 Island View Circle NW: Explained he has been a lakeshore owner for 13 years where he and his family are an active users of the lake skiing, wakeboarding, tubing, and wake surfing. Stated they are also passive users of the lake fishing, kayaking, swimming, floating and paddle boarding. Added he dives to clean up the lake and worked for better water quality. Stated he has had to redo the shoreline twice, once in 2004 when they bought the property then again in 2013 because the shoreline needed some maintenance now due to the 2014 floods they will have to fix the shoreline again. Noted he likes to make decisions on fact and reason rather than emotion and desire. Stated he was a member of the taskforce and thanked the Nielsen, Geh- ler, and Young for their work. Agreed with the bow-high ordinance based on facts. Believed that current rules are dated and since things change over time rules should be modified. Stated there are boat laws which hold the boat user responsible for the wake that comes off their boat. Ex- plained how the wake comes off different from all kinds of boats and how they are loaded. Ques- tioned that these characteristics make the boats very different and should they be treated the same? Stated that he does not believe all the things that affect the shorelines are being consid- ered such as storms, flooding, construction, and traffic patterns. Explained some shorelines on Prior Lake do not have any protection so they are eroding as well as incorrectly installed walls DRAFT 05 09 16 City Council Meeting Minutes 5 eroding into the lake. Explained that proper construction is possible but shorelines do need maintenance and it is the property owner’s responsibility. Noted in 2014 they had a no wake zone almost the whole year and he saw more paddle boarders, swimmers, and kayakers. Explained this observation makes him in favor of viewing ordinance amendments because the active users may not have realized their influence on passive users. Stated as a member of taskforce there was very strong disagreement on the restriction due to there being no evidence on the erosion. Added the reason you are getting the backlash is that the rules are not supported by facts. Con- cluded we owe it to our community to make policy decisions based on facts, to consider the rights of all, the responsibility of all and the consequences of our decision. Dave LaPorte, 16264 Lakeside Ave SE: Stated he is in opposition to the artificial sustained bow- high part of the ordinance. Explained he has lived on the lake for 20 years between Charlie’s on Prior and Wagon Bridge and had his shoreline rebuilt four times. Added he understands that peo- ple use the lake differently and he uses the lake for recreation. Stated his biggest concern is the fact there is no research regarding who has erosion issues from the boat waves and who does not. Noted when he sees the high waves it can be concerning but he does not believe the pre- sented restricted area is more important than another area on the lake. Stated it will push traffic to other areas and there needs to be more research and facts that can be statistically drawn to prove the need for this ordinance. Mike Blair, 4257 Coachman Lane NE: Stated the taskforce made a change from the document from the last meeting regarding that tubes were not excluded but if you tow children you are not going that fast so the bow is up high. Added if a boater is towing children, normally they do not go fast so the boat is bow-high which is inconsistent with the point of the ordinance. Explained edu- cation is important because skiers should be in 15’ of water which is not near the proposed re- stricted area. Dan Hoffman, 16220 Lakeside Ave SE: Commented that he is against the bow-high restriction and supports what Petschal, Young and LaPorte stated. Liz Weninger, 2591 Spring Lake Road: Stated she is a member and chair of the Lakes Advisory Committee. Explained a story of someone on the lake who had to rescue a family from a fishing boat that capsized from a wakeboard boat. Added she is concerned about the amount of back- wash that has phosphorus and dirt that gets into the lakes from the waves, which affects the qual- ity of the lakes. Mike Thibaolt, 16013 Northwood Road: Noted he is a 17-year Prior Lake resident, a member of a lake association, president of the 60-year old Prior Lake Water Ski Association which owns two lots on Twin Island slalom course on Prior Lake and the slalom jump on Spring Lake. Stated he was on the WSUM Taskforce and he is opposed to the bow-high restriction because there is no science that shows boat traffic affects erosion. Noted the MN Supreme Court in 1900 had great foresight “such restrictions are a great wrong to the public for all time; the extend for which cannot perhaps be now anticipated, the rights of property owners in and to public waters are subordinate to the public uses thereof.” Explained some individuals on the taskforce had a desire to restrict boating in the shallow waters in Spring Lake because the traffic had an effect on the alum treat- ment so the boats should be restricted from those waters. Stated scientists were brought in which clarified boating does not affect alum treatment and no action was better than taking any action. Asked if it is better to move traffic to a more concentrated area creating even larger areas of con- cern. Talked about the law against sustained artificial bow-high restriction is ambiguous because to enforce this an officer would have to be conducting a warrantless search which will cause needless attorney fees and wasted time litigating a law that will surely be challenged in court. Stated there is no legal definition that he can find with the word sustained or bow-high. Ques- tioned how long is sustained, is it 10 feet, 100 yards, or time so how is that measured? Explained any boat that is on planing is legal regardless of the size of its weight. Asked how the sheriff is go- ing to know if the boat is above their ballast without going on the boat. Stated a riparian right arises from owning shoreline where one can boat, hunt and swim. Quoted the MN Supreme Court regarding riparian rights “if such public waters are disturbed beyond their natural condition by the DRAFT 05 09 16 City Council Meeting Minutes 6 general public in the exercise of the right of common usage, neither a riparian owner nor other common user has a legal remedy to prevent the same.” Stated the use of the water can be regu- lated but cannot prevent usage on the lake. Concluded by asking how many lakes in the state have this restriction. Randy Bladwin, 2535 Spring Lake Road: Stated he agrees with the no wake when the water reaches the high water mark but does not agree with any of the other rules. Explained since the two lakes are separate lakes they do not have to have the same rules. Added he never had an is- sue with his daughters swimming in Spring Lake and feels if there are any issues it is in the mid- dle of the lake where multiple boats are passing each other. Stated enforcement on Spring Lake is low compared to Prior Lake where county already cannot handle the full enforcement that is needed for current laws. Explained it is not the sheriff’s job to measure and move buoys; he knows some owners who move them out on the weekend and move them back in during the week. Believed people on the taskforce had their own agenda. Agreed that property owners need to maintain their own shoreline and if it is eroding they have not taken care of it properly. Joe Selle, 2615 Spring Lake Road: Stated he does not believe a specific boat type causes the issues because with his ski boat can create a big wake when pulling his children. Believed the 150’ no wake is just common courtesy and the buoys are not needed. Added property owners shoreline is their responsibility because all types of waves are constant which requires constant maintenance. Concluded that he is in favor of the high water no wake portion of the ordinance. Darcy Running, 3217 Butternut Circle: Commented that he is in favor of the ordinance for bow- high restrictions. Stated he does not want to limit people from having fun but asks boaters to con- sider the multiple waves coming into the shore hour after hour each day. Explained the erosion in his part of the lake is bad from the algae. Jim Weninger, 2591 Spring Lake Road: Noted he has been on the lake 69 years and waves are part of operating boats on a lake. Explained in years past he had driven around a fishing boat and it caused one of the fisherman to fall out of the boat; boaters need to learn how their waves affect others around them. Noted on holiday weekends the lakes get very busy and even on calm days the waves are non-stop. Stated the ordinance will help to educate and regulate people because there will be more boats and more traffic as the years go on. Suggested the County Commission- ers who control the budget should look into getting more sheriffs to regulate the lakes. Concluded that he enjoyed how the lake used to be but things change and the lakes need to be taken care of. Jeff Zawn, 820 6th Street, Faribault: Stated he does not live on the lake but he is a wake boarder who would like to purchase shoreline property. Explained if the bow-high law is passed, there is no way he will buy a home on this lake and this is something that property owners need to con- sider. Suggested there just be a no wake in the specific area instead of a new rule that affects the entire lake. Chuck Miller, 14897 Manitou Rd NE: Asked for clarification on where the bow-high restriction is proposed. Stated he found research from 2002 that showed in a large channel wave’s account for 2-5% of the erosion of energy hitting the shore for a year in a narrow channel wave’s account for 95-95% hitting the shore and eroding it. Explained a 2.5 centimeter wave causes no erosion, 25 centimeters is now 5 times more destructive, and a 62.5 centimeters which is a typical wake for a non-plaining boat is 30 times more destructive when it hits the shore. Suggested this can be en- forced by the sheriff standing in the shore with a yardstick to see how high the wake is from a passing boat; this would be a way to measure the wave. Eric Easton, 4255 Grainwood Circle NE: Explained his boat was designed to have a high bow and asked if that will be held against him. Noted he respects those who are in favor of this bow- high ordinance but there are things that can be done such as purchasing a higher dock for the waves to go underneath or buying property that does not have as much wave action. Concluded that if a change is made it should not take away from the majority. Mark Overbye 587 Vista Ridge, Shakopee: Noted he owns Gekko which is a ski boat company and he is the Vice President on the USA Water Ski Foundation Board and a member of the Water DRAFT 05 09 16 City Council Meeting Minutes 7 Sports Industry Association. Stated he appreciates those who talk about the erosion and ruined docks but the reality is you cannot outlaw stupidity and the lack of respect. Suggested education for the current rules. Explained he went to San Diego, California where MIT students studied wave energy data regarding wake board boats and ski boats on how the waves affect erosion and property. Stated the evidence showed a breaking wave produced by wake and ski boats dissi- pates 50% faster than a rolling wave which is a wind driven wave or waves produced by stern drives like pontoons. Added a few years ago in Wisconsin they studied a similar issue on a small lake. Explained that this study found out 5% of the shoreline owners had wake or ski boats; they had a two million dollar impact upon the local economy. Stated he did not know what the dollar amount would be for Prior Lake but he guesses it would be higher than ten million. Concluded when you pass a law that people do not like, they will just go somewhere else which will cause property value decline. Eric Castro, 3559 Willow Beach Trail: Stated he is against the bow-high restriction. Explained he is on the W illow Beach Association Board and is not aware of any issue related to the docks or the waves. Stated the water quality is critical to this economy and he cannot see how this rule does anything but hurt that. Noted that the erosion on the lake is very important and the methods used to break waves and following the DNR rules states to avoid walls. Added an ordinance like this can encourage poor practice from people who do not agree with it. Jim Dolbe, 4251 Quaker Trail NE: Commented that the lake is the city’s best commodity and passing this ordinance will hurt property values which will hurt the taxes for the city as well. Ex- plained he knows many of the shoreline owners and they are all responsible. Noted it is people who do not live on the lake creating the issues so it boils down to education. Stated he opposes the bow-high ordinance because it is not in favor of what the majority requests. Chad Shoemocker, 3509 Basswood Circle: Explained he has lived here for 12 years and he and his family use the lake five to six times a week. Stated he is opposed to a bow-high regulation as it discriminates against certain boat owners. Dustin Berck, 14170 Enso Court, Apple Valley: Stated the only reason he comes to Prior Lake is to wake board while he is here he stimulates the economy but if the bow-high ordinance is passed he will no longer come to this area because he will not be able to wake board. Doug Johnson, 5458 Fairland Shores Trail: Noted he opposes the bow-high ordinance be- cause if this passes there will be another section next year and another the year after that until the whole lake is a no wake zone. Stated he feels like wakeboard boats are the low hanging fruit and it does not solve the issue of excessive traffic because there are other boats who make laps and circles. Added lakeshore owners need to take responsibility for their shoreline. Concluded he lives on the lake following the DNR guidelines for the three to one ratio of riprap and does not have an issue with erosion. Nick Budro, 5416 Manor Road SE: Stated he is a passive user of the lake who paddle boards and he agrees with the others who are in favor of the bow-high ordinance. Bret Anderson, 3518 Basswood Circle: Explained he has been a part of the Willow Beach As- sociation; his experience determined wind generated waves are much harder than the boat waves. Stated he maintains the docks and the budget. Noted the way boats are made is changing and if this is passed in the next couple of years the ordinance will need to be changed again since it will no longer be relevant. Nick Waglagner, 10301 Cedar Lake Road, Minnetonka: Stated he knows people who have specifically moved to this area from out of Minnesota because of the lakes and placing a specific way to drive one’s boat will deter people away. Explained a boat can still cause large wakes with- out being bow-high by people piling in the boat. John Vice, 15568 Skyline Ave NW: Explained he moved here from Texas and Prior Lake was the go to spot but if you start to make many regulations it will become less attractive. Stated he grew up on the Mississippi River and having to maintain the shoreline on your property is part of being a shoreline owner. DRAFT 05 09 16 City Council Meeting Minutes 8 Mike Thibaolt, 16013 Northwood Road NW: Stated he is in favor of the higher water levels and providing more education. Added he is opposed to the towable restriction through the no wake channels because it makes it impossible for those living in such areas to tow people out. Stated he is also opposed to the 150’ wake zone on Spring Lake because most of the docks go out that far and why would a person want a buoy that close to their dock? MOTION BY MCGUIRE, SECOND BY THOMPSON TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:11 P.M. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Thompson Kelley Berens Kowalski Aye ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ Nay ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Abstain ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Absent ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ The motion carried. Keeney: Stated Prior Lake is special because it is recreational area. Explained he takes pride when driving past Highway 13 and seeing the snowmobile tracks and he likes watching the activ- ity on the lake. Stated when the City Council is asked to pass an ordinance it is when there is some type of conflict between residents. Believed the taskforce hit this on the head with the need for education and simple reminders to boaters. Stated ordinances are tough to enforce but just the discussion of this proposed ordinance has provided education and raised awareness. Stated it is not a good idea to make an ordinance at one part of the lake which will create other areas of the lake to erupt in complaints. Noted he is not in favor of the bow-high restriction. Concluded he does not want to be the person to resolve the conflicts when it is just courtesy that will accomplish the same thing. Thompson: Asked if you live in a no wake zone she thought you can pull a tuber out as long as you go directly straight out of the no wake zone. Todd Beck, Scott County Deputy: Answered that you can tow out from the 150’ shoreline zone but under the proposed regulation you would not be able to tow through a marked slow no-wake zone. McGuire: Stated he is concerned about the bow-high restrictions in a specific location and agrees this will just bring back people next year living in a different area. Morton: Explained she does not live or boat on the lake but when she was looking over the report she realized this is giving preferential treatment to one group of homeowners. Added she would not support the bow-high restriction. Berens: Stated there is consensus in favor of the 912.8 no wake restriction on Spring and he was on the board when the City passed the no wake restriction so having that ordinance in place will be beneficial. Explained most people on the lake are courteous and stay away from the docks but he thinks that staying away from the docks should be a statewide rule. Stated he does not see the harm in enforcing the 150’ no wake zone. Kelley: Asked if the slalom course needs to be outside of the 150’ zone like the ski jump. Gehler: Replied yes the ski jump and the course would be outside the 150’ zone. Kelley: Stated he has lived here for 23 years and the lake belongs to everyone. Believed the time has come for some regulation and the 150’ ban around the lake would satisfy the passive and ac- tive users. Added the boats are now faster and bigger than they used to be and there are more people coming to the lake who do not have a stake. Concluded that he is in favor of the 150’ no wake zone and the rest of the ordinance for Spring Lake. Kowalski: Stated no one really said anything about the speed change for Spring Lake because everyone was so concentrated on the bow-high. Added he does not like any ordinance but if the lake is getting busy and the taskforce believes that adding a 40 mph speed limit on weekends is DRAFT 05 09 16 City Council Meeting Minutes 9 appropriate he agrees with them. Stated he agrees with the 150’ no wake zone and the high water no wake is a given. Concluded what the taskforce has drafted for Spring Lake is good. Kelley: Explained the buoys are not mandatory and he hopes with the 150’ no wake zone people will not put out buoys as the cost and maintenance can become cumbersome. Hedberg: Stated people are erratic on how the buoys are placed on Prior Lake but they are used to keep boaters out of the 150’ zone. Questioned the City’s responsibility on Prior Lake. Stated this question has lead him to believe the City does not have a good place to enforce ordinances on the lake due to the resources available for enforcement but also how does the City decide if a violation has even occurred. Stated he cannot support portions of the ordinance for those rea- sons. Explained the City is responsible for water quality, access, and safety. Water quality is criti- cal and the City shares that burden with the Watershed. Access to this regional resource is criti- cal given that it is the third most popular in the area and mentioned as the top 10 in the stat. , The City needs to maintain safety regarding boating DUIs, speeding, and unsafe operation, all of which are barely enforced due to our lack of resources. Noted the City does not have any life- guards on the beaches for eight years and he thinks that is an issue for safe access to the lake. Stated these are the City’s high priorities but until the City has greater enforcement in place he cannot support taking on additional obligations. Explained he agrees with his fellow councilors that there should not be restrictions on a certain portion of the lake. Concluded the City should not pass the bow-high restriction since there are not resources to enforce it and this needs to be re- searched on a broader level. Asked the city attorney to clarify which motion is being made by the council at this meeting. Schwarzhoff: Suggested the Township Board only votes on the Spring Lake ordinance and the City Council should make any amendments to the ordinance for Spring Lake and Prior Lake then direct staff to send the ordinance to the DNR for their review. MOTION BY BERENS, SECOND BY KOWALSKI DIRECTING STAFF TO SUBMIT THE OR- DIANCE AS IT IS PREPARED TO THE DNR FOR SPRING LAKE. VOTE Kelley Berens Kowalski Aye ☒ ☒ ☒ Nay ☐ ☐ ☐ Abstain ☐ ☐ ☐ Absent ☐ ☐ ☐ The motion carried. MOTION BY MCGUIRE, SECOND KEENEY BY TO REMOVE SECTION 703.502 REMOVING THE BOW-HIGH RESTRICTION AND DIRECT STAFF TO SUBMIT THE REMAINDER OF THE- ORDINANCE TO THE DNR. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Thompson Aye ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ Nay ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Abstain ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Absent ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ The motion carried. Hedberg: Complimented the staff of the township and city for putting the joint public hearing to- gether as well as the taskforce for assisting with pulling together all of the information. Keeney: Stated the snowmobile club takes it upon themselves to educate fellow snowmobilers. Suggested the avid skiers, club presidents and leaders educate other lake users and lakeshore owners to make it more enjoyable for everyone. DRAFT 05 09 16 City Council Meeting Minutes 10 RECESS Hedberg declared a recess at 9:35 p.m. for the Spring Lake Township Board to exit the chambers after the joint public hearing with the City Council. RECONVENE Hedberg reconvened the meeting at 9:39 p.m. Hedberg: Asked Boyles if anything can be deferred to a future meeting. Boyles: Responded the only item that can be delayed is 8a because agenda items 9A, 9B, and 9C need to be addressed at this City Council meeting. MOTION BY MCGUIRE, SECOND BY THOMPSON TO DEFERAGENDA ITEM 8A CONSID- ERING THE APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT POLICY REGARDING STREET RECLAMATION AND OVERLAY IMPROVEMENTS TO A FU- TURE MEETING. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Thompson Aye ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ Nay ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Abstain ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Absent ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ The motion carried. OLD BUSINESS 8A Consider Approval of a Resolution Amending the Special Assessment Policy Regarding Street Reclamation and Overlay Improvements NEW BUSINESS 9A Consider Approval of a Resolution Establishing a Private Activity Revenue Bond Policy Community / Economic Development Director Rogness and Finance Director Uram pre- sented on this topic dated May 09, 2016 MOTION BY THOMPSON, SECOND BY KEENEY TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 16-062 ESTAB- LISHING A PRIVATE ACTIVITY REVENUE BOND POLICY AND ORDIANCE 116-11 REVISING THE CITY’S OFFICAL FEE SCHEDULE WITH THE PUBLICATION OF THIS ORDINANCE. Keeney: Stated the EDA reviewed that the previous number in our fee schedule did not have a basis and there was not any provisions to refund or refinance bonds. Added this is another way to attract projects with very low cost. Hedberg: Commented that these are conduit bonds so the bonds are not affecting the debt level nor the full faith and credit of the city. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Thompson Aye ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ Nay ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Abstain ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Absent ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ The motion carried. DRAFT 05 09 16 City Council Meeting Minutes 11 9B Consider Approval of a Resolution Providing for the Issuance and Sale of $3,825,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2016A, Pledging for the Security Thereof Net Revenues and Special Assessments and Levying a Tax for the Payment Thereof Finance Director Uram reviewed the report on this topic dated May 09, 2016 MOTION BY MCGUIRE, SECOND BY THOMPSON TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 16-063 PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $3,505,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2016A, PLEDGING FOR THE SECURITY THEREOF NET REVENUES AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND LEVYING A TAX FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF Thompson: Asked if the refunding for the water treatment plant extends the repayment period. Uram: Answered that it does not extend it, it is a crossover refunding at a lower interest rate. Added in 2015 the City did a partial refunding now the City is just refunding the final portion of the water treatment debt. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Thompson Aye ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ Nay ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Abstain ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Absent ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ The motion carried. 9C Consider Approval of a Resolution Approving an Amendment to the 2030 Comprehen- sive Plan Regarding Sub-Area D in the Planned Use District Community / Economic Development Director Rogness reviewed the report on this topic dated May 09, 2016 Hedberg: Questioned if this requires a super majority vote. MOTION BY MORTON, SECOND BY THOMPSON TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 16-064 AP- PROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REGARDING SUB- AREA D IN THE PLANNED USE DISTRICT Thompson: Asked where all the trees went. Rogness: Responded that the tree preservation areas will be presented to the City Council for a later review. Stated they are preserving trees along the parcel edges and in some pocket areas then further east the preservation will continue along the townhomes. Added there is no preserva- tion along the single family because of the grading needed along the lots. Stated it is different from the original PUD. Hedberg: Stated most of the trees in that area are not high quality trees. Noted this agenda item does require a super majority vote of 4-1 or better. Keeney: Commented that the lack of access is not desirable for the 25% commercial develop- ment which the guiding originally provided. Added there are nearby commercial sites that have not sold so he agrees with the analysis that demand does not seem to be present to develop com- mercial in this area. Hedberg: Stated the City Council needs to focus our commercial development in more con- densed areas. Morton: Asked if Savage is going to be the feeder system into this community. DRAFT 05 09 16 City Council Meeting Minutes 12 Rogness: Responded the area formerly known as Summit Preserve can be serviced by Prior Lake’s sewer and water. Stated the area further north may have to be served by Savage but be- cause of the change from commercial to residential may allow our systems to serve the property further north. Morton: Questioned if the City pipes already jumped over Highway 42. Rogness: Answered no and a developer funded water booster would be installed together with those pipes. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Thompson Aye ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ Nay ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Abstain ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Absent ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ The motion carried. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA No Items Removed from the Consent Agenda OTHER BUSINESS / COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS No Other Business / Councilmember Reports ADJOURNMENT With no further business brought before the Council, a motion was made by Morton and seconded Thompson by to adjourn. The motion carried and the meeting adjourned at 10:07 p.m. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Thompson Aye ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ Nay ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Abstain ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Absent ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ The motion carried. ________________________________ Frank Boyles, City Manager