HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda & Minutes
City Council Work Session - 5:00 - 7:00 p.m.
FORUM: 7:00 P.M. - 7:30 P.M.
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
Date: February 1, 1999
1. CALL TO ORDER and PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE .......................... 7:30 p.m.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
3. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF JANUARY 19, 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.
5.
A) Consider Approval of Invoices to Be Paid.
B) Consider Approval of Sale of Excess City Vehicle
C) Consider Approval of Massage Therapy License for Judy Coursolle
6. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA:
7. PRESENTATIONS:
A) 1998 Economic Development Authority Annual Report - Bob Barsness.
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
9. OLD BUSINESS:
A) Consider Approval of Final Payment for City Projects 95-07 (Mushtown Road), 97-02
(Fish Point Road), and 97-17 (Pike Lake Trail)
B) Consider Approval of Resolution 99-XX Reimbursing the Developer of Maple Hills
Second Addition for Costs under the Developer's Agreement and Providing Findings of
Fact Therefore.
10. NEW BUSINESS:
A) Consider Approval of Acquisition of two 1999 Crown Victoria Police vehicles.
B) Consider Approval of the Purchase of Computer Hardware and Software to Implement
a Geographical Information System.
C) Consider Approval of Appointments to Lake Advisory Committee.
11. OTHER BUSINESSICOUNCILMEMBER REPORTS:
12. ADJOURNMENT
162D.Q~gle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Date: January 19, 1999 (7:30pm)
CALL TO ORDER and PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Present were: Mayor Mader,
Councilmembers Kedrowski, Petersen, Schenck, and Wuellner, City Manager Boyles, City
Attorney Pace, Planning Director Rye, City Engineer IIkka, Recording Secretary Meyer.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
City Manager BOYLES proposed to add the following items to the agenda:
10A: Cross-over funding of $1.75 million in General Obligation Bonds for Fire Station No. 1
1 DB. Consider Report of City's Response to the County Road 42 Corridor Study
1 DC. Tree Preservation Ordinance.
MOTION BY KEDROWSKI, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS
AMENDED.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried.
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF JANUARY 4. 1999 MEETING MINUTES:
MADER: Change to page 8, third paragraph from the bottom should be revised to read: "Clarified
that he did not intend to state that the task force acted inappropriately, but wanted further
clarification as to the City's direction on this issue."
MOTION BY KEDROWSKI, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE
JANUARY 4, 1999 MEETING AS AMENDED.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA:
A) Consider Approval of Invoices to be Paid.
B) Consider Approval of Treasurer's Report.
C) Consider Approval of Building Permit Monthly Report for December.
D) Consider Approval of Animal Warden Monthly Report.
E) Consider Approval of Monthly Fire Call Report for December and Annual Fire Call Report for
1998.
F) Consider Approval of Resolution 99-XX Authorizing the Execution of the 1999 Joint Powers
Agreement (JPA) for Traffic Markings, Street Sweeping, Crack Sealing and Seal Coating.
G) Consider Approval of 1998 4th Quarter Investment Report.
H) Consider Approval of Cigarette License for Tom Thumb.
City Manager BOYLES reviewed the Consent Agenda items
MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY KEDROWSKI TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA: None.
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
January 19. 1999
PRESENTATIONS:
Scott County Issues presented by Scott County Board Chair Barbara Marschall and Scott
County Administrator David Unmacht.
Scott County Board Chair Barbara MARSCHALL introduced Mr. Unmacht and advised the Council
of the intentions with respect to this presentation.
County Administrator David UNMACHT introduced the presentation and thanked the Council for the
opportunity to talk about the issues to be addressed by the County in the coming year.
(1) Intergovernmental Relations - Stated the need for input on the specific steps the County needs
to take to improve and advance sometimes competing interests between Staffs and elected
officials. Briefly highlighted the County accomplishments in 1998. With regard to the County
Budget, referred to Barbara Marschall's article in the Prior Lake American addressing the issues of
supplying more services at a low budget to a high-growth community.
(2) Business issues affecting the County: (a) Courthouse remodel; (b) Prior Lake Library; (c)
SMSC Tribal Relations (cooperation even in disagreement); (d) County Road Projects; (e) Growth
and Development issues; (f) Electronic communications.
(3) Suggests a County Government Primer to local elected officials. We could learn from each
other by understanding each of our roles in government.
(4) Mission Statement: We all share different perspectives, but our end goals are the same:
providing public services in an effective, efficient and proficient manner.
Each of the Councilmembers thanked Mr. Unmacht for the presentation, and liked the idea of a
Government Primer. Councilmember SCHENCK encouraged pursuing Joint Powers Agreements
between communities in order to provide more public services.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Consider Approval of Resolution 99-XX Approving the Vacation of a Dedicated Water Main
Easement located on Lot 94, Norlhwood.
BOYLES introduced the item in connection with the Staff Report and advised that the water main
easement is a problem because the actual water main is off center in the current easement area.
Work to the area would mean trespassing onto private property. He also advised that the property
owner has been contacted and it is the staff's understanding that the property owner is amenable
to granting a new easement over the appropriate property at no cost to the City.
MADER asked for any public input.
MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY KEDROWSKI TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried.
MOTION BY KEDROWSKI, SECOND BY SCHENCK TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 99-XX
VACATING A DEDICATED WATER MAIN EASEMENT LOCATED ON LOT 94, NORTHWOOD.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried.
011999.DOC
2
Council Meeting Minutes
January 19, 1999
OLD BUSINESS:
Consider Approval of an Official Map for the Ring Road located between Franklin Trail and
Toronto Avenue.
MADER suggested that the Council meet with the Planning Commission to discuss the differences
in the proposed official map alignments.
MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO DEFER THIS ITEM IN ORDER TO
MEET WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE DATE TO DISCUSS
AND DETERMINE A COURSE OF ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THE RING ROAD.
KEDROWSKI : Dissented against the motion because this is a policy issue and not question of
design. This action is a policy decision for the Council. There is no purpose of meeting with the
Planning Commission.
SCHENCK: Agreed with Kedrowski that we have received the Planning Commission's and Staff's
recommendations and information. These are lines on a map and the design can be modified as to
the actual construction of the road, but we should proceed with the process.
PETERSEN: If we are giving an indication that we are taking property, it is more than an issue of
lines on a map.
KEDROWSKI: Asked the Mayor about the purpose of meeting with the Planning Commission.
MADER: Stated that this decision will have a long-term effect, and the Council's consensus is
dramatically different than the recommendation by the Planning Commission and Staff. Believes it
is appropriate to hear Planning Commission input in order to build some consensus between the
Planning Commission, Staff and Council before making a final decision.
KEDROWSKI: Respectfully disagreed. Questioned what more the Council can expect from the
Planning Commission.
WUELLNER: Stated that this is more than a political decision. In order to achieve some consensus,
a meeting with the Planning Commission would be appropriate.
SCHENCK: Stated that the Council unanimously directed the Staff to prepare a sketch of the T-
intersection at the last meeting and at that time the Council knew it was contrary to both the
Planning Commission's and Staff's recommendations. The Council needs to make a decision.
WUELLNER: Withdrew his motion to defer.
MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO DEFER THIS ITEM UNTIL AFTER A JOINT
MEETING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
BOYLES: Clarified the intent of the meeting with the Planning Commission would be to compare
and discuss the issues involved with a curved design to the Ring Road versus a T-intersection in
order to form a consensus.
011999DOC
3
Council Meeting Minutes
January 19.1999
The Council took a 5 minutes recess at 8:20pm.
KEDROWSKI: Willing to defer in order to build some consensus on the issue.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried.
Consider Approval of Resolution 99-XX Reimbursing the Developer of Maple Hill Second
Addition for Certain Costs under the Developer's Agreement.
City Manager BOYLES reviewed the agenda item in connection with the Staff Report. The total
reimbursement recommended by Staff for storm sewer improvements, including pond excavation
and landscaping, and Developers fees for development fees based on revised site area
calculations and additional storm sewer as requested by staff, is $26,875.86, which is a difference
of $4,594.90 from the Developer's request. This specific Developer's Agreement is phrased
differently than our revised standard Development Agreement, and does not clearly address
reimbursement. The newer revised Developer's Agreement does not allow for the reimbursement.
MADER: Questioned what the Staff is recommending. Understood that Staff was recommending
reimbursement of the costs of the storm water ($8,856.76), and asking direction from the Council
as to reimbursement for the pond excavation and development fees. Asked how much for storm
water reimbursement.
MCDERMOTT: Stated that Mader was correct in his understanding. The recommended
reimbursement for storm sewer is $8,865.76.
MADER: Under the terms of the contract, it is not clear whether the Developer is entitled to the
remaining $18,000. Understood that had the Developer provided the appropriate documentation
he may have been entitled to the full amount, but there is also some ambiguity under the terms of
the City contract. In the interest of fairness, proposed to reimburse the Developer half of the
remaining $18,000.
MOTION BY MADER THAT THE CITY COMPENSATION THE DEVELOPER THE $8,865.76 AND
HALF OF THE REMAINING $18,000. NO SECOND, THE MOTION FAILED.
KEDROWSKI: Since we would have previously reimbursed, questioned if we can interpret the
contract at our leisure to now not allow the reimbursement. Is the City setting a different standard
and does it negate our responsibility to pay him?
PACE: Clarified that the City is not interpreting the contract differently. This is a different provision
than other development contracts. The Developer was responsible for submitting his fees to the
City for inclusion in the Development Contract. The Developer knew the procedure and had an
obligation. The Developer made a mistake. Concerned about the precedent that a different
interpretation would create.
WUELLNER: Questioned the implications of offering half.
PACE: Advised that either he is entitled or he isn't.
011999.DOC
4
Council Meeting Minutes
January 19. 1999
SCHENCK: By offering half of the remaining $18,000, what is our liability?
PACE: You may not hear it in a Court, but you may hear it from other developers. If that is the
course of action, suggested passing a very detailed resolution specific to this issue which sets it
apart from developer's in similar situations.
MADER: Clarified that $8,865.76 plus half of the remaining reimbursement suggested for a total of
$17,870.81.
MOTION BY KEDROWSKI , SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE THE REIMBURSEMENT
OF $8,865.76 AND DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION WITH FINDINGS OF FACT
TO BE BROUGHT BACK ON THE NEXT CONSENT AGENDA.
MADER: Commented that in effect, we are acknowledging a degree of wrongness, and that we
should defend the taxpayers but should act fairly with respect to Developers. Restated his position
and does not support the motion.
KEDROWSKI: Asked what exactly is our responsibility and obligation. There is no clear message or
recommendation from the Staff as to what is going on. There is no direction as to what the policy
recommendation is.
VOTE: Ayes by Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, Nay by Mader, the motion carried.
BOYLES: Clarified his mistake in initially introducing this agenda item as a Staff recommendation
for full reimbursement and confirmed that the Mayor's initial interpretation was correct.
Consider Approval of Revised Change Order No.1 and Change Order No.2 for the 1998
Improvement Projects #98-14 and #98-16.
McDERMOTT: Introduced the Agenda item and explained the nature and amounts of the Change
Orders proposed. The reason for the Change Order No. 1 is for additional hours worked by the
contractor to complete connection to unforeseen additions in Project #98-14, and Change Order
No.2 for additional signage on Duluth Avenue and installation and repair of a cracked watermain
line. The contractor has not been paid any of Change Order of No. 1 approved by the Council in
November because of the additional change and some additional documentation received from the
contractor.
MOTION BY KEDROWSKI, SECOND BY SCHENCK TO APPROVE REVISED CHANGE ORDER
NO.1 AND CHANGE ORDER NO.2 FOR THE 1998 IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS #98-14 AND
#98-16 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
WUELLNER: With so much documentation initially, what has changed since then.
McDERMOTT: We had incorrect information from the contractor, we have since verified the actual
time. We have verified with the contractor that this is the last time Staff will bring this item to the
Council.
011999,QOC
5
Council Meeting Minutes
January 19, 1999
PETERSEN: Questioned the point of bidding the project if there are going to be continuous Change
O~effi. -
McDERMOTT: The contractor feels that due to unforeseen circumstances additional changes are
necessary.
ILKKA: The only way to compensate a contractor for unforeseen conditions is through time and
materials. When you dig in the ground, you never know what you're going to get. The Staff
recommends change orders based upon the information provided by the Contractor. In this case
when the Contractor didn't like the amount approved, he came back with the additional information
he should have provided originally.
MADER: Asked if the hourly rate for time is specified in our contracts and if the only question at this
point is the number of hours. What is the total difference between what we are approving and what
the contractor is asking for?
McDERMOTT: We have determined the billing rate is accurate. This difference on Change Order
No.1 is approximately $19,000 and for Change Order No.2 approximately $900.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS:
Cross-Over Refunding of $1.75 Million in General Obligations Bonds
BOYLES introduced the item and Steve Mattson of Juran and Moody.
MATTSON: Explained that interest rates fluctuate and how a refinance of the General Obligation
bonds is opportune because it will allow the City to decrease the interest payments on the City's
General Obligation bonds over the same period of time. In 1993 when the City financed the Fire
Station facility, the City structured a 20-year bond issue with a 7-year call feature, which is a short
call feature for a 20-year bond. The City first started looking at this refinance in November.
Advised that the net reduction in debt service after all costs are taken into consideration is
$77,317.34. Secondly, $63,061 is the present value of the future $78,000 savings. Doing this is
equivalent to writing out check to the City for $63,061.
MOTION BY KEDROWSKI, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO APPROVE THE CROSS-OVER
REFUNDING OF $1.75 MILLION IN GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried..
Mayor MADER recessed briefly at 9: 1 Opm to execute the purchase agreements for the general
obligation bonds.
011999,DOC
6
Council Meeting Minutes
January 19, 1999
Consider Approval of the City of Prior Lake's Response to the County Road 42 Corridor
Study. -
BOYLES: Reviewed the agenda items and asked Don Rye to review with the Council the proposed
City response to the County Road 42 Corridor Study.
RYE: Indicated that many of the recommendations within the Study are procedural. Of greatest
concern are the Study's issues relative to land use. The powers to be delegated with respect to
land use suggest an inordinate level of control over local land use and development activities. We
also have concerns in the report on the following areas: Access Spacing, Pedestrian/Bicycles and
Functional Class. We don't intend to be uncooperative in the areas of land use, but believe the
Study should further address our additional concerns.
MOTION BY KEDROWSKI, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE THE CITY'S REPORT IN
RESPONSE TO THE COUNTY ROAD 42 CORRIDOR STUDY.
WUELLNER: Questions who the Report is directed to and what effect it will have.
RYE and ILKKA: The Report should be directed to both Scott and Dakota County Boards. The
response by other cities will probably be in direct correlation with where they are located on the
County Road 42 strip.
BOYLES: Added that Strgar Roscoe Fausch, Inc. (SRF) is compiling transportation information in
anticipation of our revised Comprehensive Plan and it is our intent to leave the door open a bit to
revise our recommendations in the event that there are findings from the SRF study which suggest
such action.
RYE: Confirmed that discussions with SRF, particularly with regard to alternate roadways,
addressed the City's concerns with the County Road 42 Corridor Study.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried.
Tree Preservation:
MADER: Discussed the implementation and requirements of the Tree Preservation Ordinance with
respect to individual lots. Questioned if it is necessary and cost-effective for the individual property
owner to have to provide before-and-after construction surveys.
MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY PETERSEN, TO DIRECT STAFF TO REVIEW THE
CURRENT ORDINANCE AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION WITH RESPECT TO INDIVIDUAL LOTS
TO DETERMINE IF IT IS RESIDENT-FRIENDLY WHILE STILL MEETING THE INTENT OF THE
ORDINANCE, AND TO CONSIDER ALTERNATE ENFORCEMENT STEPS.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried.
011999,DOC
7
Council Meeting Minutes
January 19, 1999
OTHER BUSINESS:
Executive Session to Discuss Pending Litigation
Mayor MADER advised that the Council would adjourn to Executive Session to discuss the Valley
Paving litigation. The Executive Session began at 9:40pm.
The regular Council meeting resumed at 10: 1 Opm. Upon completion of the Executive Session
Mayor MADER advised that the Council had discussed the Valley Paving litigation.
MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY PETERSEN DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO
PURSUE A RESOLUTION OF THE LITIGATION BASED UPON THE STRATEGY DISCUSSED
IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried.
A motion to adjourn was made, seconded and accepted. The meeting adjourned at 10:12pm.
City Manager
Recording Secretary
011999.DOC
8