Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda & Minutes I /I EDA MEEtING 5:30 - 7:00 p.m. 7:00 PM FORUM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Date: June 21, 1999 1. CALL TO ORDER and PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ......................... 7:30 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: 3. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF JUNE 7, 1999 MEETING MINUTES: 4. 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 C) Consider Approval of 1999-2000 Liquor License Renewals. D) Consider Approval of Refuse Hauler Permit Renewals for Buckingham Disposal, Dick's Sanitation, Prior Lake Sanitation, Quality Waste Control, Shakopee Services and Waste Management-Savage. E) Consider Approval of Resolution 99-~ Approving the Application for One-Day Off-Site Lawful Gambling for the Prior Lake Lion~Club. ~~ 5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA: 6. PRESENTATIONS: A) Y2K Status Report (Bret Woodson) 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE. 8. OLD BUSINESS: ~ Consider Approval of Ordinance 99-XX approving a Zone Change Request by D.R. Horton and Deerfield Development for 168 acres Located South of Fish Point Road and Wilderness Trail and East of The Ponds Athletic Facility. ~ Consider Approval of Resolution 99-XX Authorizing the Award of Bids and Execution of City's Standard Contract for the Purchase and Installation of Wooden Flooring for the Library/Resource Center. l~~gle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER I 9. NEW BUSINESS: A) Consider Approval of Resolution 99-XX Establishing July 19, 1999 as a Public Hearing Date to Consider a Request by Triax Midwest Associates to Assign the Television Cable Franchise Rights to Mediacom LLC. 10. OTHER BUSINESS: 11. ANNOUNCEMENTS/CORRESPONDENCE 12. ADJOURNMENT 062199.DOC REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Date: June 7,1999 (7:30pm) CALL TO ORDER and PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Present were: Mayor Mader, Council members Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, City Manager Boyles, City Attorney Pace, Assistant City Manager Woodson, Planning Director Rye, City Engineer Ilkka, Parks and Rec. Director Hokeness, Planning Coordinator Kansier, Assistant City Engineer McDermott, Finance Director Teschner, Fire Chief Chromy, Parks Supervisor Friedges and Recording Secretary Meyer. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MADER: Suggested moving Item 7A (Board of Review Continuation) to the first Item of Old Business. MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY SCHENCK TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF MAY 17. 1999 MEETING MINUTES: MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 17, 1999 MEETING. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen and Wuellner, the motion carried. Council member Schenck abstained. CONSENT AGENDA: A) Consider Approval of Invoices to be Paid. B) Consider Approval of Fire Call Report for May. C) Consider Approval of Resolution 99-53 Nullifying the Bluff Indemnification Agreements for Specific Properties. D) Consider Approval of Animal Warden Monthly Reports for April and May. BOYLES: Briefly reviewed each of the Consent Agenda items. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA: NONE. PRESENTATIONS: NONE. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Board of Review Continuation. (Moved to the first Item under Old Business) 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER -, Council Meeting Minutes June 7.1999 Public Hearing to Consider Resolution 99-54 Adopting a Preferred Alternative for the Trunk Highway 13-Commerce Avenue and Boudin Street Frontage Roads and Intersection Safety Improvements. The Mayor opened the public hearing. BOYLES: Commented on the history of this Item and purpose of the Public Hearing. l1.KKA: Gave a brief update as to the process to this point and reviewed the three options for the TH13-Commerce-Boudin realignment in connection with the staff report. Discussed the rationale for option 1-R, the option recommended by staff. Also indicated the funding sources and the total costs of the project. Indicated that the biggest advantage to option 1-R is that it has the lowest impact on the Church property. SCHENCK: Clarified that this is a City reaction to a state project plan. lLKKA: Responded that the state advised that the City must address or mitigate the impact of the accesses to TH13. BOYLES: Clarified that the staff is working in response to the TH13 Corridor Study, which was a joint project between the City of Savage, MnDOT, the Townships and Scott County to establish an intersection plan. Our City's Capital Improvement Plan has now addressed several intersections, including this one over the next five years. This intersection took priority because of its significant safety concerns. lLKKA: Advised that the crash and severity rates for this particular intersection are higher than the average for other similar intersections across the state. KEDROWSKI: Asked City Engineer IIkka to comment on the storm water drainage issues. lJ..KKA: More engineering studies are necessary to determine the specific requirements. There will be much more storm sewer pipe work because the road would be in the right of way. WUELLNER: In the proposed alignment, asked if the 100 foot access road to the frontage road is going to provide adequate stacking in peak times. Is there an option of having a right in only from TH13 to Boudin? l1.KKA: The 100 foot access road is not ideal, but it is functional. A right-in only was not discussed but would also be subject to negotiation with the state. DANIEL BEASON (counsel for Prior Lake Assembly Church): Commented on the Church's position in the community and their position that the current access is adequate for the Church's use of their property which is primarily during off-peak hours. Any of the proposed options effect the Church's mission, development and expansion on the site. Discussed the development phases of the Church. Option 1 or 1-R affect the expanded parking plans for the Church by between 30%- 60%. Suggested an acre-for-acre land exchange with the City, or total taking of the property with reasonable compensation to the Church. 060799.DOC 2 ---.------ Council Meeting Minutes June 7.1999 MADER: Asked Mr. Beason if an acre-for-acre swap needed to be relative to this site, and asked for clarification that either Option 1 or 1-R would force the Church from the property. BEASON: Indicated that the Church would prefer to stay at this site and be left alone, but would entertain a possible acre-for-acre swap. It is the Church's position that either Option 1 or 1-R would force the Church to look for other property. MADER: Asked City Engineer IIkka if, given that the Church would be moved from the site with either Option 1 or 1-R, would Option 1-R still be the recommendation. ILKKA: Commented that he would need to further review the benefits and disadvantages. SCHENCK: Asked whether given that the state has directed intersection improvements, and the City is trying to take the lead so as to least impact the Church, what would be the recommendation of the Church. BEASON: Restated that the Church merely wants to limit the impacts on its phased expansion plans, and wants to be compensated appropriately. The impact on the Church for any of these options is tremendous. BETH OSLAND (Boudins Manor neighborhood): Commented that the intersection at Boudins is very dangerous and she often uses Rutgers to get access to CR42. Suggested that a stoplight may be a short-term solution. Further commented that the County Road 42 frontage road issue benefits very few, and felt that bringing the issue back to the table does not bring any benefit to the City. Prefers the option proposed by staff that provides the least impact to the Church. BRIAN BURDICK (representing three office buildings on Commerce Ave): From a safety standpoint, this is a dangerous intersection. Supports the project and prefers option 1-R as proposed by staff. Discussed the impact on monument signs, trees and green space. Further commented that the proposed frontage road eliminates a drainage ditch. Would like to see the northern portion of the frontage road moved as closely as possible into the MnDOT right-of-way, similar to the southern portion. Suggested adding language to that effect to the resolution. MADER: Asked IIkka if a similar construction as proposed for the southern portion could be used for this northern portion of the right-of-way as raised by Mr. Burdick. ILKKA: We can discuss it with MnDOT. It really came to our attention at the previous meetings, which was subsequent to the feasibility study. Agreed that adding some language so as to maximize the use of the County right-of-way would be appropriate. Further discussion occurred between Councilmember SCHENCK and Mr. BURDICK regarding safety issues with moving the frontage road closer to TH13. SANDI WRIGHT (Boudins Manor neighborhood): Supports Option 1-R. Appreciates the discussions and work that have occurred between the neighborhood, MnDOT and the City. Realizes the Church is concerned about the impact, but that safety for their congregation is important as well and that there is a greater benefit to the neighborhood with the realignment. Mayor MADER asked if others wished to speak. None did. 060799.00C 3 Council Meeting Minutes June 7. 1999 PATTON: Indicated that he did meet with the City Manager and a representative of the neighborhood to discuss housing types and zoning regulations. We considered several options in conjunction with the zoning ordinance including rezoning 27 acres R-4 rather than R-2 which would allow the remainder of the property to be R-1. WUELLNER: Asked how to act on the 10 acres he has put on the table. ~: Advised that first the action would be to act on the motion to reconsider the application to rezone. Then in the context of the application, the Council can further establish findings, such as too little R-2, too much R-2, etc. SCHENCK: Asked if the 10 acres is shifted to R-1, what density are we then at for the project? Why would a residential density abut an existing commercial district even if it is high-density. PATTON: Although the project concept is not final, between 640-650 units. With respect to transition, normally, higher density is adjacent to major arterial roads and/or more intense zoning, and then it is stepped down to the lower density. BOYLES: Clarified that an earlier motion to amend the Comprehensive Plan was denied which would have allowed R-4. Now the project is back to conformance with the options allowed by the Compo Plan which is medium to low density housing. The focus now is to determine where it is appropriate for the R-1 and R-2 to go. WUELLNER: Restated that the issue of rezoning this property is to bring the property into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan which is mandated by state statute. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It is inappropriate in this case for this Council to make a value judgment on the appropriateness of R-1 and R-2 because it is consistent with the Compo Plan. However, there are valid concerns and impacts on the table as we have heard from the neighborhood. Wuellner stated he had not abandoned the cause, but the City is responsible for complying with state statute. Encouraged further discussion take place to come up with a win-win compromise. The 10 acres proposed is a step in the right direction. Asked for clarification as to what the consequences would be of approving the motion to reconsider. MADER: A motion to reconsider only means we reopen the issue to consideration. At that point, we can either go back to the original motion to deny it, and then direct staff and the developer to come back with a different recommended zoning criteria. KEDROWSKI: Believed that action would be inappropriate because the whole process would need to be restarted, including submitting it to the planning commission and holding a public hearing. ~: Clarified that once the applicant's proposal to rezone the property is before the Council, it is within the Council's legislative discretion to do what it thinks is best consistent with how the property is generally guided, which in this case is low to medium density. Even though Fish Point Road happens to be a convenient boundary, the divide is not dictated to be in that location. You can either accept the application as proposed by the applicant, or you can refine it consistent the Compo Plan and with what the Council believes is in the best interest of the City. 060799.DOC 6 Council Meeting Minutes June 7.1999 MADER: Added that his perception is that state statute does not require that the Council approve a zoning proposal just because it is consistent with the Compo Plan. ~: Clarified with the example that if you have a box, and a developer says the right-hand side of the box will be R-2, and the left-hand side will be R-1 based upon this line, the Council is not obligated to approve the proposal solely because it is consistent with the Compo Plan. However, within that box, the property must be guided or zoned R-1 and R-2. PATTON: Staff has been provided with the legal descriptions for the proposed R-2 and R-1 based on the property boundaries of the title company. We can have the surveyor take 10 acres off of the west end of the R-2 and added to the R-1 by tomorrow afternoon. BOYLES: Clarified that procedurally, the appropriate action would have been to call a vote on the motion to reconsider prior to this discussion. Suggested acting on the motion to reconsider before any other discussion takes place. VOTE ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER: Ayes by Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, Nay by Mader, the motion carried. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO APPROVE THE RE-ZONING APPLICATION OF D.R. HORTON WITH THE REVISION TO DELETE 10 ACRES OF R-2 FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ADD IT TO R-1. WUELLNER: Further commented that he will be looking to the Developer to be very responsive to the concerns of the neighbors and to work responsibly with them to create a development that is sensitive to the impacts that it creates in such areas as buffering and traffic. RYE: Suggested directing staff to provide an ordinance with legal descriptions and findings of fact for consideration at the next meeting. MADER: Does not support the motion. Restated his opposition in approving the rezoning without a much more significant decrease in R-2 acreage. PACE: Advised that the Council is approving the re-zoning and not a specific layout or concept plan. Further advised that a homeowner's association mentioned earlier by the Developer implied a Planned Unit Development (PUD). PUD means the developer can be eligible for higher density because of housing types and can have private streets. PATTON: Confirmed that if the rezoning is approved, the Developer intends to apply for a PUD as opposed to a regular plat to do the homeowner's association and private streets. AMENDED MOTION TO APPROVE THE RE-ZONING APPLICATION OF D.R. HORTON AND DEERFIELD DEVELOPMENT WITH A CHANGE IN THE ACREAGES, INCREASING THE R-1 BY 10 ACRES AND DECREASING THE R-2 BY 10 ACRES, AND FURTHER DIRECTING STAFF TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE WITH MODIFIED LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS AND FINDINGS OF FACT FOR CONSIDERATION AT OUR NEXT MEETING. 060799.DOC 7 Council Meeting Minutes June 7.1999 SCHENCK: Commented that his personal opinion is that he does not wish to see the development at all, but there are legal ramifications as well. He will be watching the remaining process closely. MADER: Does not support the motion. It is a given that the property will be developed and the neighborhood realizes this, but it seems that it comes down to who draws the line between R-1 and R-2. Believes that the Council has that power, and that it could have been done in a more positive way. VOTE: Ayes by Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner, and Schenck, Nay by Mader, the motion carried. The Council took a brief recess at 9:40pm. The regular meeting resumed at 9:43pm. Consider Approval of Resolution 99-55 Rejecting All Bids for Street Reconstruction for Candy Cove/Lakeside Manor Street Improvements (City Project 99-11) and Lift Station Renovations (City Project 99-02) and Authorizing Re-Advertisement of the Two Projects. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 99-55 REJECTING ALL BIDS FOR STREET RECONSTRUCTION FOR CANDY COVE/LAKESIDE MANOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS (CITY PROJECT 99-11) AND LIFT STATION RENOVATIONS (CITY PROJECT 99-02) AND AUTHORIZING RE-ADVERTISEMENT OF THE TWO PROJECTS. BOYLES: Reviewed the item before the Council in connection with the staff report. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried. The Council took a brief recess at 9:45pm. The regular meeting resumed at 9:47pm. Consider Approval of Resolution 99-56 Declaring Costs to be Assessed and Ordering Preparation of Proposed Assessment Roll for Project 99-12 Centennial Street Improvements, and Resolution 99-57 Establishing the Date of the Assessment Hearing. BOYLES: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report and suggested the special assessment hearing be scheduled for July 6, 1999 at 7:45pm. KEDROWSKi: Asked if there are alternative funding sources if the assessments are not supported. BOYLES: Confirmed that the Council could consider other sources.. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI, SECOND BY PETERSEN, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 99-56 DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PROJECT 99-12 CENTENNIAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS. SCHENCK: Asked why the project wasn't bid as part of the Candy Cove project. It was his understanding that bidding the projects together would save some money. 060799.DOC 8 Council Meeting Minutes June 7.1999 McDERMOTT: The projects are uniquely different. Staff was not aware at the time of the Centennial bids that bids for the Candy Cove project would be rejected. The timing of the assessment hearings was such that the projects could not be bid together. To re-bid at this time would push the assessment hearing to August or September and construction would not be completed this season. It is hard to say that there would be any savings if the projects were re-bid. MADER: Discussed amending the Resolution to say "whereas bids have been received and costs have been determined" rather than "a contract has been let". Clarified that the Council will have an opportunity in the future to proceed or not proceed. ILKKA: Confirmed. MOTION AMENDED TO REVISE RESOLUTION 99-56 TO STATE AS INDICATED ABOVE. VOTE ON MOTION AS AMENDED: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 99-57 SETTING THE ASSESSMENT HEARING FOR JULY 6, 1999 AT 7:45PM. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried. Consider Approval of Change Order No. 3 to the Contract for the 1998 Improvement Project 98-15. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 TO THE CONTRACT FOR THE 1998 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 98-15. BOYLES: Discussed the purpose of the Change order in connection with the staff report. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried. Consider Approval of Advisory Committee Appointment Schedule, Re-affirming Existing Members' Terms and Term Limits, and Amending Committee Bylaws. MADER: Briefly provided the background to the item in connection with previous Council direction. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT SCHEDULE, RE-AFFIRM EXISTING MEMBERS' TERMS AND TERM LIMITS, AND AMENDING COMMITTEE BYLAWS. SCHENCK: Asked why the EDA wasn't included. BOYLES: Commented that the EDA is a separate corporate entity, and it is not within the Council bylaws. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried. 060799.DOC 9 Council Meeting Minutes June 7. 1999 Consider Approval of Resolution 99-58 Authorizing WSB & Associates Inc. to Prepare a Storm Water Trunk Fee Justification Report. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 99-58 AUTHORIZING WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. TO PREPARE A STORM WATER TRUNK FEE JUSTIFICATION REPORT. BOYLES: Commented that the Builder's Association is willing to share expenses with the City to prepare a justification report of a very important fee and commended the City Attorney on her work. The City will be the client, and the Builder's Association input is only with respect to methodology and technical matters. MADER: Asked why the resolution did not refer to any cost-sharing. BOYLES: In order to allow the City maximum flexibility, cost-sharing is not included in the event that the City must pay the full amount for some unforeseen reason. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried. SCHENCK: Proposed accommodating the remaining residents present by moving Item 9G to the next item on the agenda. NEW BUSINESS: Consider Approval of Resolution 99-59 Authorizing a Conditional Use Permit for Open Land Recreational Use on an Outlot in the R-1 District. BOYLES: Reviewed the staff report, the issues raised at the Planning Commission level, and the Planning Commission's recommendation. SCHENCK: Asked for clarification if the City has any mechanism that would restrict the number of docks so long as there are no more than 4 watercraft on the dock. BY.!;: Clarified that as a general rule we do not regulate the number of docks, but in the CUP process, the City does have the authority to attach additional conditions in certain circumstances. Advised that the "four watercraft" maximum is a DNR regulation. KEDROWSKI: We are eliminating the discussion of number of docks by regulating that the owner can have only four watercraft at the site. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 99-59 AUTHORIZING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OPEN LAND RECREATIONAL USE ON AN OUTLOT IN THE R-1 DISTRICT ADDING A RESTRICTION THAT NO MORE THAN 4 WATERCRAFT BE MOORED OR DOCKED AT THE SITE AND TO ALLOW STORAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES OWNED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER OVERNIGHT SEASONALL Y. BRAD OVERBY (15901 Fremont Ave.): Advised that he is the sole owner of the property with three docks on 150 feet of lakeshore. Currently stores a recreational vehicle and there are several 060799.DOC 10 Council Meeting Minutes June 7. 1999 storage sheds on the property. Willing to take down a shed and relocate another shed. Uses the property only for storage seasonally. Expects the City to stand up to its commitment as indicated in a 1996 letter from the City regarding storage of the camper. The property is not used for a campground. Does not understand what regulates the storage of recreational vehicles on an outlot. Further discussed that standards for other properties in comparison. Asked for approval in connection with the staff recommendation except to delete item #6 to allow him to store his camper on the property seasonally. WUELLNER: Commented that neighbors are concerned about the property being a campground. Asked Mr. Overby to comment on his intent. OVERBY: Seasonal storage only as provided by the letter from the City in 1996. SCHENCK: Concerned about how the City regulates outlots and the perception of a campground. RYE: Outlots cannot be built upon and they are subject to zoning. When the recreational vehicles section of the zoning ordinance was passed, it referred to storage on residential properties. The current ordinance is set up so that if the activity is not specified for the property in the ordinance, you can't do it. SCHENCK: If I own an outlot across the street, do I need to go through the CUP process to store a recreational vehicle? RYE: This petition is being processed under the old zoning ordinance because it was initiated last August. If you came in today, this open land recreational use is not contemplated in the current ordinance. Under the terms of the outlot, if there is some permitted use that is allowed in the ordinance, you can make use of the outlot in that fashion provided you do not put up a structure that requires a building permit. If the CUP is issued, the owner of the property can continue that use indefinitely. A CUP runs with the land, but is subject to revocation or amendment if violated. SCHENCK: If there is no restriction as to the number of recreational vehicles stored on the outlot in the old ordinance, is it correct that there is nothing that prohibits storage of recreational vehicles for others? RYE: There was no restriction on storing trailers, boats or anything else in the old ordinance. OVERBY: Suggested limiting the CUP to those vehicles he owns, which would prevent look of a storage facility. MADER: Questioned if it was appropriate to be taking action on a CUP under the old ordinance. Also asked if there was any termination to a CUP. RYE: The new ordinance allows the Council to grant a CUP under the old ordinance as part of an administrative power for those applications received prior to the enactment of the new ordinance. A CUP can be given a annual review date, but run with the land. If there is a complaint and the owner is in violation, the CUP can be reviewed and/or revoked. 060799.DOC 11 Council Meeting Minutes June 7.1999 PACE: Clarified that the issue of timing applied to a whole host of pending land use applications. The Planning Department decided to issue an administrative order outlining how applications would be handled that came in prior to the enactment of the new zoning ordinance. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen and Wuellner, Nay by Schenck, the motion carried. Consider Approval of 1998 Annual Financial Report and Management Letter. BOYLES: Introduced Jerry Eick of Abdo, Abdo, Eick and Myers. .ElCK: Briefly gave an overview of the 1999 Annual Financial report. Further discussed the various funds, fund balances in relation to the budget, transfers and those items that resulted in an increase in the General Fund balance, such as storm damage appropriations. Commented that the financial position of the City continues to improve, which will give the City a good bond rating. The City's annual debt service is stable which is important in bond ratings. KEDROWSKI: Asked about a presentation regarding Y2K at the next meeting. Staff confirmed that a presentation was planned for the June 21, 1999 meeting. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI, SECOND BY SCHENCK TO APPROVE 1998 ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT AND MANAGEMENT LETTER. MADER: Asked if the total revenues of $6.9 million and total expenditures of $5.8 million left approximately $1.2 million in excess of revenues over expenditures, then in "Other Financing Sources" $854,000 is transferred out to debt service funds. There is also $200,000 shown as an Operating Transfer in. What is that? EICK: Answered that on page 52, Water and Sewer Utilities, operating transfers is a budgeted item as a general fund transfer. Couldn't say for certain that it is intended to be a payment in lieu of taxes from the enterprise fund to the general fund, but it's certainly the proprietary fund's contribution towards the operation of the City. That Utility also makes a contribution to capital projects. MADER: Asked if on the Statement of Revenues (pg 23) the intergovernmental grant was from FEMA, and how much did we get for storm damage. TESCHNER: Part is from FEMA ($89,000) and some are miscellaneous grants and FASTCOP. As of this report, the City has received $89,000. The City also received additional dollars in the beginning of 1999 and the difference is the FASTCOP grant. MADER: Where in the revenue profile is the $154,000 from insurance? TESCHNER: Answered that it is reflected as a reduction in expenditures and credited against contingency account where the expenditures remain. Technically it is not a revenue source and delineated as a revenue because it is an offset of expenditures. It flows through the General Fund as a reduction to the expenditures within the Contingency Fund. There were $115,000 of expenditures offset with insurance showing a net of $26,000. 060799.DOC 12 -..e .. - Council Meeting Minutes June 7.1999 VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried. Consider Approval of Resolution 99-60 Approving General Fund Transfers to the Collector Street Fund and the Revolving Equipment Fund. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI, SECOND BY SCHENCK TO APPROVAL RESOLUTION 99-60 APPROVING GENERAL FUND TRANSFERS TO THE COLLECTOR STREET FUND AND THE REVOLVING EQUIPMENT FUND. KEDROWSKI: Asked for clarification that this action is consistent with the plan as discussed at the Workshop. BOYLES: Reviewed the agenda report and advised that this is one of the remaining two steps in the Property Tax Reduction Plan. MADER: Does not support the motion because these are General Fund surpluses that will no longer be available. This transfer reduces the General Fund balance below 30%. VOTE: Ayes by Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, Nay by Mader, the motion carried. WUELLNER: Asked staff to provide an explanation regarding Mayor Mader's comments. TESCHNER: The General Fund surplus was generated in 1998 because FEMA dollars were received for the accelerated depreciation of equipment used to clean-up from the storm. Thus, because we accelerated the useful life of quite a bit of our City equipment, the money received should be deposited in the Equipment Replacement Fund. BOYLES: Asked if the transfer affects the property tax levy required for that fund. TESCHNER: In addition, if the City does not put the $100,000 from the FEMA grant into the Equipment Fund, at some point, the Equipment Matrix would have to be supported with a property tax levy on an incremental basis to make up that $100,000. Right now, as a result of the Workshop with the Council, the CIP reflects a contribution that will offset future tax increases. Conversely, the $150,000 contribution to the Collector Street Fund will defer the reliance on future property taxes as the City addresses those key intersections along TH13. Both actions will reduce ultimate impact on property taxes over the next five years. Consider Approval of Resolution 99-61 Authorizing the Purchase of Two (2) 72" Commercial Mowers through the State of Minnesota Cooperative Purchasing Agreement. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 99-XX AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF TWO (2) 72" COMMERCIAL MOWERS THROUGH THE STATE OF MINNESOTA COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENT. BOYLES: Reviewed the action recommended by staff in connection with the staff report. 060799.DOC 13 Council Meeting Minutes June 7.1999 KEDROWSKI: Appreciates staff's attempt to justify and document cost expenditures in equipment replacement. VOTE: Ayes by Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, Nay by Mader, the motion carried. Consider Approval of Resolution 99-62 Authorizing the Buyout of the Currently Leased 1/2- Ton Pickup Truck. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVAL RESOLUTION 99-62 AUTHORIZING THE BUYOUT OF THE CURRENTLY LEASED 1/2-TON PICKUP TRUCK. WUELLNER: Asked if purchasing a leased vehicle is a good deal. TESCHNER: There is some value to amortizing the cost over a number of years in order to obtain an affordable payment. The Revolving Equipment Fund now in place eliminates the need and some of interest payments in connection with lease payments. At the time this vehicle was leased, other revenue sources were not available. There is not an absolute right or wrong way. WUELLNER: Asked if a two-wheel drive vehicle was sufficient, and whether the condition of this vehicle is adequate for City use. FRIEDGES: This vehicle is sufficient and cost-effective for the intended use. With a mechanic now on staff, the City is doing a better job maintaining its vehicles. PETERSEN: Commented that the price is a little high, but in comparison to new, the state bid vehicle has expired and the lease is up, so from a timing standpoint the City doesn't have many options. MADER: Will support the motion but does not agree with leasing vehicles or buying them out for such little use and mileage. The numbers don't add up. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried. Consider Approval of Resolution 99-63 Authorizing Advertisement and Solicitation of Bids to Purchase One Fire Department Tanker Truck. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI, SECOND BY PETERSEN APPROVING RESOLUTION 99-63 AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT AND SOLICITATION OF BIDS TO PURCHASE ONE FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER TRUCK. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried. Consider Approval of MVTA Year 2000 Tax Levy Request. BOYLES: Reviewed the procedure and rationale behind the MVTA tax levy. Discussed the advantages and disadvantages. 060799.DOC 14 Council Meeting Minutes June 7. 1999 KEDROWSKI: Asked if the City can levy less than the state mandate? TESCHNER: The maximum level allowed is $424,989.00. I understand that the Council has the authority to levy any portion up to the maximum. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI, SECOND BY SCHENCK, TO APPROVE MVTA YEAR 2000 TAX LEVY REQUEST IN THE AMOUNT OF $379,950.00. WUELLNER: Asked for an explanation because maintaining the levy puts the City's property taxes comparably higher than other communities and the City looks out of alignment. KEDROWSKI: If we give up our levy authority, that money goes to the Met Council and we have no further control and the residents pay it one way or another. This way 88 cents of every dollar comes back to this community through the MVT A, and that at least we have a voting member on the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority Board. Once light rail comes, every dollar out there is going to be gone. Stated that the levy is built into the system at this point and won't show as an increase. The taxes aren't going down no matter who levies and the City would lose control of the dollars. TESCHNER: Clarified that the City would relinquish its control of the dollars only on an annual basis. MADER: Asked Teschner to clarify a statement in the staff report that read "If the City levies the maximum MVTA levy, it will reduce the amount available to fund City programs under the City's general overall levy limitation." Believes that our citizens are going to pay this either way, at least if we maintain the levy, we maintain some control. TESCHNER: Confirmed that the staff report was correct. The Department of Revenue merges the levy limitation for transit and the general levy limitation that the City is under. It takes away dollars from the levy. If you factor in growth and everything, the levy increase for the transit is much more generous than the City's levy limitation which is controlled by population growth and commercial tax growth. The City is not at the levy limit anyway. But, in the past, the state has made a determination of the levy limit and adjusted that limit to the levy level that you are at and use that as a levy limitation base to give you your adjustment for the following year. We are trying to preserve capacity. If the Council chooses to maintain control of the levy, it is important to defend the City's tax position to the residents because they are not aware. In any case, it is the staff's position that the MVT A should be governed by the same restrictions on the tax increase as the Council has imposed on the City. MADER: Argued that the Met Council is going to get the increase one way or another. TESCHNER: Understood that the MVT A cannot go to the Met Council and have them pick up the difference either way. In 1998 when the City levied the same amount, my discussions with the Dept. of Revenue led me to understand that the Met Council did not pick up the automatic difference between what the City levied and what the allowable transit levy was for other purposes of the Met Council. MADER: If the presumption is that the City can levy less and that the Met Council may not impose the difference between that and the total amount on our tax bills, then why don't we levy nothing? I have been led to believe that it isn't going to make any difference because our citizen will end up 060799.DOC 15 Council Meeting Minutes June 7.1999 paying the total bill either as a 100% levy to Prior Lake, or 100% to Met Council, or a portion of each. BOYLES: Suggested that the Met Council couldn't provide that information, but staff could get a clarification. WUELLNER: Believes that if the MVTA or Met Council is going to be spending the levy, they should be accountable for the large amount levied. MADER: Believes that we cannot change the system if we lose control of the dollars. TESCHNER: Advised that if the Council does wish to maintain control of the levy that the amount be frozen at $379,950 as in the previous year, and not make the assumption to penalize the taxpayer by levying the maximum amount. But, there is no way prior to the levy on September 15th that the Met Council will make any commitment. Their levy is not only for the transit levy. They did not levy at their maximum for 1999, but for the two years prior they did. There is no guaranty. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Schenck, Nay by Wuellner, the motion carried. OTHER BUSINESS: BOYLES: Advised that he had met with an appraiser on a recent project as directed by Council, who made several suggestions as to a two-phased process which would provide a preliminary review, followed by a meeting. At that point, the City would have the opportunity to proceed or not proceed with the appraisal. Also recommended to the Council an additional $1000 payment, which would mean the City would pay $2500 for a total invoice of $3500. MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY KEDROWSKI, TO APPROVE THE PROCEDURE FOR APPRAISAL SERVICES AND THE ADDITIONAL PAYMENT OF $1000. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried. City Manager A motion to adjourn was made, seconded and accepted. 060799.DOC 16