Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 21 2022 City Council Minutes 1 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 21, 2022 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Briggs called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present were Councilors Burkart, Thompson, Braid and Churchill. Absent: None. Also in attendance was City Manager Wedel, Assistant City Manager Olson, Police Chief Frazer, Community Development Director McCabe, Public Works Director Brotzler, City Attorney Kendall and City Clerk Simon. 2. PUBLIC FORUM Scott Hendrickson, 14109 Bayview Circle NE: Lives across the street from the proposed reentry home. Have lived there for 28 years, the neighborhood is peaceful, stable and family oriented. Wife and I debated options for relocation upon retirement someday but made decisions to stay and did a major renovation last year. The thought of this reentry house near our forever home has added significant stress to our lives. Scott county purchased this house years ago for the purpose of tear- ing it down to reduce the driveways on CSAH 42 and now changed their mind to make it a reentry house managed by Damascus to house 4 newly released felons who will be rotating throughout the house every 30,60 or 90 days on average. While we can all agree that there is a need for reentry programs, I am against the use of this house as a reentry home in a residential neighborhood. I would like to see Prior Lake City Council take a stance. Whether or not the City has a legal way to block these, you need to have a position. We need your support for the neighborhood. I attended previous city council work session and there were some discussions about this property. I was concerned to hear the City Attorney and the Council’s lack of knowledge on this. Kevin Burkart was the only one to speak up with any conviction, stating that the County lied to us, this type of house does not belong in a residential neighborhood, and I am against it. I have been talking with neigh- bors, County Commissioners and City Council members. While I cannot speak for everyone, if the County will not tear it down, I would like to see the house changed from a reentry house to a longer stay house for families in need, such as homeless or low-income families. I believe this type of program would succeed with community support. County Commissioner Beer recently quoted in the Prior Lake American supporting the use of this property for families in need. I Would like to see the City of Prior Lake and Savage talk with County leadership to help make this change. If it be- comes a reentry home, I believe we are going to see increased crime, homeowners will add security measures and arm themselves to protect their families, good families and neighbors will move away, and property values will go down. In 2015 Prior Lake banned short term rentals due to dis- ruption and problems in residential neighborhoods. Although this is not a rental, it is every 30,60 and 90 days which is an unstable situation. I ask that you engage with Scott County on our behalf and keep our neighborhood safe. Cassandra Johnson, 14104 Hidden View Rd: Speaking about the reentry home on CR42, please take a pause and truly listen to what we have to say. As elected officials, you should be hearing us, 2 11 21 2022 City Council Meeting Minutes engaging us, in what our values and needs are. On City of Prior Lake website, it talks about en- gagement; wanting citizens to be engaged. I feel like there was no engagement, there was a lack of transparency which is really disheartening as a person, citizen and a human. We base ourselves on trust and transparency. We look to leadership to understand us and lead us. This reentry home has caused a tremendous amount of stress, and lots of contemplation on what is right for my family and our neighborhood. These reentry homes are needed, no one disputes that. It’s about the due diligence in the surrounding areas of the community. Truly feels like there was a lack of due dili- gence in pulling the reports and the data pulled about the surrounding community; how many in home daycares, public school bus stops, lack of public transportation etc. Here tonight to have you connect, in your hearts, as elected officials please listen and engage us. We are a tight knit neigh- borhood and are welcoming and family oriented. We have Lots of ideas and solutions to help alle- viate this, but the lack of engagement is disheartening. Hard step to place trust in everyone, but we want everyone to cooperate, engage and brainstorm. Please utilize us and engage us as part of the solution. Mike Picka, 14107 Hidden View Road: My wife and I have lived in Prior Lake little over 2 years. Love the neighbors, neighborhood, quiet lifestyle and nice sense of safety and community. Prior to living here, we lived in Richfield for 4 years and before that Minneapolis. Enjoyed living in the cities in our 20’s and early 30’s but were ready to move out to the suburbs to obtain the quiet aspects of the suburbs that I mentioned. We landed on Prior Lake as we were looking for good neighborhood and school district to raise children. Our house is located a few houses from proposed reentry home, and we found out about the County’s plan to convert this home from a fellow neighbor who found out when she was witnessing people doing renovations. Needless to say, all the items we were looking for in a home/neighborhood was quickly replaced with a giant pit in our stomachs, over- whelming feeling of anxiety, stress and honestly a sense of betrayal. After doing some research on reentry home, speaking directly with those who worked in the system for a decade, those feelings of anxiety and stress have grown immensely. I am all for helping people, participated in multiple charity programs but can’t get on board with this. It’s not a good location for a reentry home. Incar- cerated, adult men to be constantly turning over in a residential neighborhood, near lots of in-home daycares, playgrounds, and bus stops when there are level 1 and 2 sex offenders living there. Damascus Way, who will be overseeing this admitted that these types of individuals would be cy- cling through there. There is no public transportation, it is not on a bus line and there are virtually no jobs within walking distance for them to go to work or get out. Unsure how much this would financially benefit the city, because it will create many issues with the houses surrounding the house including in home daycares closing. There may be a need for more funding to provide more police. Since this type of housing doesn’t exist in Prior Lake and never has, with it being a new house, and with new permits, you have ability to deny this. The County owns several other houses, so allowing this to go through will set a precedent for more houses to be set up all over. Take careful consider- ation, because you might lose a lot of great citizens and Prior Lake might change forever. Matt Johnson, 8903 Heatherton Ridge Drive: Lives across the street from the proposed reentry home. We have three young girls that play at the park near there routinely over the past 5 years that we have lived there. I would just pose the question of how many of you have kids or grandkids? To think that regardless of that answer, put yourself in our shoes- what if no one told you that a reentry home that would consist of adult men with sex and violent offense crimes was going next 3 11 21 2022 City Council Meeting Minutes door to you? Or across the street from your home? Would you let your kids go outside unsuper- vised? Would you feel safe? Would you feel like you need to arm yourself? And if you didn’t, would you feel like purchasing a house in close proximity where that situation existed? Clearly Scott County does not care about what the neighbors think. A reentry facility as its place, as others have mentioned but nowhere near where this one is- in a residential neighborhood. Clearly Scott County did not share this information with the Council as we found out in this last meeting. Looking at where this sits in relation to the park, whoever is living there could be looking out the front window, in their front yard seeing what kids are playing at that park and which house they are going into. It could become a place where they walk across the street to use or deal drugs, crime increases in the area. This will destroy home prices for people who pay their mortgages. Scott County does not care about what its residents think as they had no intention of telling us or anyone in the City of Prior Lake or Savage. They don’t care where a reentry facility goes as long as it is not in their personal neighbor- hood bubble or next door to them. We desperately need the Councils help to move this. Brandon Rogotzke, 14216 Shady Beach Drive NE: Neighborhood resident, found out by a neigh- bor telling them and giving them a flier and not City or County notification. Similar to others here, have been in this area 16/17 years. Understand that the house is valuable and that they need to exist, not against that. I am against the vacuum that this was done. When you start looking at scenarios like this, this house will house a minimum of 4 residents at a time, every 30,60 and 90 days. Start doing that math, that is a lot of people moving in and out. Looking at the data; United States sentencing commission, it’s a government posting posted in 2019 stating 24,000 offenders released in a 12-month period. Here are the stats: Nonviolent offenders which maybe some of these residents will be, 39.8% will reoffend within 12 months. 63.8% of violent offenders will reoffend within 12 months. Think about that, by percentage at least 10% of these people will reoffend within 12 months. There is an elementary, childhood park literally across the street- within 20 yards, 5 in home daycares within 2 miles, 6 parks within 2 miles, an elementary school within 1.5 miles. If your neighbor’s dog is aggressive you take notice- put up a fence, put up chain etc. These people live freer than that. As a public official, I respect your office. Your job as Council is typically safety, security and economic development. I would ask that you please push back for the residents. I feel that this has not been vetted, they are not following the data. I understand these things have to happen. These facilities are spread out all over the place, what happens when someone offends? Is Scott County liable? Damascus Group? City Council? Everyone has someone to protect. Push back on the County and Damascus. If we can’t have short term rentals in the neighborhood, how can we have 16 to 30 violent offenders transacting in and out of this neighborhood within 12 months? Kevin Baseheart, 14112 Bayview Cir. NE: Speaking on the CR 42 reentry home. New resident in Prior Lake, recently as of year ago. Upset with the transparency from the County. Pulled a lot of data specifically from Scott County geographic database. There are 79 licensed daycares within 3 miles, 57 playgrounds and parks and nearest public transport for these resident’s bus stop is one mile away. This is the location the County deemed fit for new, ex-convict, sex offenders to rotate through every 30, 60 or 90 days. Residents in community have been vested for multiple decades, no one in the County initiated conversation with this neighborhood to let us know that this was happening. Biggest thing about this is precedent. This is setting a precedent for programs that are not state licensed, and this program outline is not supported by previous studies. Specially from 4 11 21 2022 City Council Meeting Minutes Lezlie Vermillion, we asked for more information and more data that would provide this as a suitable location. The study that she shared was based on a licensed reentry facility with a minimum of 8 residents at once time. That study specifically concluded that fewer resident homes ultimately had worse outcomes than larger homes, which this is. This sets precedent for lack of communication and transparency to the community these programs are going to be implemented in. Moving forward we ask representatives that you stop the County from moving forward with the proposed, unlicensed reentry program. This location is better suited for a family-oriented program. Todd Voth, 14145 Hidden View Rd.: Agree with all the previous statements said. One of the things that everyone should think about is why is the County in the business of becoming a landlord? They bought a house, they had a plan, now they are turning it into a business. They are using County resources to maintain and monitor and deal with everything that the landlord would. It should be handled in private situation. Another thing, why in this area? They will want to put a driveway in. This is essentially a business going into this area. When I moved to the area, we did a traffic impact study because we wanted to be removed from a high traffic area. This is not traffic from a single- family dwelling, this will be traffic to supply supplies, vendors, visitors and unrelated neighbors. We did not buy in this neighborhood to have more traffic through, and no one seems to be considerate. Hoping the city will push back to the driveway created on to Hidden View. Again, with short term rental threat. They say they will start with 4 residents; we know that they will push it to 6 occupants as soon as they can. Bringing people in who are starting at the bottom, in a neighborhood that has $500,000-$1-million-dollar houses in that area is just asking for failure. How easy is it for them to think the residents don’t care and that they are an easy target. Matt Fulton, 14080 Shady Beach Trail: Happy new resident of Prior Lake. Adjacent to the property being discussed. Don’t want to repeat as the neighbors have done a great job at identifying the topics. Disappointment in Scott County. When they did their transportation plan several years ago, their goal was to lessen egresses on 42. The Federal government gave communities across the nation millions of dollars supporting post-pandemic needs. The County’s plan as it relates to hous- ing is to support homelessness. So, using APRA dollars for this purpose, really is inconsistent with what the Federal government had in mind when they issue ARPA dollars. Everyone has suggested that the City Council pushes back. This home is not identified in your R-1 zoning district. It is a unique piece that is not identified. Historically in my experience with this type of situation, City Council would say timeout and enact a moratorium on this land use in this particular zoning code so that you have time to sort through everything to potentially build a legal muscle to push back on the County. I would ask the City Attorney for guidance on this. None of the other reentry homes are in a low density, R-1 district. It just doesn’t fit consistently from a zoning perspective. With all the remote working environments, taking advantage of repurposing a commercial area which would be closer to public transportation, closer to job opportunities, those kinds of facilities that won’t be used because people are not physically coming back to work might be something to think creatively about. Heather Voth, 14145 Hidden View Road: I have one short comment to make about the lack of transparency with Scott County. I don’t believe they are finished with their transparency issues. Last Monday morning I took a photo of a vehicle, USIC truck doing locates. Believes that this is a sign of the County’s determination to put a driveway on Hidden View Road. 5 11 21 2022 City Council Meeting Minutes Scott County Commissioner District 4, David Beer: Wanted to make myself available, we had a meeting a few weeks ago that some of you attended. How did we get here- with the County comes with it mandates for Human Services. There is no shortage of need, we heard that from multiple citizens. One of my things in running was how do we do things better, get better outcomes and for less overall cost to the taxpayer? Part of what came out of this was faith round tables, faith busi- nesses and nonprofit round tables, which launched this year and we have had 4 or 5 of them. The jest of that roundtable was for housing. Engaging community and engaging others that are not government entities. If this was a Department of Corrections facility, I would not be involved. In October at the conclusion of these round tables we awarded Hosana, a ministry out of Shakopee, to be able to own and operate homes for homeless families. That is what I am tied to. The reentry home is needed just in the right place. My goal is to try to find a soft landing. Mr. Hendrickson noted that I am in the Prior Lake American with my position as pretty well noted. My personal preference is for this particular place to be used for homeless assistance. As for some updates, the driveway at that property would not move. It would cost too much money. Also maybe turning it into a longer- term program (such as 6 months) and having no sex offenders. There are some really great staff at the County that do work that none of us want to do. It is important to honor that work that the County does, regardless of if we agree with them or not. Briggs: To summarize, we heard a lot of requests for the Prior Lake City Council to take a formal position. Defer to City Manager Wedel and City Attorney Kendall to respond. Also heard lots of stats on due diligence that was taken or lack thereof which I will also defer to City Manager Wedel to respond. Wedel: Thank you for everyone for coming and for your comments. First and foremost, we do hear you and we do hear your concerns. Council and I did attend the meeting with the County that was held at the library. We are invested and taking this seriously to understand it to the best of our ability. We are working behind the scenes, researching from a legal aspect on what we can and can’t do with the attorney. We are working through that. Our city attorney is having conversations with Scott County’s attorney to understand what the details of this house actually looks like. We don’t have answers to all those questions yet. Until we have more data, we are not at a place yet where the City can take a position on this topic until we know exactly what they are going to do. County Commissioners will be having a work session on this topic in December to discuss all these items. We have also been told by the County that the soonest that anyone would occupy this house would not be until spring. Working with the County to make sure we understand what is happening and where the timing is at. More to come. There is nothing yet for the city to take a position on because the set use has not been determined and we will continue to monitor this very closely. That is our current update. Attorney Kendall: Not much to add, everything Manager Wedel said is correct. Did speak with the County Attorney’s office last Friday afternoon and are still in communications with them. Topics being discussed are: Will this be licensed by the state and if so, how? If not, what will it be. We will need to determine how its classified legally before we know how to respond. Actively investigating, researching and talking with the County. Once we determine what the options are it will be brought back to Council for discussion. 6 11 21 2022 City Council Meeting Minutes Mayor: Could you comment on enacting a Moratorium? Attorney Kendall: The way the County explained it to me as of last Friday was, they would basically be treating this like 4 individuals who are choosing to live together. They would not be in custody or assigned there. They would have been fully released and completed their sentences so they would have the option to live wherever they want. They are not treating it as any type of institutional use. Therefore, that is not a separate use in the zoning code and it is not possible to place a moratorium on a house with 4 residents. Thompson: It is unsure if this will be a reentry house or not? In discussions with the county, it was not determined conclusively, correct? Kendall: I inquired if it was going to be a community based correctional facility, which would be individuals under some sort of custody or supervision such as supervised release, parole or early release. Technically still in custody and subject of the jurisdiction of either the State or the County corrections department. The way I understand it that is not what this would be. Would be individuals who are fully released and are given the option to live there. They may be reentering society after incarceration, but they will not be in custody or a correctional facility. Thompson: So, they are more free by not being under custody, not being under supervision? Kendall: They would still be on probation, just not under supervision. If they violate the law in any way, they can be sent back to custody. Thompson: So, we do know the plans for this house are that this reentry home is the plan? Kendall: I am unsure how they plan to license this house under the state licensing statutes. If they are providing certain services in that home, it would require certain licensing. The County has not made clear which services will be provided aside from residential. Churchill: Encouraging everyone to go to the next County Commissioner meeting. The County Commissioners are the ones that make that decision. The City Council does not have any power on what the County decides to do with that house. We are looking into what we can do, but the County has much more power over that and that is where your voices will be heard. Appreciate you all being here as we need to hear from our residents. Braid: Thank you for voicing concerns. I feel there has been a lack of transparency, I share in these concerns. This is not necessarily a city decision; my personal preference is to tear this house down. Also feel that this isn’t the right spot for reentry housing. Maybe it’s a place for families with insecure housing. Committed to working with the City Council and the County to create a solution that works with the neighborhood. 7 11 21 2022 City Council Meeting Minutes Burkart: Struggle with the public policy here and that is where the focus needs to be for our County Commissioners as well as this Council. To me this is bad public policy. Not only do you not want it in your backyard no one would because it is bad public policy. The other approach to take on it would be to warehouse these folks in a dormitory style facility that is not in the middle of a residential neighborhood. I think that is more palatable. Perhaps not ideal, but it is not shoe horning ex-cons coming out of prison that have no family, and no friends that want to accept them into your neigh- borhood. There is no ideal answer to it. The meeting held at the library by the County Commission- ers there was a department of corrections employee who had been there for 10 years who shared some of the horror stories of these types of homes. Those were difficult to hear. The residents are aware of security measures and how to evade them. Even if a low percent of these individuals reoffends, that creates a problem in the neighborhood. It was our understanding that the county was going to take that home and raze it to knock off that access point onto CR42, we should have gotten that in writing. There was no collaboration. The County decided to change the direction of that property. There has been a lack of communication. That is not how government should be. Complete lack of transparency and communication with residents, and consistent stance of we don’t have to communication with you is not acceptable. Using state law as cover for that was inappro- priate. The use could potentially violate our City Code. Briggs: I can assure you, want to make right what started off in a very poor way. The City learned of this through the citizens. That brings some significant breech of communication and collabora- tion. I continue to voice that I would like to see a soft-landing use that did not have transition as a component. At this juncture, with the lack of information I don’t want to take a formal stance as it may damage the work being done. As City Manager Wedel noted the soonest this home would be occupied would be spring, so we have time to work on this topic. Progress is being made in the background. City Council does have significant influence and legal counsel is diligently advising on what those options are. Please share your voices again with the County Commissioners. Thompson: Another piece of advice, all very good testimony tonight. I would recommend that you craft emails and send to all the commissioners at Scott County. Your voice does carry a lot of weight. You are their constituents; City Council are not. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION BY BURKART SECOND BY CHURCHILL, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRE- SENTED. VOTE Briggs Thompson Burkart Braid Churchill Aye ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ Nay ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Abstain ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Absent ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ The motion carried. 8 11 21 2022 City Council Meeting Minutes 4. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES 4A. APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 7, 2022, CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MOTION BY THOMPSON, SECOND BY CHURCHILL, TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 7, 2022, CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AS PRESENTED VOTE Briggs Thompson Burkart Braid Churchill Aye ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ Nay ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Abstain ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Absent ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ The motion carried. 5. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Claims Listing B. Approval of Building Permit Summary Report C. Approval of Animal Control Services Report D. Resolution 22-138 Approving American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Funds Expenditure Reporting for the Downtown South Street Replacement Project E. Resolution 22-139 Approving a Work Order for Fish Point Rd Phase 2 F. Resolution 22-140 Approving a Work Order for Fish Point Rd Phase 3 (Intersection) G. Resolution 22-141 Approving No Parking area - Fish Point Road Phase 2 Reconstruction Pro- ject (2023-02) H. Approval of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Outdoor Recreation Program Grant Contract Agreement I. Resolution 22-142 Approving a Change Order for Welcome Ave Storm Sewer Repair MOTION BY BRAID, SECOND BY BURKART, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRE- SENTED VOTE Briggs Thompson Burkart Braid Churchill Aye ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ Nay ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Abstain ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Absent ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ The motion carried. 6. PRESENTATIONS 6A. 2022 Cora B. McQuestion Spirit of Prior Lake Award: Woody Spitzmueller City Manager Wedel gave a brief history introduction about the award. Mayor Briggs presented the award. Meeting adjourned to recess for photos at 8:06 pm. Meeting reconvened at 8:09 pm. 9 11 21 2022 City Council Meeting Minutes 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. 8. OLD BUSINESS None. 9. NEW BUSINESS None. 10. Removed Consent Agenda Items No items were removed. 11. COUNCILMEMBER LIAISON UPDATES / COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS Churchill: 11/8 Live Learn Earn Housing Chair Committee Planning Meeting, 11/9 Housing Work- shop, 11/14 Chamber Board Meeting and Planning Commission Meeting, 11/18 Agenda Review, 11/21 SCALE Service Delivery Meeting Braid: 11/8 Voted in General Election, 11/11 Celebrated Veterans’ Day, 11/21 Agenda Review Burkart: 11/10 HWY 169 Corridor Coalition Board Meeting,11/11 Transportation Advisory Board Regional Solicitation Prep Meeting, 11/14 Capital Allocation Meeting with Metro Transit Services, 11/14 MVTA Association Management Committee Meeting, 11/14 Suburban Transit Association Board Meeting, 11/15 Suburban Transit Association Legislative Agenda Committee Meeting, 11/16 Transportation Advisory Board Meeting, 11/16 Special City Council Meeting Thompson: 11/16 Special City Council Meeting, 11/21 Agenda Review Briggs: Veterans Day at St. Michaels Church, 11/21 SCALE General Meeting 12. OTHER BUSINESS None. 13.ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY CHURCHILL, SECOND BY THOMPSON, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:17 pm. VOTE Briggs Thompson Burkart Braid Churchill Aye ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ Nay ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Abstain ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Absent ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ The motion carried. Respectfully Submitted, Jason Wedel, City Manager