HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda & Minutes
,
"
EDA 5:30 p.m.
7:00 PM FORUM
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
Date: August 17 , 1998
1, CALL TO ORDER.............uuuu.uu.u..uuuuu...u..u..uuuuuu.uuu..u.uu 7:30 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
4. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES:
A. August 3, 1998
5. CONSENT AGENDA: Those items on the Council Agenda which are considered routine and
non-controversial are included as part of the Consent Agenda. Unless the Mayor, a Councilmember,
or member of the public specifically requests that an item on the Consent Agenda be removed and
considered separately. Items on the Consent Agenda are considered under one motion, second and a
roll call vote. Any item removed from the "Consent Agenda" shall be placed on the City Council
Agenda as a separate category
A. Consider Approval of Invoices to be Paid.
B. Consider Approval of Treasurer's Report for Jun'e.
C. Consider Approval of July Building Permit Report.
D. Consider Approval of July Animal Warden Report
E. Consider Approval of July Fire Call Report
F. Consider Approval of Agreement for Joint Assessment Between the City of Prior
Lake and Scott County.
G. Consider Approval of 2nd Quarter Budget Report.
H. Consider Approval of a Temporary 3.2 Liquor License for the Church of St.
Michael's Pork and Suds Dinner.
I. Consider Approval of a Temporary 3.2 Liquor License for Stand By Me.
6. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA:
A.
7. PRESENTATIONS:
A. None.
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Minnesota Investment Fund Grant for NBC Products
16200~le Creek Ave, S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
9. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Consider Approval of Request for Extension of Deadline for Removal of Trash
Enclosure for Burdick Properties, Inc.
10. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Consider Approval of Appointments to Serve on the Scott County Citizens Advisory
Committee, Shakopee Basin, and Credit River Watershed Advisory Committee.
B. Consider Approval of Resolution 98-XX Declaring Costs to be Assessed and
Ordering Preparation of Proposed Assessment Roll for Projects 98-14 Pleasant
Street, Colorado Street, West Avenue and Birch Avenue Improvements, 98-15
Pleasant Street Overlay and 98-16 Duluth Avenue Improvements; and Resolution 98-
XX Establishing the Date of the Assessment Hearing for Projects 98-14 Pleasant
Street, Colorado Street, West Avenue and Birch Avenue Improvements, 98-15
Pleasant Street Overlay and 98-16 Duluth Avenue Improvements.
C. Consider Approval of Resolution 98-XX and Resolution 98-XX Authorizing
Eminent Domain for Park Property Acquisition Purposes.
11. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Executive Session to Discuss Pending Litigation
12. ANNOUNCEMENTS/CORRESPONDENCE
13. ADJOURNMENT
S17SUB.DOC
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Date: August 3, 1998
1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Present were: Mayor
Mader, Councilmembers Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner, and Schenck, City Manager
Boyles, City Attorney Pace, Assistant City Manager Woodson, Planning Director Rye, City
Engineer Ilkka and Recording Secretary Oden.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Mader led the Pledge of Allegiance and welcomed
everyone to the meeting.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
City Manager Boyles noted the addition of item 5G) Consider Approval of a 3.2 Temporary
Liquor License for Conoco Men's Softball Team and the deferral of item llA) Executive
Session to Discuss Pending Litigation.
MOTION BY KEDROWSKI SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE THE AGENDA
AS AMENDED.
Upon a vote, ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Schenck, and Wuellner, the motion
carried.
4. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES:
A. July 20, 1998
MOTION BY WUELLNER SECOND BY KEDROWSKI TO APPROVE THE JULY 20,
1998 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES.
Upon a vote, ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Schenck, and Wuellner, the motion
carried.
5. CONSENT AGENDA: Those items on the Council Agenda which are considered routine and
non-controversial are included as part of the Consent Agenda. Unless the Mayor, a Councilmember,
or member of the public specifically requests that an item on the Consent Agenda be removed and
considered separately. Items on the Consent Agenda are considered under one motion, second and a
roll call vote. Any item removed from the "Consent Agenda" shall be placed on the City Council
Agenda as a separate category.
A. Consider Approval of Invoices to Be Paid.
B. Consider Approval of Appointment of Emergency Management Deputy Director.
. C. Consider Approval of Election Judge Appointments for 1998 Primary and General
Elections.
16~Q.Q&agle Creek Ave, S,E" Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-42i5
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
D. Consider Approval of Award of Bid for Replacement SCADA System for the City's
Water Distribution System.
E. Consider Approval of Resolution 98-94 Extending the Deadline- for Submittal of a
Final Plat for Northwood Oaks Estates.
F. Consider Approval of Resolution 98-93 Approving a Revised Personnel Policy.
G. Consider Approval of a 3.2 Temporary Liquor License for Conoco Softball Team for
Mangan Fields at the Ponds for August 15.
Councilmember Schenck removed item 5E for a separate vote.
MOTION BY KEDROWSKI SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE CONSENT
AGENDA ITEMS A, B, C, D, F AND G.
Upon a vote, ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Schenck, and Wuellner, the motion
carried.
6. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA:
5E) Consider Approval of Resolution 98-94 Extending the Deadline for Submittal of a Final
Plat for Northwood Oaks Estates.
Schenck said he objected to this plat last year and still held some objection to it.
MOTION BY KEDROWSKI SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE RESOLUTION
98-94 EXTENDING THE DEADLINE FOR SUBMITTAL OF A FINAL PLAT FOR
NORTHWOOD OAKS ESTATES.
Upon a vote, ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, nays Schenck and Wuellner, the motion
carried.
7. PRESENTATIONS:
A. Downtown Redevelopment Task Force - Dick Underferth.
Dick Underferth, Vice President of the EDA, presented the Downtown Redevelopment Task
Force Report to the Council. He commended the EDA for recognizing that the library will
help revitalize downtown. The Downtown Redevelopment Task Force is comprised of
downtown business owners: Karl Dingman, Jim Speiker, Coco Tremaine, and Paul Viereck;
from Parks Advisory: Ron Ceminsky and Pat Heaney; from Planning Commission: Dick
Kuykendahl and Bill Criego, from Friends of the Library: Dawn Glatzl-Beck; and from the
EDA: Bob Barsness, Tom Kedrowski, and himself. The report recommends a theme, devices
to create visual connection, types of business desirable for inclusion and addition, standards
such as exterior landscaping, recommendations for public financing incentives, and lastly
recommendations for traffic patterns, for both vehicle and pedestrian. Because of the use of
both private and public funds, cooperation of all the parties is important. The EDA
, resolution endorses the Task Force Report and sets forth steps the EDA will take to
implement the report.
8398.DOC
2
MOTION BY KEDROWSKI SECOND BY WUELLNER THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
ACCEPT THE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE REPORT AS
PRESENTED BY THE EDA.
Upon a vote, ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Schenck, and Wuellner, the motion
carried.
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. None
9. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Consider Approval of Ordinance 98-XX Amending Title 9, Chapter 3, Section 4(d) of
the Prior Lake City Code Relating to High Water Slow No Wake,
City Manager Boyles noted that if the City Council approved the ordinance tonight, it
would still have to be submitted to the DNR Commissioner for 120 day review and approval
before it could become effective.
Mader: For clarification, the item before the Council is to make a single change to aD.
ordinance passed in 1994. There is no other proposal regarding no wake or restriction of
personal water craft and no proposal to change the lake level. It is a matter of record that
another Councilmember brought this matter to the table and also a matter of record that
Mayor Mader asked that the proposed change be drafted. He restated why he asked for the
change. Prior to the no wake restrictions, there was a trail of muddy water along some
shorelines. That shows significant erosion. Also in one part of the lake we have eroded the
lake right up to a sanitary sewer. There used to be a four feet buffer between the lake shore
and the manhole and today there is no buffer left. The erosion is enhanced by boating
activities. The issue is two sides: whether Council should act to minimize the effects of
erosion or to take no action to minimize restrictions on boat owners.
Dave Moran, of Waters Edge Trail, Manager on The Prior Lake/Spring Lake Watershed
District Board: Speaking as a resident not speaking for the Watershed District. Council
should take action to reduce erosion. That is not predicated on eliminating fast boats. Wakes
and waves erode shoreline. Outlet is manmade, sediments don't wash out. They stay in the
bottom of the lake. Deterioration of water quality will be in effect for a long time. The Prior
Lake-Spring Lake Watershed has not yet discussed this and therefore does not yet have an
official position on this issue.
Schenck: What percentage of erosion is caused by boat waves and what is caused by normal
wave action?
Moran: Don't know.
Schenck: Are facts available?
Moran: Can discuss this with a scientist and get back to him.
Schenck: Does erosion stop at 904 ? Would it stop at 900?
Moran: Probably at 902.5.
Mader: The public will now have a chance to express their opinion on this issue. Each
speaker will have a three minute time limit so that the sixty or so speakers can be heard.
8398. DOC
3
Jay Carlson of 4358 Pleasant Street, representing Bass Fishermen: There are hundreds of
Bass Fisherman using Prior Lake for tournaments, and supporting businesses surrounding
Prior Lake. He opposes no wake because it takes away business. Thinks solution is a bigger
outlet.
Mr. Bashir of 13620 Evergreen Avenue in Burnsville: Who passes the laws regarding No
Wake? Is there an outlet?
Mader: There is an outlet and an existing No Wake Ordinance. City Manager posts notice
when the lake level reaches 904 to invoke the no wake ordinance.
Diane Sentarz of Wagon Bridge Marina: She read Harry and Jane Alcorn's letter stating the
ordinance is subjective. They are opposing changing the ordinance based on personal
opinion rather than research. Questioned why Lake Advisory Committee recommendation
for no changes was not followed. Recommendation affects all users. Consider financial
consequences. Council is responsible for making educated decisions which benefit the
majority ofthe community.
Jim Sentarz of Wagon Bridge Marina: Council should have data supporting decision.
Marv Mersh of 15432 Red Oaks: Supports 903.5 ordinance reluctantly; sees the erosion
problem. A theory could be developed on boat action versus wave action.
Bob Richardson of 14758 Maple Trail: Member of Oakland Beach Association. Part of his
job is maintaining beach front. Storms caused severe damage. The prevailing wind during
the summer with 1-2 feet high waves damage the shoreline. Intermittent boat traffic does not
cause damage. A lot of these problems with erosion are coming from landscaping down to
the beach.
Mike J. Gresser, EDA Commissioner, Prior Lake Association Board of Directors. Things
have happened to contribute to the water level such as the outlet closed due to construction
on CSAH 21. This ordinance has caused hysteria. The lake cycles. In 1996 it was at 900 at
one point. The lake is on a 100 year cycle.
Mike Mankowski of 3171 Butternut Circle: Read a letter supporting his position. He said the
ordinance lacks any scientific support. Its goal is to restrict recreational use. The lake would
have been No Wake for 70 days already if this ordinance had been implemented. 4 weeks of
No Wake have already taken place with the 904 No Wake.
Bob Jader of 14690 Pixie Point Circle: There has been significant erosion. Some is from
waves from boat traffic. Who is protecting the lake? The current No Wake of 904, with the
increased number and size of boats is not protecting the lake. He would recommend the
Council pass the 903.5 No Wake Ordinance, and then after the Lake has been protected,
have the process of research and report.
Michael Harte of Pixie Point: Concurred with Bob Jader. Has had four feet of his shoreline
eroded in the past two years. DNR said he can build riprap to protect the current shoreline
but can't extend the shoreline. Erosion is a problem for everyone.
8398.DOC
4
."l<
John Lemoray of 15789 Island View: Agrees with 904. The most disconcerting thing about
the issue is the way the Council is going about it. No one wants to not protect the lake.
These few people are going to make a decision affecting a regional lake. If existing
ordinances were enforced it would help. Studies should be done. Turn the matter over to the
DNR.
Roger Soderstrom of 5400 Candy Cove Trail: Owns Prior Lake Marine and is on the Lake
Advisory Committee. The issue is economics. This is a Recreational Lake affecting many
businesses. Business has gone away since the slow no wake has been implemented. Property
values are adversely affected. Residents moved here because of the lake. Consider the issue
of development and resulting runoff from impervious surface.
Bruce Munson of 15947 Circle: Agree with maintaining 904. Disagree with stopping at
902.5 Established that 904 Ordinary High Water. The lake cycles. City Council has a
responsibility to support businesses in the community. The action would directly hurt
businesses.
Chuck Schoenrach of 4926 Rutledge Street: Rents a slip on the lake. Lowering the No Wake
is not an answer.
John Champine of 3192 Butternut: 13 years as a lakehome owner. Would like Council to put
the issue in perspective. The issue has been blown out of proportion. The question Council
should be debating is a process to deal with the quality of the Lake. To make a unilateral
decision without input is not good.
Dave Norling of 15239 Fairbanks: It is very upsetting to hear about a sewer pipe in the lake.
The lake will go up. Controlling the lake is an issue. We can't let the lake become a place
where we can't enjoy it.
Bill Hollick of 16749 Bay Avenue: Council action to lower the No Wake is a stop gap
measure. There is no question of erosion. He would propose amending it for up to one year
of903.5 and directing City staffto prepare a comprehensive Lake Management plan.
Mike Mills of3481 Willow Beach Trail SW: Concurred with Bob Jader.
Marianne Breitbach of 14890 Pixie Point Circle: Process should be followed through with
professionals and scientific research.
Bill Hackett of 3508 Sycamore: There is extensive erosion. No one made an effort to
quantify which erosion is from boat traffic and which is from waves. Have enjoyed the no
wake. Support lowering no wake.
Al Josher of 14872 Estate Avenue: Against lowering no wake. There are options that are not
being looked at to slow erosion. Educate Lakeowners. Bring in sentence to service people to
help riprap shoreline.
8398.DOC
5
Kevin Schluck of 15150 Martinson Island Road: Lakeowner for 6 years. Disappointed that
Council does not take an active role with Watershed and DNR. Number of issues
contributing. No Wake ordinance will not solve all of the issues.
Ben Abrams of 14877 Mantiou: Opposes ordinance. Lived on Lake his whole life. Boy
Scout Troop volunteer, cleans up lake. Landscaping below 904 lake level. Should be no
erosion if people landscaped above 904. Using recreational vehicles. Never jeopardized
neighbors shoreline. Mother nature, ice contribute to erosion.
Dan O'Keefe of 3281 Balsam Street: Owner of Green Heights. Opposes ordinance. No facts
and figures. Restaurant down 40% in July. No one knows what is going to happen with Lake
Level. No damage on lake on flat lot. A lot ofthings that could have been done to protect it.
Charlie Hall 3486 Sycamore Trail: There has not been two years with the water at the same
level. Boats are bigger and faster. Wind and heavy rain also contribute to erosion. Supports
ordinance. People want to know how much erosion. Mother nature is a large part.
Tom Kearney, Chair of Lake Advisory Committee 6424 Commerce Street: Ordinary High
Water Level was set by the DNR in the 1950's. The No Wake level was set in 1994 by the
City Council. Due to state statute Council can regulate surface water. Should look at what
other options are available. By statute, a lake that has an outlet can only let water out a foot
and a half at a time. Everyone should be responsible shore owners and take care of property.
Lake is at a high of70 year water cycle. Lake Advisory would ask don't put another bandaid
on, do more research.
Steve Schumacher, 14740 Twin Ponds Curve: Boat resides at Wagon Bridge Marina. Lived
here three years. Oppose lowering no wake. Would like to see lake management measures
take place.
John Gorres of Shady Beach Trail :904 is the only number with any validity here. There are
waves 24 hours a day. Boats are only during the day time. It is our resource and playground.
Council can't ignore the committees.
Brad Ricksman of 14488 Shady Beach Trail: This ordinance is arbitrary and capricious. It is
Council's duty to study it and not pass it this evening. Financial and economic implications
have not been considered.
Vance Meyer of 5896 Cardinal Ridge Trail: Putting all runoff water into lake from
development contributes to the high water level.
Richard Warner of 3814 Green Heights Trail: Erosion on property is largely from nature.
Advisory committees are in place for the purpose of making recommendations. Council
should not lower the no wake level.
Dana Wheeler of 14259 Shady Beach Trail: Watched 100 feet of Lakeshore disappear. There
. is more to think about than what was looked at tonight. Key issue is level of lake. City
should address development picture. If the City is concerned about the Lake as a major
asset, the City should put money into it. If Council's action was to create no wake, there is
8398.DOC
6
no way he could be for it. This would strangle lake and hurt community. Economic issues
should be considered. Shoreline should be protected. Tax base will be accentuated on
residential if businesses are pushed out.
Jean Wheeler of Shady Beach Trail: The greatest resource is the people not the lake.
Council's job is to reflect public opinion. Should consider that those who have lived here a
long time have the knowledge. Look at where lake is now. Believe issue is more lake
management than wake issue. Address Watershed Board and DNR. Look at development
that will be affected negatively. Problem is too much water.
Chiquita Iwert of Lakeside Avenue: Urge Council to adopt alternative #3, not adopting
ordinance. If there is a sewer line exposed in the lake it should be addressed. Asks that the
City pass out flyers to residents living on lakeshore when no wake restrictions kick in.
M.C. Gresser of 15871 Island View: Pay high taxes so should be able to enjoy lake. Will
file suit against City if this is passed.
Ed Fisher of 2906 Center Road: Urge Council to delay any decision until more research has
been done. Other lakes experience erosion. He suggested Council contact Gray Biological
Institute, a research facility associated with the University of Minnesota.
Hunt Russell of 15402 Forsyth Road: Opposes ordinance change. The bigger issue is lake
level control. Make sure bank riprapped. Asked about exposed sewer and water.
Wally Stock 5038 Condon Street: Urged Council not to adopt ordinance. Should be
involving other agencies for research.
Terry Shibecka of Candy Cove Trail: Do not make changes in the ordinances. Leave as is.
Residents have a vested interest.
Rick Renslow 15616 Freemont Avenue SW: Is part of Crystal Cove Association. We have
created the problem on the lake. If an outlet had not been put in, where would the lake level
be. It was supposed to be adequate. It is not adequate. It will not be the end of problems.
Find a way to fix the shore line.
Jerry Meysenburg of 15330 Edgewater Circle: Was a Watershed Board Manager for 6 years.
City is not willing to do anything about roads and sewers, landscaping low. Frustrated with
City Council. It has been embarrassing the community in the paper.
Duke Schneider of 6582 Harbor Beach: Civil Engineer. Should not lower it based on
erosion. Erosion here is minor. Have worked with DNR. Business owners are hurting. Speed
is not an issue. It is displacement.
Bob Foxwall of 6549 Harbor Place: There are two groups. Those with erosion problems and
those who have solved their erosion problems. Residents should take care of their own
property.
8398.DOC
7
Dave Schweich of 6436 Conroy: DNR has 120 days for review. Should take that time to
review outlet issues, watershed, engineering issues and liability. Storm water management.
Wave action outlet areas.
Comments from Councilmembers: .
Kedrowski: Did not support change at last meeting. Will not support it now. Look at the
attitude and response of lowering it to 903.5. Put back to LAC. There are issues that need to
be addressed on the lake other than No Wake. Landscaping, education, water outlet.
Network more with Watershed District and Department of Natural Resources, and obtain
Lake Enforcement from the County. Water cycle developed over 100 years. Lake erosion
needs to be addressed, including drainage, setbacks, bluff ordinance. Have not heard an
official position from the Watershed. He is the only Councilmember who doesn't live on the
lake. Build consensus for what happens on this lake.
Petersen: This affects a lot of people. The Lake Advisory Committee would like to see it
come back. As far as the high water, trying to dam it back.by establishing control over
Spring Lake and Prior Lake. Will vote no.
Wuellner: In bringing up the issue, he intended for Prior Lake to understand there are a lot of
problems surrounding the lake. Erosion from boat waves is a problem. Apologizes for
nothing as far as his position. There are serious environmental problems which need to be
addressed. Bladder boats are causing problems and damage. Boaters are responsible for their
own wake. If he can be criticized it is in his lack of recognition for due process. Due
process should have happened with the LAC and didn't. His lack of patience with the
process forced this meeting. Erosion pollutes the lake. Lowering of No Wake to 903.5 is
premature. It is a complex issue. If Council acted tonight it would be six months before it
went into effect. He recommended referring back to LAC. Urged citizens to look at whether
they are part ofthe problem.
Schenck: Second hearing of this nature. Opinions have not changed but the lake has. The
quantity (903.5) in the ordinance amendment was arbitrary and capricious. Need to deal with
facts and not conjecture. In 1955 the DNR established 904 as ordinary high water mark.
Outlet provided positive method of controlling lake levels on high side. It is not a control but
a management issue. In Crystal Bay and Red Oaks erosion took place under water and there
was dredging. This was not attempted in Boudin's Bay because sewer and water main are
substandard. Fluctuations in lake level are natural. Scott County Assessor's low bay areas
tax lowered. There were 3 categories of taxes for main body, low bay, dry bay areas. In
1994 the City passed no wake, with 904. Even during high water this year the no wake has
been accepted by residents. Prior Lake has shown effects from E1 Nino. Also, CSAH 42
closed 2 weeks. 30 CFS was outletted when the lake needed to outlet 100 CFS.
Need to know the intent of the ordinance. Is it to control a naturally occurring process?
Erosion will always occur. This ordinance amendment is an inappropriate response and time
to address something which cannot be controlled. Changing the no wake will devalue
lakeshore property. All here want the same thing; management of lake level. Going about it
in different directions. Lake management involves providing holding ponds, computer
modeling, supporting Watershed in taxing requirements. It would be wrong to adopt this
8398.DOC
8
ordinance tonight. Arbitrary number contrary to good government. Deny ordinance, return
issues to Lake Advisory.
-
Mader: DNR elected not to be here until the City established its position. Regarding due
process, Council began deliberating the issue in May. LAC stated they were not making a
recommendation on issue. Discussion as to intent of ordinance. Referred to chart which was
published in Prior Lake American. There is a manhole cover next to the lake. 6-8 weeks ago
the manhole was far away from the shoreline. If the shoreline erosion continues the manhole
cover will be in the lake. There is a danger of sanitary sewer line going into the lake. Larger
overflow and more culverts would cost millions. 4 years ago Council passed the original
surface water ordinance. A majority did not want it. If Council had not done that there would
be no regulations. There has been an organized effort to bring opponents to the ordinance.
There has not been an organized effort to bring those who supported it. He is concerned with
protection of lake. He read a letter threatening a lawsuit. This ordinance could have given
short term protection to the lake. He is in favor of ordinance.
MOTION BY SCHENCK SECOND BY KEDROWSKI TO DENY ORDINANCE 98-XX
AMENDING TITLE 9 CHAPTER 3, SECTION 4 CD) OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY
CODE RELATING TO HIGH WATER SLOW NO WAKE.
Upon a vote, ayes by Kedrowski, Petersen, Schenck, and Wuellner, nay Mader, the motion
carried.
MOTION BY KEDROWSKI SECOND BY SCHENCK TO REFER TO LAKE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR ADDITIONAL STUDY FOR A CONSENSUS
BUILDING, LAKE MANAGEMENT COMPREHENSIVE STUDY AND RETURN IT TO
CITY COUNCIL IN 6 MONTHS.
Upon a vote, ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Schenck, and Wuellner, the motion
carried.
Questions from Councilmembers:
. Councilmember Kedrowski asked City Engineer Ilkka about the exposed sewer.
. City Engineer Ilkka said it was a manhole sanitary sewer. There is not a risk for sanitary
sewer going into the lake at this time.
10. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Consider Approval of Memorandum of Agreement Between Prior Lake and
Metropolitan Council Regarding Spring Lake Township Sewer and Water Extension.
MOTION BY KEDROWSKI SECOND BY SCHENCK TO APPROVE THE
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN PRIOR LAKE AND METROPOLITAN
COUNCIL REGARDING SPRING LAKE TOWNSHIP SEWER AND WATER
EXTENSION.
8398.DOC
9
Upon a vote, ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Schenck, and Wuellner, the motion
carried.
11. OTHER BUSINESS/COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS:
A. Executive Session to Discuss Pending Litigation.
. This item was deferred to the August 17 Council meeting.
12. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION BY SCHENCK SECOND BY WUELLNER TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
Upon a vote, ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Schenck, and Wuellner, the motion
carried.
The meeting adjourned at 11 :20 p.m.
1J
CityMC;7 I
10~
Recording Secretary
8398.DOC
10
~-r:;---
, .",,'
.If