Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes October 17, 2005 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 City Council Meeting Minutes October 17, 2005 Draft REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES October 17,2005 CALL TO ORDER: Present were Mayor Haugen, Councilmembers Fleming, LeMair, Petersen and Zieska, City Manager Boyles, City Attorney Pace, Public Works Director/City Engineer Albrecht, Assistant City Engineer Poppler, Planning Director Kansier, Finance Director Teschner, Assistant to the City Manager Meyer and Administrative Assistant Green. Eagle Scouts Alex Larson, John Spies and Thomas Walsh from Troop 331; and Jake Howard and Breagan Shoquist from Troop 339 opened the Council meeting by Calling and Presenting the Colors and leading the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Haugen presented each of them with a certificate of recognition for their Eagle Scout achievement. 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. Boyles: Reviewed the concept of the Public Forum. No one chose to speak. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION BY LEMAIR, SECONDED BY ZIESKA TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Fleming, LeMair, Petersen and Zieska. The motion carried. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY FLEMING TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 3, 2005, MEETING MINUTES AS PRESENTED. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Fleming, LeMair, Petersen and Zieska. The motion carried. 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 Control Monthly Report. E. Consider Approval of Monthly and Third Quarter Fire Call Report. F. Consider Approval of Third Quarter Budget Report. G. Consider Approval of 2005 Third Quarter Investment Report. H. Consider Approval of: 1. Resolution 05.168 Adopting the National Incident Management System as the Standard for Incident Man- agement; and 2. Resolution 05.169 Adopting, Recognizing and Promoting the Establishment and Utilization of Intrastate Mutual Aid Agreements. I. Consider Approval of Resolution 05-170 Approving the Common Interest Community Number 1160 (Grey- stone Industrial Condominiums) CIC Plat. J. Consider Approval of Ordinance Amendment 105.23 Amending Section 202 of Prior Lake City Code Regard- ing the Planning Advisory Commission. MOTION BY LEMAIR, SECONDED BY ZIESKA TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Fleming, LeMair, Petersen and Zieska. The motion carried. www.cityofpriorlake.com 1 Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 City Council Meeting Minutes October 17, 2005 Draft PUBLIC HEARINGS: Special Assessment Hearing for 2005 Improvement Projects 05-01 and 05-11 Fish Point Road, Fairlawn Shores Trail, Bluedorn Circle, Candy Cove Trail, and Centennial Street Improvement, and Consider Approval of a Resolu- tion Adopting the Assessment Roll for the Project. Assistant City Engineer Poppler commented on issues heard from residents about special assessments prior to the meeting and displayed maps of areas involved in the projects. He reported on the status of the projects and explained the assess- ment rates. The assessments must be certified and to Scott County by November 30 so residents have an opportunity to payoff their assessments interest-free. City Manager Boyles read the addresses of residents who submitted letters appeal- ing special assessments. 1. 5393 150th Street SE 2. 5409 150th Street SE 3. 15223 Bluedorn Circle SE 4. 15228 Bluedorn Circle SE 5. 15235 Bluedorn Circle SE 6. 15761 Candy Cove Trail SE 7. 15822 Candy Cove Trail SE 8. 5344 Centennial Street SE 9. 5358 Centennial Street SE 10. 5366 Centennial Street SE 11. 5375 Centennial Street SE 12. 5400 Centennial Street SE 13. 5401 Centennial Street SE 14. 5366 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE 15. 5378 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE 16. 5414 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE 17. 5420 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE 18. 5426 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE 19. 5432 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE 20. 5438 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE 21. 5443 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE 22. 5450 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE 23. 5458 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE 24. 5461 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE 25. 5470 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE 26. 5485 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE 27. 5515 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE 28. 5533 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE 29. 5553 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE 30. 5560 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE 31. 5580 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE 32. 5610 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE 33. 5620 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE 34. 5630 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE 35. 5650 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE 36. 5714 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE 37. 5724 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE 38. 15141 Fish Point Road SE 39. 15142 Fish Point Road SE 2 _..----..._.~_-----....".,---.......,.'--~;._,.~',-"".~ .." City Council Meeting Minutes October 17, 2005 Draft 40. 15157 Fish Point Road SE 41. 15207 Fish Point Road SE 42. 15215 Fish Point Road SE 43. 15228 Fish Point Road SE 44. 15314 Fish Point Road SE 45. 15362 Fish Point Road SE 46. 15365 Fish Point Road SE 47. 15370 Fish Point Road SE Comments: Haugen: Asked Poppler to comment on issues of driveway removals and 150th Street sidewalks since they are not part of the assessment hearing. Poppler: Noted that the assessment review committee went over the driveway guidelines and attempted to reduce confu- sion by changing the guidelines for residents who wished to replace their entire driveway by having the City remove up to 50 feet of a driveway and the resident be responsible for replacing the entire driveway. He stated that the 150th sidewalk project was bid with the reconstruction project to get better prices since the same contractor could complete the work. Driveways and grading on 150th were treated differently and it was funded by the Capital Park Fund, rather than being as- sessable. leMair: Asked how closely the work is being completed to the original schedule. Poppler: Replied that it is completely different than the original plan. leMair: Noted that utilities caused problems with scheduling and asked who is responsible for that. Poppler: Stated that three separate utilities went underground with one bore rather than three separate borings. It caused delays when the utilities found funding to bury all of the electric. . leMair: Asked if there was a way to prevent that in the future. Poppler: Replied that the utilities were aware of the City project scheduling, and noted that the utility companies encoun- tered asbestos piping and had to call in a special crew. Finance Director Teschner went over financial aspects of a special assessment hearing and informed of the manner that interest is accrued on assessments that are not paid immediately and different options for payment of the assessment. Advised that there is a deferred assessment policy which allows delay of payment of assessment. Suggested residents contact their tax advisor to verify that the reconstruction assessments may be tax deductible. Displayed amortization schedule for residents who would choose to make annual payments over a ten year period. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY FLEMING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Fleming, LeMair, Petersen and Zieska. The motion carried. The public hearing opened at 7:41 p.m. Jason & Jane Fier (15141 Fish Point Rd) stated they have not received the added value to their house as they had paving and storm sewer prior to assessment and the only addition is curb and gutter. Eric & Marijo Thomforde (15157 Fish Point Rd) stated that the gross cost of the project and what they received from it did not add the value to their home. Believes that not assessing residents on Flint Road was not properly explained. Bill & Lisa Palmer (5461 Fairlawn Shores Trail) understanding of state statue says they can only be assessed for the amount of value added to home and believe they did not have $7,728 value added to home. AI & Rose Kocher (54000 Centennial Street SE) Stated they would have asked for sidewalk on their street if it wasn't go- ing to be assessed as for the residents on 150th Street. People on Centennial did not have power lines buried. His property has power lines buried and has power lines over driveway that are low enough that roof replacement trucks would not be able to get shingles to the roof. Stated that Centennial Street residents signed a petition that they didn't want the road and that maintenance was not too high. Heard the City is selling road grader and stated residents could have bid on it and maintained the road themselves. Stated the City Council is supposed to listen to people who voted them in. 3 City Council Meeting Minutes October 17, 2005 Draft Burnsville. Stated she was under stress the whole summer and thought the City "bit off more than it could chew" with these projects. Jan and Jack Witkowski (15365 Fish Point Road) are being charged for two units. Have not subdivided their property and do not plan to. Part of the property is a swamp and, with curbing, more drainage will make the swamp bigger and less likely to ever be subdivided. Stated that property had lake access, but utility boxes block access to the lake which is a detriment to the property value. Spoke of inconveniences of construction. Zieska: Asked for clarification of placement of boxes. Witkowski: Replied there are three boxes on the access and it is detrimental to property. Loren Bartelt (15370 Fish Point Road) stated right of way is several feet into their yard. Commented that Flint Trail is not being assessed and receives benefit. Commented on speeders in the neighborhood including trucks on the projects. Rodney Dahlenburg (5344 Centennial Street) bought property in 2002 because it was on a gravel road and bounded by trees; now he can see and hear Hwy 13. Stated it is disturbing that City would allow that number of trees to be removed. He considers the value of his home decreased because he lost the atmosphere that he moved here for. Also stated the drainage will now go across the driveway because it is below the curb level. Stated that emergency access was not main- tained during construction. Does not believe that anyone on Centennial received increase in value because of lost atmos- phere and it is now a noisy street where it was quiet before. Greg McClenahan (5212 Hope Street) stated two years ago his street went through same reconstruction as Centennial. Urged Council to change policy so gravel roads don't have to bear 100% of the improvements. Considers that roads that were put in by private developers are just as expensive to reconstruct so cost should be bome the same by everyone. . Pat Choquette (15228 Bluedorn Circle) objects to amount and method of assessment. Asked about the work that was planned and did not happen such as three houses receiving water off Bluedom and not participating in the assessment; and trees that were taken down in the neighborhood followed by the crew determining the work could not be done. Stated his home was appraised and he did not agree with the comparables used and does not believe he will get $7,800 of increased value in his home. Bob Schaefer (15223 Bluedom Circle) commented that when payment of assessments are due, schedules are adhered to; but construction didn't stay on schedule and is not even completed so questioned why assessments should be paid before the project is finished. When streets need repair, should be the City's problem. Believes assessment method of payment is not equitable or fair. AI Gierke (15242 Bluedorn Circle) stated that equipment was parked several feet into yards and caused a lot of damage and wants to know if it will be repaired. Have an elderly person living with them who goes to adult day care, but the Scott County bus could not get into the area. Jeff Evans ( 5443 Fairlawn Shores Tr.) stated he has appraisal from Flint Road and commented about copy charges for information from the City. Read from appraisal which stated market values would increase and stated he wants to read the other appraisals. Encouraged audience to get facts and offered to provide a free copy of the appraisal. Questioned whether assessment hearing had to be completed before November 1. William Palmer (5461 Fairlawn Tr.) believes there may be animosity between him and some city staff, and he has not re- ceived sufficient answers. Relayed tasks he completed with neighbors and inconveniences to the neighborhood during construction. States he believes appraisals should be made available for publiC view. Stated he is not happy with the as- sessments and objected to the way options for assessment payment were stated. MOTION BY FLEMING, SECONDED BY LEMAIR TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Zieska: asked again if anyone would like to make an appeal. No response. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Fleming, LeMair, Petersen and Zieska. The motion carried. The public hearing closed at 9:30 p.m. RECESS --~._---"---_..,-_..,.,._._-'" -" " 5 City Council Meeting Minutes October 17, 2005 Draft Mayor Haugen called a recess at 9:31 p.m. RECONVENE The meeting reconvened at 9:40 p.m. Mayor Haugen invited city staff to answer questions posed by the audience as well as questions and comments from the Council. Teschner: Clarified the indirect charge that is passed on as part of assessments. Gave the historical perspective that in 70s and '80s did not have an engineering department and all work was outsourced. Those costs were tracked and some projects had indirect costs of up to 45 percent. As the City became larger it was determined that the City could engineer the jobs at less cost. Now, indirect costs are at 25 percent: two percent for construction staking and surveying, three percent for financing of bond discount (fee for underwriter) and capitalized interest costs, 17 percent for engineering, inspection, construction observation, and design. Projects outside of the assessments (Le. 150th street sidewalks) are absorbed into the City funds as per Council policy for the purpose of fund preservation. Sewer and water portion of the contract come from the sewer and water fund. The cost of installation of the sidewalk is from the Capital Park Fund. Duluth and Franklin Trail were paid for with enterprise funds. City could choose to charge the 20 percent on the funds and pay ourselves - did not because it reduces fund balances over time. Rather, the City incurred the engineer costs for design on street recon- struction and on Centennial and charged 17 percent as per policy. Three percent is charged internally for administration which is expensed for support staff outside the engineering department and is not tracked. The past two years projects tracked very closely to the aforementioned formula. The indirect costs are ten percent lower than projects in the past. Teschner noted that delay of assessment to the next year would incur additional interest costs to the residents, and stated there are many ways to assess a project and that the unit assessment is typically used because the benefit to all residents is basically the same. It is perceived as the most equitable means of cost distribution. Sixty percent is paid by the taxpay- ers in general and the process needs to remain consistent from year-to-year to retain credibility and fairness for all resi- dents. Streets are 30 years old and the infrastructure needed to be replaced and the Council has responsibility to the entire community to maintain from a public safety standpoint as well as a benefit to the people who live there. Teschner also.noted that the City does not assess for street overlays like some other communities. Poppler: Stated that appraisals were done for some homes on the projects. Appraiser found the benefits to be: Candy Cove, $9,000; Fish Point, $8,500; Bluedorn , $7,500; and two on Centennial for $11,000 and $17,100. There is private information on the appraisals so they are not released to the public. Haugen: Has asked the City Attorney to check on the statute. Pace: Replied that her research showed that appraisal data is non-public in the context of a condemnation, but it is avail- able for special assessments. Evens: Commented that he needed that data yesterday to prepare for his appeal. Poppler: Responded to several comments: Flint Road - it was reviewed as a whole and determined that the special bene- fit did not support the assessment; double frontage on Fairlawn Shores - method of calculation uses the unit method so charged only for the units on the street (driveway exiting onto the street); lots that back up to Fairlawn Shores will be as- sessed when the front of the lots are reconstructed; inconvenience - agreed it is an inconvenience when reconstruction is done and apologized for that; removal of trees - some have to be removed because utilities are below the trees, trees on Mediacom property were removed; drainage - when the final wear course is on Centennial that water would drain properly (Dahlenburg property); quantities - calculations are made on estimated quantities and if changes need to be made, they will be, but as a whole projects end up where expected; parking structure on Fairlawn Shores - believe the intent of Council direction was met with barrier curbing; comparison from 2001 to 2005 - costs for soil prep have increased based on soil borings and how deeply we need to dig; photo of damage by utility work - restoration is done with the project; street width - in the future, 36 foot width road will be assessed when encountered, had anticipated Candy Cove to be 32 feet but based on public hearings and meetings with the school district decided to go with wider street; utility boxes - are at a point in the roadway to make a turn and it is unfortunate that they are at easement to the lake but snowmobiles and people can still get to the lake; emergency access - is always a concern and emergency vehicles would get through; two-unit assessment - 6 City Council Meeting Minutes October 17, 2005 Draft when the purchase agreement to this property was written, the owner wanted to be able to have a second lot and that is why it is being assessed as two units; water line work on Bluedorn - wanted to go down the easement line to put in a fire hydrant and get the lines on separate services and encountered a mess of utility lines - that portion of the project was added later and was not looked at efficiently prior to the project - property owner wanted the big tree down; Sweet's sewer is connected with neighbor and a sewer stub was provided for them if they ever want to separate from the neighbor. Teschner: Commented that November 30th is the statutory date for City to certify to the County. Scott County officials say we need to be on time with our assessment rolls. Albrecht: Commented on existing gravel roads and that the City does not own a grader, but rents or borrows when one is needed. Driveways on 150th are a separate project and paid for with separate funding. It poses challenges during con- struction and requires working on private property so permission is needed before working. Reconstruction is different be- cause it is on the road. The assessment review committee recommended not assessing the Flint project because it would not be sustainable and the Council was advised about it in several agenda reports. The double frontage lots policy applies to residents who live on different side streets and when side streets are rebuilt they are assessed for it. Historically we have not broken utility work out of the project and assessed it separately. Project quantities are not removed and not all reports are in yet, but it is prudent to lock the assessment in at the estimate which will most likely be at a lower rate. Noted that engineering costs have been tracked and administration costs are not tracked. Resident requested that utilities be buried and not all of the three utility companies in Prior Lake are willing to bury. Agreed the Fairlawn Shores roadway was open a long time - finding asbestos pipeline and rain days caused some delays. The City sewer line ran under the trees on the Evenstad property. Tree removal near Centennial was a result of a combination of clearing for utilities and that Media- com was not concerned about tree removal and it is the owner of the adjoining property. Comments: Fleming: Thanked residents and appreciates the inconveniences they endured during the project. Encouraged staff to do a better job of anticipating the kinds of disruptions residents tolerate. Asked if there is a sanction for the City if we don't ad- here to November 30 reporting date. Teschner: Would have to approach County and it would be up to their discretion to accept the assessments and apply them to the 2007 taxes. Fleming: Asked about the perception of disparity for different lot sizes and if there is a way to reconcile it. Teschner: Referred to the City's assessment policy and explained what the city has done in the past was on front footage basis so the project cost remained the same and individual owners had different costs. Many items went to court. Courts have determined that the cost is not the sole basis for the benefit - it was more attributed to what was provided and all resi- dents were afforded the same benefit. Unit basis is generally used by cities and is determined to be most equitable. Noted that front footages were used in Frogtown when lot sizes were very disparate. Fleming: Asked if owners of the properties that were appraised will be aware that copies of the appraisal were provided to others. Pace: Noted that property tax valuation data is public information. Fleming: Asked Jeff Evans to come to the podium and asked if Evans has a sense of how the residents feel who did not appeal. Evans: Believes that if other residents were educated in the process, another third of them would have appealed. Stated that it wasn't up to staff to tell them all what to do. Fleming: Asked how many people Evans actively approached about this issues. Evans: Would not comment on it. Fleming: Said not all property owners are not here tonight and wants to know if Evans has a sense of how they feel. Evans: Don't know all of the people. Thinks past year's projects had no appeals. Teschner: Clarified that every project averages at least two dozen appeals. Fleming: Asked if anyone in this project has a sense of how the people feel who aren't here tonight. Evans: Would have to survey the people and he can't speak for them. Fleming: Commented that with a project and issues of this size, wants to know how the other people feel. 7 .----.-...~--,.-...,"-~.--...'^'-~.--...,.-~,.~"'"t.,.,. City Council Meeting Minutes October 17, 2005 Draft Evans: Stated that if people were allowed to come and complain, more people would have come but they knew it was a public hearing on the assessments. Stated he did not go out and knock on everyone's door. There were people who spoke to him to complain. . Petersen: Stated a project like this can be very inconvenient. Noted that he was on the assessment committee when Frogtown was assessed using front footage and residents complained about that system, and that is when decision was made to use unit assessment. Noted that much is done to keep streets in good working order such as seal coating and overlays. Bob Schaefer - Spoke from the audience to say Bluedorn was a 70% road and it was torn out. Haugen: Reminded the audience that the public hearing was closed. Petersen: Noted that a separate company does the evaluation of the road condition and then staff goes out to check it. Zieska: Stated he was disappointed in the parking structure on Fairlawn and thought it would be removed from the right of way. Noted that projects on Franklin, Duluth, and Pleasant were not related to reconstruction and should not be assessed for it. Serves on the special assessment committee and it tries to be fair to residents of past years also so the committee went to unit assessment with exception of Frogtown. Flint road was not assessed because committee believed it did not receive same value and it would not be consistent with policies used. Noted that If utility boxes are blocking lake access (Witkowski), it is a problem. If the second parcel is not buildable, special assessments could be deferred until it is subdi- vided, then it would be due. LeMair: Serves on the special assessment committee. The appeals process is given to everyone. If benefit doesn't equal cost, it shouldn't be paid. Noted that the City tries to keep the process efficient and economic by bidding out projects and taking the lowest bidder and trying not to have overruns. Lack of service is not acceptable and burden of scheduling falls on City. Advocated for assessing Flint, but information did not support that assessment. Voted to have Frost Point done, but Council did not vote for that. Stated the parking structure on Fairlawn may be OK with modifications. Stated the City should have considered saving trees and the impact of losing them. Haugen: Commented that the City needs to make infrastructure improvements over the long term. Knows residents have made significant investment in the project because they lost a summer. Fairness and consistency is important and need to strive to do that. Concerned about assessment policy (linear vs. unit vs. area), but to change it would be unfair to residents who have paid it in the past. All residents need to have the perception and confidence that the system is fair. Tonight ap- proximately 50 percent of the residents are involved in the process and challenging the assessment. If some part of the process broke down, we need to learn from it. Supports the second lot not being charge assessment until it is subdivided. Asked whether right-of-entry was received from all residents. Poppler: A vast majority of them. Haugen: Need to make certain that we have them. If a contractor cracked the driveway, he ought to repair it. Asked if it is correct that a homeowner can receive an appraisal reimbursement. Pace: Replied she is not aware of appraisal reimbursements for special assessments. Law provides for appraisal reim- bursement up to a maximum amount for condemnation. In the last five years City began doing some random appraisals to determine benefit (fair market value before and after the project). At this public hearing, people are perfecting their right to appeal by saying they object to it; then they have to file in district court within 30 days and have an appraisal done after which there may be settlement discussions. Haugen: Commented that he didn't like his past vote on the Flint Road; and noted that he did not vote on the Frost Point Road. Pace: Noted that it was not beyond reconsideration by the Council. Fleming: Reiterated to staff and contractors to be as anticipatory as possible in communicating to residents and learning what potential issues there may be. Albrecht: Stated that at the first neighborhood meeting, the City queried about special medical issues and that he was not aware of the person whose need was brought up tonight. Commented that several parking structures on this project were removed. The structure talked about tonight most likely received verbal approval from City staff. Utility boxes are in public right of way and utility companies have a permit and located the boxes where they have to be. There are issues between the person with the easement and the homeowner's association. Regarding the cracked driveway, it was done by a private utility company. If it was our utility contractor, we will have them fix it. Fleming: Stated he is interested in what other neighbors think and invited their e-mails. 8 City Council Meeting Minutes October 17, 2005 Draft Petersen: Agrees something has fallen apart since there are so many people here. Maybe project was too big, and we should take on smaller projects. Haugen: Noted that sometimes projects are bigger to avoid spreading into multiple years. Zieska: Thanked all for coming to the meeting. Apologized for inconveniences. Encouraged residents to continue work- ing with staff if there are individual property issues. Have to look at process and communication for future years. LeMair: Agreed with Zieska that we need to improve the system. Haugen: Asked if costs of the project increased the value of the majority of properties commensurate to our cost of provid- ing them. Albrecht: According to professionals we have consulted and based on information we have, we believe there is a benefit to the properties. We hire appraisals to establish what the benefit is. If the City is going to use the existing assessment pol- icy, he recommends moving forward on assessments. Haugen: Asked if the assessment is greater than benefit, what is a person responsible for. Teschner: The responsibility is on the individual to perfect the appeal at district court. Would have to get an appraisal and prove from their perspective that the benefit is not achievable. If the assessment is higher than the market value, then the court would order a reduction of assessment. Haugen: Need to look at the process; need to look at system for assessing to gain confidence in the system. Teschner: A good thing is that the estimated cost shared at the public meetings was higher than the actual assessment amount. The down side of waiting for a two-year period to assess after the project is complete will add bond interest ex- pense which is an unnecessary expense for residents to incur. Haugen: Asked if there is any value in sending this back to the special assessment committee. Teschner: Stated that the assessment committee has looked at issues twice and he recommends the resolution be ap- proved. The dollar difference from last year's project is less than $400 difference which is based on bid prices. Haugen: Asked if the reference of 2001 to 2005 comparable prices was inaccurate because it was not unit assessment. Teschner: Believes that 2002 and later were unit assessments. Haugen: Asked what the cost was for 2003 and 2004. Poppler: Replied that two neighborhoods were reconstructed in 2003 at assessments of $5,205 and $6,340; 2004 was $7,370 and 2002 was $5,108. Haugen: Affirmed there was no benefit in sending it back to the assessment committee. Albrecht: Only if the assessment policy is changed. Teschner: Stated we have reduced indirect costs from 30 percent to 25 percent. MOTION BY LEMAIR, SECONDED BY ZIESKA TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 05-XXX ADOPTING ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECTS 05-01 AND 05-11 FOR FISH POINT ROAD, FAIRLAWN SHORES TRAIL, BLUEDORN CIRCLE, CANDY COVE TRAIL AND CENTENNIAL TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS AND THE WITKOWSKI'S SHOULD ONLY BE ASSESSED FOR ONE UNIT WITH THE ASSESSMENTS ON THE SECOND UNIT DEFERRED UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE PROPERTY IS SUBDIVIDED. Petersen: Asked what is driving cost of assessments up. Poppler: The number of units on a project, and bituminous prices went up. Albrecht: configuration of lots also contributes, competitive nature of the bids, accessibility, soils on the streets, etc. as well as inflation. Petersen: Stated he has a hard time approving this with so many dissatisfied people. LeMair: Noted we cannot change the price. Process needs to continue and people need to appeal. Petersen: Clarified that the people can appeal their assessments individually. Zieska: Asked if the Council did not approve before November 30, would it be part of the assessment in 2006. Teschner: Replied that Scott County would have to implement a statutory requirement that says it has to be assessed by November 30. With the growth in the County, they are not as flexible on the date as they have been in the past. Haugen: Noted that process can be changed, but the results cannot so it is the appeal process that has to guide individual actions. Fleming: Asked how long the district court process takes. 9 ......_'________"'_...................._""~_+_,."'_.'"__'~~~'_".._w.." City Council Meeting Minutes October 17, 2005 Draft Teschner: Replied that it most likely could not be done to affect 2006 property taxes. Pace: Noted that the process is on an individual basis. Zieska: Stated this is a policy question for the Council. If the Council is comfortable with amount of assessments, they have to move forward. If individual residents are not happy with it, they have the appeal process. Teschner: Offered the consideration of the Council giving a special assessment credit because of the measure of incon- venience residents experienced during the project. Haugen: Stated he would not want to make that decision now and asked if the concept of a credit could be reviewed by the subcommittee to prepare a recommendation for the next meeting and what the ramifications would be. Teschner: Replied the next regularly scheduled meeting would be too late with the time constraint of preparing the as- sessment roll and suggested a special meeting. Zieska: Stated that more direction would be needed from the Council to the subcommittee as equity in credit and policy would need to be considered. leMair: Asked if the credit is based on inconvenience. Fleming: Asked if the credit would be limited to people who appealed Zieska: Replied it should be across the board. Haugen: Asked about precedence that would be set and spoke of upcoming projects that are scheduled for 2007. Noted there is no neighborhood project scheduled for next year. Needs to be consistency, justification and ability to pay a credit. Teschner: Replied that the 60/40 split between City and resident is consistent and recommends its continuation because it is fair to current and past project residents. A credit would establish precedence, but it would be based on exceptional consideration given to this project. Albrecht: Asked Council to give direction to looking at several options about the cost of the project, not just credit for in- convenience. Haugen: Affirmed and believes the subcommittee can create something that is appropriate and accurate. Zieska: Agreed and noted that an arbitrary credit will set a precedent. Pace: Stated the motion on the table should be withdrawn. LeMair: Stated he does not want to withdraw the motion. The project costs what it cost. If there is a credit to be given, it should be taken from contractors if they did the job poorly. Others should not have to pay because of it. Recognize there were inconveniences and some things not handled well, but this is not the answer. Zieska: Understands where leMair is coming from and the Council has a fiduciary responsibility and has to follow statute and ordinance. Received a number of bids and appraisals which show that some residents received benefit that exceeds the assessment and some didn't. Believes the subcommittee could look at it and if the assessment is tabled for a week, there will be no harm done. Withdrew his second of the motion. Haugen: Asked if there is a second to the motion. HEARING NO SECOND, THE MOTION DIED. MOTION BY ZIESKA , SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO DEFER ADOPTION OFTHE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT, SEND IT BACK TO THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SUBCOMMITTEE FOR FURTHER REVIEW AND CONSIDER THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS AT A SPECIAL COUNCil MEETING SET FOR 4:30 P.M., ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 27. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Haugen, Petersen and Zieska. leMair opposed. The motion carried. Teschner: Noted that this meeting will not be a public hearing though the public is welcome to attend. There will not be a special notice going out and the agenda will be just this item. RECESS Mayer Haugen called a recess at 11 :45 p.m. RECONVENE Meeting reconvened at 11 :52 p.m. 10 City Council Meeting Minutes October 17. 2005 Draft PRESENTATIONS: John Sullivan - Former Community Development Director City Manager Boyles noted that Sullivan accepted a position with Carver County and expressed appreciation for contribu- tions made by Sullivan during his tenure. Sullivan thanked all for opportunity to work here. Groundbreaking for Police Station I City Hall. City Manager Boyles informed the Council and viewers of the ground breaking for the police station and city hall buildings that is scheduled for October 27. Comments: Haugen: Noted it has been 12 years in the planning and the population has nearly doubled since originally planned. OLD BUSINESS: Consider Approval of a Report Regarding the County Road 82, Bay Knolls Drive Safety Fence Composition. Public Works Director Albrecht noted this is a response to a request of Glynwater Development residents to change a safety fence. He reviewed the agenda report and noted staff is seeking direction to approach the County for design change of a fence they are planning to build rather than a change of city policy regarding sound barriers or safety fences. Comments: LeMair: Advocates for the wood fence for safety issues and would support taking the trees in exchange for $6,000. Zieska: Supports it. Petersen: Asked if the City can use the trees. Albrecht: Replied that the trees will go directly to a project area for which trees would have been purchased. Fleming: Supports it. Haugen: Supports it and noted it is not a sound barrier, but a safety issue. Zieska: Noted that homeowners are helping to pay for this. MOTION BY LEMAIR, SECONDED BY ZIESKA TO DIRECT STAFF TO INCLUDE THE CHANGE IN THE FINAL CONSTRUCTION PLANS WITH THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION CONTRIBUTION SET AT $6,000 VALUE IN TREES AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS ON THE SIX FOOT WOOD FENCE. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Fleming, LeMair, Petersen and Zieska. The motion carried. Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Execute the City's Standardized Pro- fessional Services Agreement for the Preparation of a Master Plan of the Kop Property. City Manager Boyles reviewed the agenda report for a coordinated master plan for the Kop property. Comments: Fleming: Will support. Petersen: Agreed. Zieska: Will support. LeMair: Needs to be done. Haugen: Likes the fact that there will be a public open house with the Parks Advisory Committee so there will be an oppor- tunity for public input. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECONDED BY FLEMING TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 05-171 AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF A MASTER PARK PLAN FOR THE KOP PROPERTY AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A STANDARDIZED PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THEREFORE. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Fleming, LeMair, Petersen and Zieska. The motion carried. Consider Approval of a Report Regarding Permitted Uses for the C-5 Zoning District. 11 City Council Meeting Minutes October 17, 2005 Draft Planning Director Kansier noted that no action would result in the C-5 district uses remaining as is and it would not pre- clude any individual from filing for a zoning amendment. Comments: leMair: Stated he advocates for this and believes it fits in our business park and the City can put in conditions to not ad- versely impact the business park. Zieska: Supports making this change. Petersen: Will support. Fleming: Will support, believes the conditions listed uphold the integrity of the district and the public hearing will allow im- pacted business owners will have an opportunity to speak their thoughts. Haugen: Will support and likes restricting outside storage and believes this action will send a message to other owners in the district to eliminate their outside storage. It is the consensus of the Council to refer this item to the Planning Commission and continue the process. Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Enter into Agreements with Respect to City-owned Property at Hastings and Main Avenue: 1. Development Agreement, 2. Agreement for Purchase of City-owned Property, 3. lease Agreement for Public Parking lot. City Manager Boyles reviewed the agenda report and noted this is in response to Council's concerns and expectations from the last meeting. The developer has executed all of the documents and provided $15,000 for the first extension. Comments: leMair: Believes conditions assure a building will be built. Zieska: Will support. Petersen: Will support. Fleming: Will support. Haugen: Will support. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY ZIESKA TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 05-172 AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AN AGREEMENT REGARDING THE PURCHASE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AT HASTINGS AND THE MAIN AVENUE AND PARKING LOT LEASE AGREEMENT. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Fleming, LeMair, Petersen and Zieska. The motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: Consider Approval of Resolutions Amending the 2020 Comprehensive Plan land Use Map to Add 10.5 Acres of Land to be Designated as Low to Medium Density Residential (Barber/Goodlund). Planning Director Kansier reviewed the agenda report. Comments: Petersen: No reason to object. Zieska: This follows the policies for annexing land into the City. leMair: Appropriate designation for the property. Fleming: This makes sense and is in alignment with the 2030 comprehensive plan. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY LEMAIR TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 05-173A APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2020 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP FOR THE GOODLUND PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF 180TH STREET. EAST OF FAIRLAWN SHORES, WEST OF RICE LAKE, AND SOUTH OF TH 13. 12 ~~__>~~~~'_'_"'''''''~__~'_~~'_'~_'~'_~''___'___'__~_''__._.d<_.~...~~'---"~..,_.'~_"~~_._.,,~..,_"~o,-..__.._.'___"~""~_~__~_._._.__--......__.________._ City Council Meeting Minutes October 17, 2005 Draft VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Fleming, LeMair, Petersen and Zieska. The motion carried. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY LEMAIR TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 05.173B APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2020 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP FOR THE BARBER PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF 180TH STREET, EAST OF FAIRLAWN SHORES, WEST OF RICE LAKE, AND SOUTH OF TH 13. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Fleming, LeMair, Petersen and Zieska. The motion carried. Consider Approval of a Joint Resolution for Orderly Annexation Between the City of Prior lake and Spring lake Township Annexing Ten Acres Commonly Known as the Shuman Property. Planning Director Kansier reviewed the agenda report and noted this petition was filed by the property owners. Property tax phasing will not be applied to this property and the property will be zoned R-1. Comments: leMair: Noted that the property is eligible to come into the City and will support it. Zieska: Staff has been clear to the developer that it cannot be developed for a number of years because services will not be available. Petersen: Asked what the provision is for providing sewer and water into the area. Kansier: Replied that we do not have services available to any place west of CR 17 and would not allow development until services become available so their options are to wait until the City brings services out there or another developer pays the cost of bringing services out there. Petersen: Will support it. Fleming: Will support it. Haugen: Important to understand that the annexation process and letting the developer know that development cannot take place until services become available is a benefit of orderly annexation and an attempt to control growth in the com- munity. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECONDED BY LEMAIR TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 05.174 ANNEXING PROPERTY FROM SPRING LAKE TOWNSHIP INTO THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE (DOCKET #OA-967). VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Fleming, LeMair, Petersen and Zieska. The motion carried Appointments to Advisory Committees and Planning Commission. City Manager Boyles reviewed the vacancies, interviewing committees and recommendations for appointment. Recom- mends that the Lake Advisory Committee stand at six persons until someone steps down. Comments: Zieska: Believes the candidates will make excellent additions to the Parks Advisory Committee. MOTION BY ZIESKA , SECONDED BY LEMAIR TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 05.175 APPOINTING MIKE FERIANCEK, TIM LIBERT AND CARl GRAYSON TO SERVE ON THE PARKS ADVISORY COMMITTEE. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Fleming, LeMair, Petersen and Zieska. The motion carried Petersen: Commented on the candidates and noted that the qualifications of the candidates warranted putting an extra person on the committee. Boyles: Noted the committee is recommending the term of Marchessault be extended a year to create staggered terms for members of the committee. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY FLEMING TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 05.176 APPOINTING HARRY ALCORN, DAN O'KEEFE, CHARLENE JASON AND JIM MARCHESSAULT TO SERVE ON THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Fleming, LeMair, Petersen and Zieska. The motion carried 13 '-"--'~----'-'-'--"-~-'--------r-----"'--_._-'----~'----~----_..._---, City Council Meeting Minutes October 17, 2005 Draft leMair: Noted Perez has done an excellent job and worked hard to learn the position. MOTION BY LEMAIR, SECONDED BY ZIESKA TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 05.177 APPOINTING PAUL PEREZ TO SERVE ON THE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Fleming, LeMair, Petersen and Zieska. The motion carried OTHER City Manager Boyles reported on the recent SCALE meeting and spoke of the tax capacity rate and general budget trends from 2002 - 2006 for various cities in Scott County and compared Prior Lake to neighboring communities. Haugen: Stated that budgets are going up in growing communities, the tax rate is dropping and Prior Lake's is the second lowest in the County. Zieska: Noted this trend was for a four-year period which shows consistency in where we're going. leMair: Looking at the change in the community, feels comfortable with improvements made compared to the tax. Haugen: Moody's rating reflects how we're creating debt with capital improvements and reasonable tax implication for citi- zens. ADJOURNMENT With no other comments from Council members, a motion to adjourn was made by Petersen and seconded by Fleming. With all in favor, the meeting adjourned at 12:43 a.m. Frank Boyles, City Manager Charlotte Green, Recording Secretary 14 'M_~--r~~~--'-'-""'-' .-