Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout011706 Minutes 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 City Council Meeting Minutes January 17, 2006 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 17, 2006 CALL TO ORDER: Present were Mayor Haugen, Councilmembers Dornbush, Erickson, LeMair and Millar, City Manager Boyles, City Attor- ney Pace, Public Works Director/City Engineer Albrecht, Assistant Engineer Poppler, Street and Utilities Supervisor El- dred, Planning Director Kansier, Finance Director Teschner, Assistant to the City Manager Meyer, Communications Co- ordinator Oster and Administrative Assistant Green. 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. Brian Lompart, 14223 Shady Beach Trail, read his prepared statement regarding removal of vehicles that went through the ice on December 26, 2005. Stated that removal of vehicles involved trespassing across his property. Believes po- lice gave permission even though he did not give approval and questioned whether that was legal. Related that there have been other incidents in the past where his property was trespassed upon and that there are ongoing problems with noise during late hours. Acknowledged that Shady Beach is a public park and believes the City has control over Shady Beach access. States that police do not enforce the parking or park closing times, and that the gates are not closed after 10 p.m. because it would prevent emergency vehicles from entering the lake in an emergency. Believes the public access is adversely affecting private property owners and asked that the either access be closed during the winter or that the access be turned over to adjacent landowners. Believes the Sand Point Beach access could be used for emergency access. Haugen: Asked City Attorney to respond to the query about taking a vehicle across private property. Pace: The City does not enforce trespassing on private property. It is illegal to trespass on the property of another; however, it is a matter between private property owners. Lompart: Stated the tow truck driver was given permission to go across the property by police officers and asked if that was legal. Pace: Responded that police and fire have responsibility to protect people and property in emergency circumstances. Whether or not this is a case where they could do so would have to be researched. Millar: Asked if damage was done to any of the properties. Lompart: Replied that minor damage was done to his property and another neighbor had boulders moved: and it ap- pears that t is now up to them to find someone who will pay for that. Erickson: Clarified the statement that it is a quarter mile from another entrance. Stated that he was advised that there is a problem in getting to that area of the lake. Lompart: Stated he was informed that the reason for keeping this access open is to allow emergency vehicles better access to the lake. Erickson: Asked whether closing this access would eliminate an area of the lake for people to use. Lompart: Replied that Sand Point Beach could be used. Erickson: Asked ifthere would be any hindrance if the gate was closed at 10 p.m. Haugen: Recommended that staff analyze policing activities, parking issues, impact on the public if closed, and the current impact of the nuisance of noise, etc. Requested staff to advise Lompart when it will be on the agenda. Millar: Asked for clarification of noise problems on the lake. www.cityofpriorlake.com 1 Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 City Council Meeting Minutes January 17, 2006 Lompart: Stated that the access is treated as a public park that closes at 10 p.m. Noise comes from people using the access to leave the lake and police do not have resources to be there every night and shut it down. Roger Kamin, 14253 Shady Beach Trail, states that his house is next to the Shady Beach access road. Read a pre- pared statement which included a proposition to turn control of the access over to the neighborhood or to shut it down, at least during the winter. Noted that trespassing occurs by people driving, walking, sitting on shorelines, and leaving trash. Damage has been caused to docks and lifts. Sandee Wright, 14300 Timothy Avenue, made comments regarding her presentation at the December 19 meeting and stated she is still requesting information about the personal, business and family relationships of the Council with mem- bers of SMSC; as well as copies of documentation the Council used to arrive at the decision to support SMSC's request to place land into trust. Stated that she has established a Website where she will document her evaluation of the infor- mation and the decision process and that the Website will kick off a concerned citizen petition drive. She presented a petition to the Council signed by herself that stated, " We the undersigned are concerned citizens who urge our City Council to enact policy opposing the addition of Prior Lake land to the SMSC land trust." Wright asked the Council if they adhere to the opinion expressed by Fleming in his letter to the editor. Apologized for comments at the December 19 meeting that appeared to question the integrity of the Council members and stated that she was only asking for dis- closure. Displayed an advertising insert that was placed in the Prior Lake American and asked if anyone thought it was action against Commissioner Marschall for having stood against the land trust application. Asked for a future agenda item to reconsider the decision to support the SMSC fee to trust application. Pace: Stated that she understands Wright to have said that some people do not understand the Council's basis for why they made the decision and what information they had. Noted that courts base the reasonableness of a decision on the facts that an elected official had when they made the decision, and that courts apply a "reasonableness standard" in reviewing matters such as this and it is unlikely that a court would not substitute its judgment for that of elected officials assuming the City Council had a rational basis to support their decision. Also stated that she understands Wright to have said that people are angry about the letter to the editor and noted that Fleming had expressed his personal views, which is his right. Explained that a disqualifying conflict of interest is defined by statute and case law and involves standing to gain a direct, pecuniary interest by the outcome of the decision on a matter pending before the Council. Stated that in her opinion, the disclosure that the Council is being asked to make is inappropriate. Wright: Stated that she was asking for information: what the bylaws say about conflict of interest; and the data that was used for economic analysis. Pace: Replied that the analysis was done with three jurisdictions in conjunction and is available as public data. Wright: Stated she would like to see the November 2 letter that was responded to on December 5 and the economic analysis that was done. Asked if there is any guidance in the bylaws about economic conflict of interest. Pace: Read from section 1300 of bylaws regarding the code of ethics and conduct. Noted that it is mandated by stat- ute. Wright: Asked that the bylaws be made available on the City Website. Pace: Noted that Prior Lake is a statutory city and not everything we are required to do is stated in the bylaws, but is also defined by statute and case law. Haugen: Advised Wright that if further information is desired, she should contact the City Manager. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION BY ERICKSON, SECONDED BY LEMAIR TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Dornbush, Erickson, LeMair, and Millar. The motion carried. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES MOTION BY MILLAR, SECONDED BY LEMAIR TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 3, 2006, MEETING MINUTES AS PRESENTED. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Dornbush, Erickson, LeMair, and Millar. The motion carried. 2 City Council Meeting Minutes January 17, 2006 CONSENT AGENDA: City Manager Boyles reviewed the items on the consent agenda. A. Consider Approval of Invoices to be Paid. B. Consider Approval of Treasurer's Report. C. Consider Approval of Building Permit Report for December 2005 and Year-end 2005. D. Consider Approval of Animal Warden Report. E. Consider Approval of Fire Call Reports for December 2005, Third Quarter 2005, Year-end 2005. F. Consider Approval of the Fourth Quarter 2005 Investment Report. MOTION BY LEMAIR, SECONDED BY DORNBUSH TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Dornbush, Erickson, LeMair, and Millar. The motion carried. PRESENTATIONS: Introduce New Police Officer - Craig Johnson Chief of Police O'Rourke introduced new police officer Craig Johnson and administered the Oath of Office to him. Introduce New Community Service Officers - Jason Rose and Jennifer Beckett Chief of Police O'Rourke introduced new Community Service Officers Jason Rose and Jennifer Beckett and spoke of the responsibilities performed by a Community Service Officer. RECESS Mayor Haugen called for a recess at 7:58 p.m. RECONVENE The meeting reconvened at 8:04 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Consider Approval of an Appeal to a Decision of the Planning Commission to Deny a Setback Variance for the Construction of a House at 4500 Lords Street NE. Planning Director Kansier outlined the requests for variance for new construction on this property as well as the Plan- ning Commission's decision and staff recommendations. Reviewed the statutes concerning variances and stated that the variance does not meet the hardship criteria. Erickson: Clarified the buildable area of the lot. Kansier: Responded and noted that the property is more constrained by impervious surface than by space. Erickson: Clarified that the owners would have the ability to build a house larger than 2,000 square feet and still be within code. Kansier: Affirmed and noted the owner could also build more than a one-story building. Dornbush: Asked if setback requirements were stated to the applicants before their design was set. Kansier: Noted that two staff met with the applicants some time earlier and at that time most discussion centered on floodplain criteria and generalized set backs. There is no recollection of a surveyor proposed plan at that time. Kansier first saw the plans on November 4 when discussing front yard setbacks and discovered side yard setback needs during review. Erickson: Clarified that if the side wall was not so long, the side yard variance would not be an issue. Kansier: Affirmed. 3 City Council Meeting Minutes January 17, 2006 MOTION BY MILLAR, SECONDED BY LEMAIR TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Dornbush, Erickson, LeMair and Millar. The motion carried and the public hearing opened at 8:23 p.m. Roger and Susan Ferguson, 4500 Lords Street, explained the project they want to undertake and relayed the se- quence of events leading up to the variance application. Stated that the current house is nonconforming to RFPD and that it is in the best interest of the City and the owners to raise the home above the flood plain. Believes he was told to get a survey when they first started the project in 2004; were advised of the 25 foot setback rule as being from the street and could use the neighbor's setbacks to average the distance. States they were required to get another survey with the neighbor's homes on the survey in order to use those averages. Worked with a home designer to develop a plan that would fit within the setbacks that they were advised of and to adhere to the RFP that resulted in a third survey that would depict the proposed home on the property. When plans were taken to apply for a building permit, they were advised that variances would be needed for elevation and for front yard setback. Said they did not learn of side yard setback variance until the package went to the planning commission. Expressed frustration that they were not advised of necessary variances earlier in the process. Stated that a 25-foot variance from the easement would place the house 52 feet from the street. Stated they could make changes to the house design to avoid the side yard setback variance. Asked if some part of the easement could be vacated to bring it in line with what other neighborhoods get when developments are approved which would allow them to put the house within 36 feet of the street, rather than 52. Discussed the variances that are being requested and stated that the road could not be reconstructed and raised by the City in the future as it would cause flooding on his property. Discrepancies appear to exist between where the existing roadway lies and the easements lie. Stated that if the road were reconstructed within the easement, the City would have to fill in part of the lake. Stated that the road was built in the 1970s prior to existing elevation requirements. Stated if they did nothing with their home, the road could not be moved or raised because it would cause flooding on their property. Believes approval of the proposed home would be beneficial to the City because of the increased tax base, it would adhere to FEMA regula- tions and it would be out of the flood plain. Stated that other homes are inconsistent with variances and regulations. Asked that if the front yard variance cannot be granted, that the City vacate the easement. Displayed photos of property and existing roadway. Believes the road should stay where it is. States they are frustrated with working with the City, that the Planning Commission did not give due consideration and asked the Council to approve the front yard variance. If a front yard variance is not approved, asked if the City could determine at this time whether some part of the easement could be vacated so they can move forward with the project and allow them to build within 36 feet of the road. Del Oldenburg, 4480 Lords Street NE, has no opposition to the planned reconstruction and supports what the Fergu- son's are planning to do. MOTION BY LEMAIR, SECONDED BY ERICKSON TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Dornbush, Erickson, LeMair and Millar. The motion carried and the public hearing closed at 8:50 p.m. Comments: Millar: Asked staff if they had any comments about where the road is going in the future. Poppler: Replied that part of the City's goal is to center roadways, widen where appropriate and raise whenever we can. Have done so in the past and may have to on this street; it is unknown at this point. Reiterated that there is no 4 City Council Meeting Minutes January 17, 2006 hardship on this lot and the building could be reconfigured to fit into building envelope. Street reconstruction projects are very difficult and matching driveways needs to be done; may not be able to raise the road if he does not choose to build. There is also a catch basin in front of this home so the City may not be able to raise the road anyway. It is un- known until we do a survey and start the design process. This variance requests limits the City in a reconstruction pro- ject. The road goes out of the easement and onto the property across the street; if the City is limited to reconstruction in that corridor, easements would be have to be sought from that property rather than trying to shift the road to where it should. Millar: Asked what the average easement is for a home in Prior Lake. Poppler: Responded that the right-of-way in new developments for streets like this is usually 50-55 feet. Dornbush: Asked what is so important about the easement since it hasn't been used for decades. Albrecht: Noted that an aerial photo was displayed that shows something different from street right of way and ques- tioned the accuracy of the survey that was submitted to the City and explained how it could possibly be incorrect. Noted that the aerial photos from the County are not survey documents and even have a disclaimer with them. Have to as- sume the survey is as accurate as possible. If the road is left alone, the fact that it is out of the easement is not an issue as the City has prescriptive rights to maintain the roadway surface. When roads are reconstructed, we usually have to go back 15 feet on each side of the road to build the roadway so the City would need to acquire an easement from the property owner with probable costs associated with that. Without designs and surveys, we cannot say at this time whether or not the road would be shifted, but current information would indicate we would have to shift it. Houses may be below the level of the road, but the City does consider the drainage. Vacation of easements would also be depend- ent upon utilities and the City could not vacate an area that has existing utilities unless we pay to move them. Cannot guarantee that the City would not incur costs in the future associated with road reconstruction due to this variance. Millar: Clarified the sequence of events and information that was given to the Ferguson's regarding the distance of the house from the street. Ferguson: Affirmed they were told the house must be 25 feet from the street which was shown on the original survey. Stated they were later told it must be 25 feet from the easement which would put the home 52 feet from the street. Millar: Asked Kansier of her knowledge of the conversations. Kansier: Replied that generally staff speaks of being 25 feet from the right-of-way; but she was not in attendance at this particular meeting. Millar: Asked if it was a communication problem which could have confused 25 feet from the right-of-way or 25 feet from the property line. LeMair: Noted that the meeting would have been an informational setting and the process of going through develop- ment committees and permitting process is so that a house ends up on the survey the way it is going to built and then it goes through the normal approval process. Even if Ferguson's were told it was 25 feet from the property line that is not the final stamp of approval. Susan Ferguson: Stated it is unfortunate to have design and survey before one can get stampable rules. LeMair: Replied that one cannot have a house without the survey and it sounds like part of the survey process was required because you used the ordinary high water mark of the neighbors to locate where their houses were and it benefited you. Ferguson: Asked why the information couldn't have been given at the first meeting. LeMair: Agreed it sounded like Ferguson's went through due diligence. Ferguson: SpOke to the issue of hardship and believed it is a matter of interpretation and that there should be flexibil- ity in what makes sense. Believes they followed the process. Haugen: Asked the City Attorney to comment on the processes and responsibilities of the Planning Commission and the City Council. Pace: Replied that the Planning Commission, when approving a variance, looks at nine criteria in determining whether a variance is warranted. Stated that the hardship criterion is not a process to be arbitrated by opinions of what reason- able use is. It is defined as having reasonable use of the property; otherwise, it would be a taking. It may not be what the owner wants which may be a hardship for the owner. The Commission can only consider the nine criteria - not hy- 5 City Council Meeting Minutes January 17, 2006 pothetical arguments for the future or how the owners may have been treated. Every property owner is charged with knowing the zoning ordinances. Evidence is in the record that there is a footprint that is buildable on the property. Susan Ferguson: Asked staff to look now, rather than in the future, at whether the road is really going to be moved so they can move on with the project. Millar: Stated that Ferguson doesn't meet the hardship. Stated he had a problem with the process and that the Fergu- son's acted earnestly and attempted to get the information needed to make proper decisions, and misinformation costs money. Will be diligent to see what can be done to improve the process. Dornbush: Agree with Millar and staff that the hardship criterion is not met. Recommended that a determination be made about the roadway now. LeMair: This variance appears that it could create problems in the future. Is not prepared to make a decision tonight on whether or not we should try to determine where the road should go before it is scheduled for reconstruction. Noted that the Ferguson's went through the process in an intelligent manner and it is unfortunate they did not get correct in- formation. Agreed that hardship does not exist. Erickson: Stated that he visited the site and it appears that the road will end up where it is. Does not support the vari- ance, but would like to have a determination about where the future roadway will be. Believes other similar situations will be coming up in the very near future. Haugen: Stated that a home could be constructed on the property without the variances so there is no hardship. Commented on the process and the need to find a way to have clear identification of everything that might be needed in the process and can get all information when it is needed. Is in favor of a vacation of easement if there is a way to do it, but it appears that there would be significant project costs to deal with it and it is a timely, expensive process to do the design. Noted that if the neighborhood wants to petition for the street reconstruction for Council to look at, it might be an option and asked staff to comment on that option. Albrecht: Replied that staff may not look at a full design of the whole roadway, but just the western end that is currently in question. Seems to be a survey issue - the Ferguson survey shows the roadway on someone else's property and there is a conflict with Scott County information. Asked the Council for direction on assigning costs since this is not budgeted and referred to Ida Circle as an example where property owners had to take on the cost of a feasibility study. Noted that if Ferguson's surveyor has information that is usable, costs might only involve staff time. MOTION BY DORNBUSH, SECONDED BY MILLAR TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 06.09 UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A 20 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK AND A 6.17 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A WALL EXCEEDING 50' IN LENGTH (SECTION 1102.405 (6)). VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Dornbush, Erickson, LeMair and Millar. The motion carried. Comments: Dornbush: Seems that to pass the reasonable person test, the Council could look at the roadway now. It affects so few families and if all agreed to it, it is reasonable. Millar: Noted that a Council job is to serve our citizens and can try to find an answer. LeMair: Agreed and stated that if all residents want to know where the road is going to be in the future, it would also benefit the Fergusons in knowing where their house could be. Erickson: Believes it is not a one-person thing, but other people on the road also have the same issue. LeMair: Asked if we would also survey the rest of the neighbor's houses and front yards. Albrecht: Noted that if the City is looking at the whole roadway it is a bigger project. Erickson: Right now it may just be the Ferguson's and to isolate it for cost and expediency makes sense, but it will need to be looked at in the future since the residents seem to believe the road is in the best spot now. If petitioned and completed, an advantage is that this area would be the end of a project zone and would not incur construction traffic. Pace: Agreed, but noted that this has not been petitioned and could create an expectation that people would rely on for eight years into the future. 6 City Council Meeting Minutes January 17, 2006 Boyles: Assume that if in the best case scenario, the road stays where it is and assume that we would vacate a part of the easement. But, would still need the easement in order to have space to work on the roadway. In which case a vari- ance would still be required. Erickson: Believes it would eliminate the need for a variance because there would be a change in where the right-of- way begins. Albrecht: Believes it is a bigger concern in establishing the southern right-of-way line in order to determine where the right-of-way is, which could change the ability to vacate. Haugen: Summarized that the Council made a decision to uphold the variance denial and now can direct staff to work with the applicant to determine if a vacation is potentially feasible. MOTION BY DORNBUSH, SECOND BY LEMAIR TO DIRECT STAFF TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT' SURVEYORS TO SEE IF THERE IS A BASIS FOR A VACATION PROCESS AND TO REPORT BACK TO THE COUNCIL AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Dornbush, Erickson, LeMair and Millar. The motion carried. OLD BUSINESS: Consider Approval of a Report Establishing a Tree Preservation Task Force. Planning Director Kansier presented the proposed mission and responsibilities of the task force. Comments: Dornbush: Supports the proposal and thinks the natural amenities of our community are important and something we should work to improve. Millar: Will support. Erickson: Will support. LeMair: Will support. Haugen: Supports the proposal and noted that the direction of the committee should tie into the mission and values of 2030 vision. Boyles: Read from the 2030 Vision and Strategic Plan the vision element of natural resources and preserving unique topographical and natural elements. MOTION BY LEMAIR, SECONDED BY ERICKSON TO ADOPT THE REPORT AND AUTHORIZE THE CREATION OF THE TREE PRESERVATION TASK FORCE AS RECOMMENDED WITH THE ADDITION OF DIRECTIVES TO TIE IT TO THE 2030 VISION VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Dornbush, Erickson, LeMair and Millar. The motion carried. Consider Approval of a Report Establishing a Water Treatment Plant Building Committee. Public Works Director Albrecht presented the proposal to establish the water treatment plant building committee. Spoke of the issues the public works staff deal with due to water quality problems. Noted that construction of a water treatment facility has been planned since 1997 and that this is the "kick-off' year. Comments: LeMair: Stated he is a proponent of the water treatment plant and it is much needed in the community. The site has been purchased and it needs to be built. Albrecht: Noted that rates have been adjusted already to pay for the plant. Any future rate increases would be tied to inflation or Metropolitan Council issues. Dornbush: Asked if the agenda item was for the creation of a committee or to discuss whether or not a water treatment plant should be built. Believes it should be built, but noted that some residents are not in favor of it so the Council may want to consider putting it before the public in the form of a referendum. 7 City Council Meeting Minutes January 17, 2006 Millar: Agreed that perhaps it should be put before the citizens and noted that the water quality issues and mainte- nance issues are important. Albrecht: Stated that the committee could consider the pros and cons of a referendum if the Council directs it to do so. Erickson: Stated that clean water is a basic responsibility of the City. During the campaign, it was a common theme that citizens want better water. To neglect it would be inappropriate. Noted that Victoria is building water plant in con- junction with a fire hall and perhaps Prior Lake could build a multi-purpose facility. Committee could look at economies of scale and see if additional purposes could be put to the facility. Haugen: Noted that Prior Lake's need for a fire station is on the other side of the lake, but a multi-purpose could be considered. Stated that vital infrastructure is the charge of the Council and building the water treatment facility does not have a tax impact so going to the public for a referendum may not be needed. MOTION BY MILLAR, SECONDED BY DORNBUSHTO ESTABLISH A WATER TREATMENT PLANT BUILDING COMMITTEE. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Dornbush, Erickson, LeMair and Millar. The motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: Consider Approval of a Report Regarding Municipal Water Well #10. Public Works Director Albrecht presented the report and explained that the DNR requires use of FIG wells along with Jordan wells to minimize impact on the Savage Fen. Comments: Erickson: Stated that Barr is a good company and asked if the rates are still competitive. Stated that good water is a necessity and that this is something we need to do. Albrecht: Affirmed that rates are competitive LeMair: Supports it. Dornbush: Supports it. Millar: Supports it. Thanked Albrecht for helping to find a solution for the Lord's Street issue. Haugen: Stated that this is the next step in ongoing work to provide water supply for community. MOTION BY LEMAIR, SECONDED BY DORNBUSH TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 06.10 AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CITY'S STANDARD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BARR ENGINEERING FOR PUMP TESTING RELATED TO WELL NO. 10. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Dornbush, Erickson, LeMair and Millar. The motion carried. Consider Approval Of A Resolution Authorizing The Execution Of The 2006 Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) For Traffic Markings, Street Sweeping, Crack Sealing, Screening And Seal Coating. Street and Water Supervisor Eldred presented the agenda report. Comments: Millar: Will support. Dornbush: Will support. LeMair: Stated he likes the use of assisted dollars. Erickson: Agreed and supported looking for other ways to use joint powers purchasing in the future. Haugen: Noted that many of these types of sharing are part of the SCALE efforts. MOTION BY MILLAR, SECONDED BY LEMAIR TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 06.11 TO APPROVE THE EXECUTION OF THE 2006 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR TRAFFIC MARKINGS, STREET SWEEPING, CRACK SEALING, SCREENING AND SEAL COATING. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Dornbush, Erickson, LeMair and Millar. The motion carried. 8 City Council Meeting Minutes January 17, 2006 Consider Approval Of A Resolution Authorizing The Mayor And City Manager To Execute The Stan- dard Professional Services Contract With Advanced Engineering And Environmental Services, INC (AE2S) To Provide Professional Engineering Services For The 2006 Lift Station Rehabilitation Project. Water and Streets Supervisor Eldred presented the agenda report. Comments: Erickson: Noted that AE2S is his customer, but that he was advised b the City Attorney that it is not a conflict of inter- est to vote on the issue. This work needs to be done. LeMair: Stated that if the work was not performed, it would lead to infrastructure problems. Dornbush: Asked if there were competitive bids. Eldred: Responded that bids were sought initially and the City has been using this individual for four years and he knows the system and the City wants to continue contracting with him at this time. Millar: Will support. Haugen: Will support. MOTION BY LEMAIR, SECONDED BY DORNBUSH TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 06.12 AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE STANDARD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH ADVANCE ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE 2006 LIFT STATION REHABILlATION PROJECT. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Dornbush, Erickson, LeMair and Millar. The motion carried. Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of Three Police Vehicles from the State Cooperative Bidding Contract. Chief of Police O'Rourke explained how the department determines what kind of vehicles to purchase and how the vehicles are used. Addressed the findings of the Michigan State Police testing of vehicles. Comments: All councilmembers voiced their intent to support the resolution. MOTION BY DORNBUSH, SECONDED BY MILLAR TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 06-13 APPROVING THE PURCHSE OF SQUAD CARS UNDER THE STATE OF MINNESOTA COOPERATIVE PURCHASING PROGRAM. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Dornbush, Erickson, LeMair and Millar. The motion carried. Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Convey a Wetland to Scott County Pursuant to the Option Agreement. Assistant to the City Manager Meyer presented the report for this agenda item. Comments: Erickson: Understands the land for the ball fields has already had title transfer. No objections to transferring the wet- lands. Commented that there may be future concems about the impact on neighbors. LeMair: Supports it. Stated there is a need for the recreational fields, it was a good deal on the price and the regional park is going to be an awesome facility. Dornbush: Glad to see the ball fields won't be encroaching as much on the woods as she thought. Will support it. Millar: Will support it. Haugen: Stated the City was able to acquire 39 acres from Scott County and the County was able to acquire more park land and it saved the wetlands. 9 City Council Meeting Minutes January 17, 2006 MOTION BY LEMAIR, SECONDED BY DORNBUSH TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 06.14 AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO CONVEY A 13.6 ACRE WETLAND TO SCOTT COUNTY IN CONNECTION WITH THE OPTION AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO AS PART OF THE ACQUISTION OF 39 ACRES WITHIN SPRING LAKE PARK. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Dornbush, Erickson, LeMair and Millar. The motion carried. OTHER Millar: Stated that there is intent to schedule a street dance in the spring. LeMair: Stated the annual membership Chamber banquet would be held on Wednesday, January 18. Erickson: Stated the Winter Blast is scheduled at Lakefront Park on Saturday, January 28 from 10 a.m. to noon. RECESS Mayor Haugen called a recess at 10:48 p.m. to allow the Council to meet in executive session to discuss pending litigation. RECONVENE The meeting reconvened at 11: 19 p.m. The Mayor explained that the executive session was to advise new council members of the status of various pending litigations. ADJOURNMENT With no further comments from Council members, a motion to adjourn was made by LeMair and seconded by Erickson. With all in favor, the meeting adjoumed at 11 :20 p.m. Frank Boyles, c~ 10