Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08.16.10 Council Minutes /a COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR August 16, 2010 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Larson at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Larson led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Audience: Larson, Donnelly, Fogarty, May, Wilson None Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; Peter Herlofsky, City Administrator; Brian Lindquist, Police Chief; Kevin Schorzman, City Engineer; Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director; Lee Smick, City Planner; Jen Dullum, Natural Resources Specialist; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Jerry Ristow, David Pritzlaff, Steve Thomas, Farmington V15 Girls Soccer Team 4. APPROVE AGENDA Mayor Larson pulled item 14a) Performance Issues for discussion at the August 23, workshop. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Wilson to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Storm Damage Recap Mayor Larson thanked City staff for their quick response to the tornado and the community for helping neighbors. Police Chief Lindquist stated the tornado hit at 3:36 a.m. on August 13,2010. The storm was very quick moving. It started at 200th and Flagstaff and moved northeast for 1.5 - 2 miles on the ground, and was 100 yards wide. Police contacted Public Works and work started immediately after the storm to open the streets. Dakota County gave City staff some next steps to help the residents. Staff also contacted the Red Cross to assist residents. There were 124 homes affected by the storm; 98 homes had damage to siding, windows, shingles, etc., 13 had minor to moderate structural damage, and another 13 had moderate damage where the owners are no longer able to inhabit their properties or have limited access. Clean-up is moving along well. Dumpsters have been delivered to the areas and the City trucks will be picking up the brush from the boulevards. There have been some questions regarding the activation of the sirens. The National Weather Service rated the storm as an EF-l tornado with winds oflOO-105 mph. In looking at the storm on radar, they did not see any indication of a tornado. Therefore, the notification from the weather service to 5 Council Minutes (Regular) August 16,2010 Page 2 the DCC was after the storm by 10 minutes. The sirens were then activated. The storm developed so quickly, the weather service could not get ahead of it. Mayor Larson clarified the City and the DCC had nothing to do with when the sirens go off. Police Chief Lindquist explained the weather service and DCC have fme tuned the process as to when the sirens will sound. Activation of the sirens is by the National Weather Service notification to the DCC, or ifa Police Officer sees violent weather, he can call the DCC to activate the sirens. That night the Police Officers were involved in another unfortunate event and were not able to watch the weather. The only warning to the DCC came from the National Weather Service. City Administrator Herlofsky noted public safety included more than Police and Fire. Our Municipal Services which includes streets, water and sewer, and sanitation were all making an effort to clear the roadways. It was very impressive how everyone worked together. As the day went along, you could see the community take over and help each other. This community has a lot of strength and character and it was really shown in this situation. The employees that assisted in this process make a good impression with our citizens and the assistance was very positive when it was needed. The Red Cross was there all day on Friday and food was donated by Pilot Knob Pizzeria, Subway, and Domino's. Municipal Services is making arrangements with a local chipper service to handle the tree damage. The City will be picking up debris through this week. City Administrator Herlofsky estimated the cost to be between $25,000- $30,000. The cost will come from the Municipal Services division. Councilmember Wilson asked if a list of licensed contractors for door-to-door sales is available on the website. Administrative Services Director Shadick replied we do not; anyone going door to door has to get a license and background check before a license is issued. City Administrator Herlofsky added on Friday morning we did waive the fee so contractors could get out as quickly as possible to help the residents. Mayor Larson stated that was because of another pending storm and to get the roofs covered as soon as possible. Councilmember Fogarty thanked everyone who responded. We live in an amazing community and everyone was very generous with their time and talent and hours of work. Regarding the sirens not going off, the storm was so loud, they would not have heard a siren. Administrative Services Director Shadick noted there are a number of documents available on the City website on how to recover from storm damage. b) Recognize Girls U15 Soccer Team - Council Mayor Larson recognized the State Champions V15 Girls Soccer Team. 6 Council Minutes (Regular) August 16,2010 Page 3 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS Mr. David Pritzlaff, 20255 Akin Road, clarified that item 14a) Performance Issues was pulled. Mayor Larson confIrmed it will be discussed at the budget workshop. Mr. Pritzlaff asked the four Councilmembers that voted for the $128,000 trail connection on Pilot Knob to reconsider the vote. He stated the vote was taken prior to the Community Survey being presented to Council. The results of the survey said to maintain what we have, rather than build more. Mr. Pritzlaff stated in this case we are building something new, and cannot afford to maintain what we have. It is taxpayer money being used. He does not see a lot of people walking or biking on Pilot Knob. Some ofthe money for the project comes from the State for the road and bridge fund. Mr. Pritzlaff noted it still comes from the taxpayers. We could use the $128,000 to help the clean-up fund for the tornado damage rather than a trail that is not needed at this time. He asked the four Councilmembers to bring the project back to the next meeting and reconsider their vote. Mr. Jerry Ristow, 516 Lower Heritage Way, asked for an explanation on the voting issue in Precinct 2. Walnut Street, 5th Street, 6th Street and 7th Street have been tom up. He was at the precinct at 8:30 a.m. and you could not get in; it was a disaster. He was trying to prevent this from occurring for the November election. People were so frustrated they were walking away. Work was being done in front of the east door which was the entrance to the precinct. One ofthe election judges was also frustrated, so Mr. Ristow called City Hall. Staff responded and arrangements were made for the voters to access the precinct. The precinct only had 15 voters as of 8 :45 a.m. Mr. Ristow wanted to make sure this did not happen in November and thanked staff for taking care of the situation. Councilmember Fogarty also had received a message from a resident. She agreed it cannot happen again and should not have happened, but it was addressed quickly. Mr. Ristow asked ifwe know why they had to work in that area on that day. Councilmember Fogarty stated we have not been given an answer, but we are going to get an answer. She was also very upset about it. Councilmember Wilson confIrmed we have to fIle our polling locations by a certain time period. He asked how much notice we have to give. Administrative Services Director Shadick was not certain on the number of days. Councilmember Wilson stated we have 70% - 80% turnout in November. He asked the Administrative Services Director and City Engineer to keep Council updated. If the project will not be completed, he suggested fmding a different location for that precinct. City Administrator Herlofsky noted the street will be fmished before November. Mr. Steve Thomas, 19331 Euclid Path, stated he is a new resident and they were in the path of the tornado. Their neighbors have to be out of their home for three months until the entire interior of their home is redone. He wanted to reiterate what the Council mentioned earlier about the community and how helpful everyone was. They lost a huge tree and asked his neighbor what they do now. He was told not to worry; we all take care of each other, and he was right. He made arrangements to have the tree removed and is continuing to do clean-up work. He had some questions about the City's response. He called the City that morning asking what to do with the trees and the response was that the City would bring in whatever equipment is necessary to take care of the fallen trees. The residents very much appreciate that. There is a lot of other debris around. He was told that is the owner's responsibility. He checked the website and it differentiated 7 Council Minutes (Regular) August 16, 2010 Page 4 between trees and debris and it indicated there would be dumpsters brought out for other items. Mayor Larson explained the dumpsters are for other debris that has blown into the yards. They were placed in areas on Friday, were dumped, and placed out again today. They are not on every street, but in every area. Mr. Thomas explained some of the items are too large to carry to a dumpster and he did not see one in his area. City Administrator Herlofsky stated we defmitely want to keep the tree limbs separate from the other debris. We are hoping people will only put items in the dumpster that are related to the storm and not use them for other clean-up. Ifthere is something too large, he suggested moving it to the boulevard and someone will be around to determine what to do. Mr. Thomas stated there was a very good response from the Police that morning and was very impressed with all the City staff. Ms. Michelle Leonard, 727 Tamarack Trail, Farmington Independent Reporter, stated she had originally written a letter for the meeting regarding the item that was pulled from the agenda which was to close the meeting for performance issues. She understood it was pulled and moved to the August 23, budget workshop. She asked if Council then intended to close the workshop to have the discussion. Mayor Larson replied no, it will be open. Ms. Leonard stated it was her understanding of the open meeting law, that the topic was not sufficient to close the meeting and she appreciated the fact the workshop will be open. 7. CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Wilson pulled item 7a) Council minutes for separate vote. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Wilson to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: b) Accepted Results Community Survey - Parks and Recreation c) Received Information School and Conference - Police d) Received Information School and Conference - Police e) Received Information School and Conference - Planning t) July 2010 Financial Report - Finance Councilmember Wilson does have some questions on the investment interest. He would like to have an update from the Finance Director at the budget workshop. g) Approved Bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. a) Council Minutes (8/2/10 Regular) (8/9/10 Workshop) MOTION by Fogarty, second by Wilson to approve the August 2, 2010, Council minutes. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Fogarty, second by May to approve the August 9, 2010, Workshop minutes. Voting for: Larson, Donnelly, Fogarty, May. Abstain: Wilson. MOTION CARRIED. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 8 Council Minutes (Regular) August 16, 2010 Page 5 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Storm Water Program Update - Natural Resources The 2011 MS4 permit is being written and will have additional requirements for Cities including: - Identifying impaired waters and have restoration measures to meet a total maximum daily load (TMDL) pollutant that can go into a water body. - Pond inventory. - Construction stormwater erosion and sediment control and post construction and pollution prevention - BMP operation and maintenance will require cities to maintain pre-development runoff and will contain new performance standards for ponds. This may go back to areas that were developed before there were best management practices, such as the downtown area. The MPCA is currently auditing cities that have MS4 permits. They will compare what we do on the ground to what is on the permit to make sure MPCA rules are followed. This will take up staff time and costs will come from the City budget. The MPCA has requested that the Vermillion River Joint Powers Organization give them a work plan to address all impairments in the Vermillion River Watershed and work to reduce those impairments. Antidegradation means the City has to get pollutant levels down to the 1988 level. This includes volume ofwater, suspended solids in water, and temperature. Staff has done an antidegradation report and we are over in volume meaning we are letting more water ofIthe land because of development. The MPCA has said that all cities that did a report are required to implement a process to evaluate the treatment of their storm water and address the portions of the system that do not have best management practices, such as the downtown area, and be required to develop and implement a volume reduction strategy to keep more water on the ground. Staff is waiting to receive a letter specific to Farmington as to what we have to address. The MPCA increased their permit fees for storm water management for construction sites. The City was billed retroactively from a project last year for $890. The MCPA increased the fees on March 15, 2010, but it is retroactive to July 1,2009. City Engineer Schorzman stated we had to pay double what we paid the first time for the permit. Councilmember Wilson suggested the Mayor, a Councilmember, the Natural Resources Specialist, the City Engineer, Representative Garofalo, and Mr. Thompson from the MPCA meet because this is absurd, especially for the downtown area. He was not aware any of the regulations that exist today were even conceived ofwhen the downtown was developed. It seems this would be impossible to deal with. Natural Resources Specialist Dullum stated the storm water rules became effective in 2003. Councilmember Fogarty stated the majority of the City was built by then. Councilmember Wilson wanted a discussion on 9 Council Minutes (Regular) August 16,2010 Page 6 retroactive fees and determine what the game plan is from the MPCA. We have a tight budget and we are having mandates poured on us. Mayor Larson agreed this would be an issue we could bring to Representative Garofalo. City Engineer Schorzman stated before doing that, it may be good for staff to meet to discuss this fIrst. City Administrator Herlofsky stated the implications are more than having staff do the work. The implication is how competitive does this make us with other communities as far as development. Councilmember Wilson agreed that we have to assess developers in the Vermillion River Watershed a higher amount because of the area. Mayor Larson suggested developing some questions and especially how it will affect the City. b) Adopt Ordinance - Amending Title 10, Chapter 6, Section 11 of the Zoning Code Concerning Woodland and Tree Preservation - Planning City Planner Smick stated this is a continuation of the natural resources inventory. The inventory suggested staff review its environmental ordinances. Staff has determined the most pressing need for an ordinance change is the need for tree preservation. The existing ordinance was prepared in 2002 and was relatively general. Staff wanted to get a better handle on the woodlands that exist and the woodlands that will grow quickly. Ms. Sherri Buss, TKDA consultant, explained the ordinance. She has worked with staff, the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission to update the current ordinance. The ordinance not only affects individual trees, but also looks at the loss of woodlands and how they could be replaced. The Planning Commission also asked staff to think about incentives rather than just regulation. The ordinance includes incentives to developers and land owners to protect or restore trees. This ordinance will affect only new development. The ordinance allows people who are developing to remove 30% of the existing significant trees on their property to allow for some development without having to replace the trees. A significant tree for oaks or maples would be trees over 6 inches in size at 5 ft. above ground level. For conifers it is 8 inches in diameter and for soft wood trees, it is 12 inches or more in size. The developer would be required to do a tree inventory as part of the submittal for the development. Based on the number of significant trees, a developer could remove up to 30% of those and then after that is when replacement starts. The ordinance provides a method for calculating tree replacement. Developers will have two options for replacing trees. One is to replace individual trees using boulevards or parks. They also have the option to replace trees in a woodland form, meaning to replace trees in the same kind of pattern in a woods that is being lost along with the ground cover and shrubs. Calculating the woodland replacement is much easier than individual replacement. The idea is to encourage people to replace in the woodland format when removing a woodland. A woodland is anything over 15,000 sq. ft. or 1/3 of an acre. There are also incentives to encourage people to protect woodlands on the property and to replace trees in places the City would want trees. There is a 10 Council Minutes (Regular) August 16, 2010 Page 7 provision for tree banks. This identifies places in the City where developers could create a tree bank. Those areas are in City parks and in greenways in the community. If developers help to create those banks or within their own development dedicate a woodland area for the long term, they can get an extra unit in their development. Mayor Larson asked if the tree bank is 1:1 or 2:1. Ms. Buss stated it depends on the type of tree. For oak trees it is based on inches of trees loss. For a certain number of inches lost, they have to replace with a tree of a certain size. You get more and larger trees in replacement. Along with the tree bank, the City would set up a fund to help pay for the maintenance ofthe tree bank areas, particularly when on public property. Regarding replacement of trees on commercial property, if someone has had a tree plan approved for their property and they later take down trees when doing additional development, there is a provision that requires them to replace the trees that were part of the original tree bank. Councilmember May stated after the storm water discussion, aren't we doing the same thing with putting all these ordinances, rules and fees out there. Ifthere is new development, it goes before the Planning Commission and we encourage preservation of trees. She asked what is the purpose of another layer of rules and setting funds aside. She asked what happens if we do not have the ordinance. Ms. Buss stated right now the tree replacement ordinance is very general. It does not provide specifics and does not provide any incentives to protect the trees or to replace them. The purpose is to standardize what you have and to give more defmition than the current ordinance. These ordinances exist in almost every community in the metro area. City Planner Smick stated regarding the savannah oaks, staff would like to replenish that inventory. As far as the maintenance issue, funding through the developer will take care of costs in the future on the public tree banks. The developers will plant quality trees rather than scrub trees. Councilmember May asked about the fee portion. Ms. Buss explained if someone chooses to develop a tree bank, the City may require that a fund be set up for maintenance of the tree bank. Staff was concerned if it was in a park area and work was required to get the trees established and keep weeds down, they would have a fund in place without using City general funds. If a tree bank was done on a private development, they would have to address those costs. The developers in turn get an extra unit in their development. The developer receives credit for the tree bank if they put an easement on it and create it for the long term. If the tree bank is destroyed through a natural occurrence, such as a storm, it does not need to be replaced, but the area would be permanently protected as an outlot. Councilmember Wilson could see where a developer would like the woodland option rather than placing a tree in each lot and have them manage their development as they want, but was uncertain if there was enough incentive. Councilmember Fogarty agreed. Ms. Buss stated you could increase the amount 11 Council Minutes (Regular) August 16,2010 Page 8 of the incentive through some flexibility in requirements, such as street sizes, or more units. You could say two units for every acre of trees, etc. Councilmember Fogarty was looking for the bottom line. There is flexibility and incentives. She asked if this was a stricter requirement for developers than what we have now or a different way of approaching it. City Planner Smick stated it would be stricter as we are looking at woodlands rather than individual trees. Mayor Larson stated it is a healthier requirement. Staff agreed because we will get tree stands if the developer is interested in getting incentives, whereas right now we do not have a replacement opportunity. Mayor Larson stated the tree quality will go up. Ms. Buss stated it will be up to the developer ifhe wants to do his tree replacement as individual lawn trees or a woodland. If it is done as a woodland, the calculation is easier rather than figuring out individual trees. If a developer is willing to set the woodland aside permanently, then he can get the incentive of another unit for every acre of trees he is willing to create as a tree bank. Currently we do not have the option for woodlands or the incentives. Councilmember Donnelly was trying to decide if this makes Farmington more or less attractive to developers. He was not a fan of more ordinances. It seems similar to the PCA telling us what to do. Ms. Buss explained other similar communities all have similar ordinances. Rosemount does not have the woodland option or the incentives. The incentives are something the Planning Commission really wanted to include. City Planner Smick noted prior to 2002 the City did have a tree replacement program, but it was one to one and the developers felt that was quite intrusive. Ms. Buss explained the older ordinances did not allow developers to remove 30% of the trees and there was no distinction made for significant trees. Councilmember Wilson stated the bottom line is the developer can chose to take this course or stay where they are. Ms. Buss stated they can chose the more traditional path where they count the number of trees that will be lost and replace in a single tree format as they do now, or they have the option to replace them as a woodland. Councilmember Wilson was concerned with the tree banking and the establishment of a fund and working out a deal with parkland dedication. City Planner Smick stated the City will not bargain with developers to reduce park dedication or submitting funding for storm water. Staff is only looking at density and the unit bonuses. Councilmember Wilson asked about the amount of funding for a tree bank. Ms. Buss stated it has not been calculated, but it would be based on the size of area. The ordinance gives the City the option of whether we want to do that or not. The maintenance for establishing a woodland may involve having a Parks staff person mow the ground cover to reduce the weeds a couple times a year. That might be the annual cost of maintenance or some pruning of trees. It should not involve more than 10-20 hours of staff time per year. Councilmember May felt there were too many rules. Other communities do not have development fees like we do. At this time, she was not in favor of it. Mayor 12 Council Minutes (Regular) August 16,2010 Page 9 Larson asked what this will cost the developer. Ms. Buss stated at the beginning of development they would need to do an inventory of trees, other costs would be replacing anything above 30% of the significant trees they were removing. MOTION by Larson to approve the ordinance. Motion died for lack of a second. Councilmember Fogarty needed a better understanding of how this will affect the developers. Staffwill bring back an example of a development that has been done and how this ordinance would have affected that development. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Donnelly to table until staff is ready to bring the item back to Council. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Adopt Resolution - Approve Final Plat Riverbend 3rd Addition - Planning Mattamy Homes has submitted a fmal plat for Riverbend 3rd Addition. It is located east of Dakota County Estates and north of Meadow Creek development in the northeast corner of the City. The fmal plat includes the northern 17 acres of Riverbend. The plat consists of23 residential lots. There would be an extension of Dun bury Avenue and Dunbury Court. The trail would be extended to the limits of the 3rd Addition. All lots and widths meet the R-2 zoning standards. The landscaping requirements were approved as part of the Riverbend 2nd Addition. Contingencies include: 1. An executed deed shall be recorded with the fmal plat mylars that transfers ownership of Outlots A,C,F Riverbend 3rd Addition to the City. 2. The preparation and execution of the Development Contract. 3. The satisfaction of all engineering comments as well as approval of the construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities by the Engineering Division. Construction will start this fall. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Wilson to adopt RESOLUTION R47-10 approving the Riverbend 3rd Additional Final Plat subject to contingencies. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. d) Adopt Resolution - Approving Requesting School District Assistance Arena Improvement Project - Parks and Recreation Mayor Larson noted the City has already been informed the School District is not interested in assisting the City with the arena improvement project. They compare it to if they need help with a gym, will the City help out with repairs. Mayor Larson asked Council to discuss whether they really want to send a formal request to the School Board. The City Administrator does have a meeting this week with the Superintendent and it can be brought up at that time, but the answer from the school is no. Councilmember Wilson stated this action will bring the request from a public body to another public body. Ifthey vote no, then they vote no. Councilmember May stated the arena is key to the high school hockey program. Councilmember Donnelly stated this forces them to say no and puts it on the record. We have 13 Council Minutes (Regular) August 16,2010 Page 10 already increased the fees. Councilmember May noted that is to cover the cost for the games and does not have anything to do with the arena itself. Councilmember Fogarty did not understand how asking them could cause a problem. Until we send this resolution, we have not formally asked them. Councilmember May stated we had one meeting with the School Board and felt it was going to be a joint effort. Mayor Larson stated it was and then things changed. Councilmember May noted that did not occur with discussions between the Council and School board. Mayor Larson stated the decision occurred with their School Board. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Wilson to adopt RESOLUTION R48-10 authorizing staff to make a formal request to the School Board for a contribution to the Schmitz-Maki Arena improvement project. Voting for: Larson, Fogarty, May, Wilson. Voting against: Donnelly. MOTION CARRIED. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Former Rambling River Center Building Update - Planning There is a pending contract for purchase of this property that is being reviewed by Mr. Paul Otten. Mr. Otten received a Contract for Private Development in mid- March 2010. In July, Mr. Otten stated he is awaiting the sale of his building at 311 Oak Street in order to purchase the former Rambling River Center building. At the closing of 311 Oak Street, it was discovered there are pending environmental issues and those will not be resolved for approximately 30 days with the MPCA. Mr. Otten proposes he either sell the 311 Oak Street building and use the money to purchase the Rambling River Center building or he would use his own funding to purchase the building. There has been a recent issue of mold on the carpet in the building because of no air circulation. Mr. Otten has requested he be allowed to bring in an environmental consultant to assess the mold situation and determine what would be required to remove it. He would also like to look at the duct work. Councilmember Fogarty felt if he is willing to pay an environmental consultant he is very serious about the purchase. When Council entered into the agreement they were not aware of the contingency to sell another building, but we cannot sell the building for another 30 days until we know about the mold. She was comfortable with waiting 30 days. Councilmember May stated Council was not aware the sale was contingent so she felt the original agreement was not valid. She felt the building should be back on the market and was starting to doubt whether this is a serious endeavor. In the meantime, we have wasted six months. The 30 days is from when? Let's pick a date, not a number of days. There is nothing in the original agreement about a contingency that he needed to sell another building, so that is a completely different offer. He could still be the buyer, but it should be on the market in case other people are interested. City Planner Smick stated there are a lot of issues with the mold on the carpet. Councilmember May stated ifwe are truly concerned about the mold, then we should look into it. 14 Council Minutes (Regular) August 16,2010 Page 11 Councilmember Wilson agreed. Ifwe did not know there was a contingency, does that change the terms of the contract to void it? City Attorney Jamnik stated we do not have a contract; there is not a signed agreement. We would allow access for someone to inspect to do their due diligence. The structure is not at risk for the inspector to analyze it. If you have a signed Purchase Agreement, you would allow that anyway. Councilmember Wilson asked ifwe can put it back on the market without issue. City Attorney Jamnik did not see any legal impediment to do that. We do not have a signed agreement. Mayor Larson agreed as this is going on and on and nothing is happening. If they want to test, let them test, but felt we should put it back on the market. City Administrator Herlofsky stated we will inform Mr. Otten that it is okay to do the testing. We can put the sign up as long as we are waiting and when we have a deal we can take it down. 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Councilmember Donnelly: Thanked City staff for the clean-up after the storm. Councilmember Fogarty: Thanked all those who worked, served, and attended the Dakota County Fair. Attendance was very good. She was invited to judge the salsa contest. City Administrator Herlo/sky: Earlier in the meeting Council asked about replacing trees. We normally do not replace trees in boulevards. Mayor Larson stated we have boulevard tree routes. City Planner Smick stated the City is responsible for removing existing boulevard trees that have died or sustained severe damage. The City will replace trees on designated boulevard tree routes. Some areas are along Akin Road, Flagstaff, CSAH 50. Staff will determine if the routes are included in the areas affected by the storm. Councilmember Fogarty stated if we are not replacing trees, she asked about the City nursery by the Ice Arena and whether we could offer residents discounted prices on trees through that nursery. Natural Resources Specialist Dullum stated the City does have two nurseries, however they are not allowable boulevard tree species. They would need to be tree spaded out and tree spaded in. With the utilities, the City does not have the right equipment to use without hitting utilities. Mayor Larson asked that the ordinance be placed on the website. City Administrator Herlofsky stated he was very proud of how City staff handled the clean-up. Some employees came back to work after already working their 40-hour week. Everyone worked all day and did a good job. The community receives a big salute and took care of things themselves. It was a very positive experience based on a bad occurrence. 15 Council Minutes (Regular) August 16,2010 Page 12 Councilmember May stated during the discussions on the Walnut Street project, was it discussed that ifthere was a reconstruct there would be consideration for replacement? Mayor Larson stated that was ifwe removed the trees. Natural Resources Specialist Dullum stated that is in addition to the ordinance we just past. If there are reconstruction projects, the City will evaluate to determine if trees can be replaced. Councilmember May wanted residents to understand that distinction. Whenever there is a storm, we cannot possibly replace the trees. We also do not want to compete with business for local nurseries. Mayor Larson: The Farmer's Market is held every Thursday. He urged residents to sign up for Twitter and Nixie for community updates. He thanked City staff that helped with the storm and the neighbors that helped. He received e-mails and was stopped by residents saying how wonderful the City's response was to the situation. He urged residents to buy locally. 14. ADJOURN MOTION by Fogarty, second by Wilson to adjourn at 8:59 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant 16