Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09.18.06 Council Minutes COUNCIL MINUTES PRE-MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2006 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Soderberg at 6:30 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight, Pritzlaff, Wilson None Andrea Poehler, City Attorney; Peter Herlofsky, City Administrator; Robin Roland, Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Brian Lindquist, Interim Police Chief; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director; Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer; Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant 2. APPROVE AGENDA MOTION by McKnight, second by Wilson to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. CITIZEN COMMENTS 4. COUNCIL REVIEW OF AGENDA Councilmember Wilson asked about an item on the list of bills for the City of Burnsville. Finance Director Roland replied that was for the 2006 costs in the budget for the DCC. Mayor Soderberg noted there are two amendments to ordinances regarding swimming pool fences and the reforestation committee and tree trimming notices. He suggested moving this to consent. It was agreed to move only the amendment regarding the tree trimming notices to consent. 5. STAFF COMMENTS City Administrator Herlofsky noted there are two supplemental items, one is additional information for the School and Conference for the Fire Department and the other is information on the mill and overlay project. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked that the item regarding the mill and overlay project be moved ahead on the agenda to accommodate the audience. It was agreed to address this item prior to the public hearings. Council Minutes (Pre-Meeting) September 18,2006 Page 2 Community Development Director Carroll asked the Mayor to note there was a public hearing notice published for the annexations. As the public hearings have been superseded by the annexation agreement, he asked that it be indicated that a public hearing for this item will not be held and will be addressed as a regular item on the agenda. 6. ADJOURN MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by Fogarty to adjourn at 6:36 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~ /r?~~ c;/ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR SEPTEMBER 18, 2006 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Soderberg at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Soderberg led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Audience: Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight, Pritzlaff, Wilson None Andrea Poehler, City Attorney; Peter Herlofsky, City Administrator; Robin Roland, Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Brian Lindquist, Interim Police Chief; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director; Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer; Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director; Lee Smick, City Planner; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Bryce Olson, Don Hunter, Dave Steinke, Doug Bonar, Dave Graham, Rick Morcomb, Nick & Stacey Schultz, Jon Brimacomb, Susan Poirot, David Domack, Denise May 4. APPROVE AGENDA Councilmember Pritzlaff noted the item regarding the mill and overlay will be moved ahead on the agenda prior to the public hearings. City Administrator Herlofsky stated there is additional information to item 7c) School and Conference - Fire Department. Mayor Soderberg noted there is also a supplemental item for the mill and overlay project. Item 10e) Text Amendment regarding reforestation committee and tree trimming notification will be moved to the Consent Agenda. MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by McKnight to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS 7. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Fogarty, second by Pritzlaffto approve the Consent Agenda as follows: a) Approved Council Minutes (9/5/06 Regular) (8/31/06 Special) b) Approved School and Conference - Parks and Recreation c) Approved School and Conference - Fire Department Council Minutes (Regular) September 18, 2006 Page 2 d) Received Information August 2006 Financial Report - Finance e) Received Information Customer Service Response Report - Administration f) Adopted RESOLUTION R105-06 Approving 2007 Safe and Sober Grant- Police Department g) Approved Wetland Alteration Permit - 195th Street Extension - Engineering h) Received Information TH3 Cooperative Agreement Application Update - Engineering i) Approved License for Utility to Cross Protected Waters - Engineering j) Approved Assessment Agreement - Ash Street Project - Engineering k) Approved Bills 1) Adopted ORDINANCE 006-563 Approving Text Amendment Section 10-6-10 regarding Reforestation Committee and Tree Trimming Notification - Community Development APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS c) Mill and Overlay Project - Engineering City Engineer Mann stated since the last Council Meeting staffhas identified some additional issues in the specifications for the project that did not include pay items for some of the items that will be necessary to resolve the project in the way determined. The option was anticipated to be $610,000. Since staffhas completed their investigation of the specification and identified the missing pay items that cost would be revised to $756,000. Staff presented a spreadsheet showing the differences in costs. The most significant item had to do with the removal of soils in order to replace the Class 5. There was a pay item for the Class 5 to be placed but there was no pay item for the soils to be removed. This amounted to $83,200. Councilmember Wilson noted some of the options mentioned flyash and asked if it was a new program or experimental. He was concerned with not knowing much about this product. Councilmember McKnight had the same questions and also asked about an item on the spreadsheet shown as R&R 6" concrete driveway. City Engineer Mann replied that concerned the driveways discussed at the last Council meeting that had a 4" lip at the curb rather than having a smooth curb transition. The cost to fix this issue is $13,051. Regarding the flyash, stafflooked at an option that would be closer to the amount Council approved two weeks ago. Flyash allows a soil treatment that has been allowed in other cities. Mr. Jim Fryktal, Bonestroo Engineering, explained flyash. It has been used in Waseca and Cottage Grove. A machine blends the existing soils with flyash and water. It stabilizes the soil similar to Class 5. Waseca used it 7 years ago and the streets are holding up well. It is a cost effective alternative to removing the soils and replacing Class 5. It does not stop water from going through. It is mixed with the existing soil and a specific amount of water. This cannot be done if it is raining. You can drive on it that day and pave on it in a couple days. It is done in 500 ft. sections from curb to curb. Many states Council Minutes (Regular) September 18,2006 Page 3 experimented with this 7-10 years ago. Mayor Soderberg noted there is a significant cost savings using flyash so why wouldn't it be used all the time. Mr. Fryktal stated it is used in reconstruction projects. With new construction you do not have to take soils out and bring Class 5 in. It is already down at the sub grade elevation and Class 5 can be hauled in. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated if there is a crack in the asphalt and the water hits the flyash base, does it stop the water from going through where it could freeze and break up the road. Mr. Fryktal replied it should not go through. In Waseca the roads are not cracking after 7 years. The flyash is mixed 6" deep with the existing soil. Councilmember Pritzlaff noted the milling machine was taking off 4" today and they were leaving good compacted soil. He asked why loosen the top 6" and not just pave over it. The roads in this area lasted 35 years. Ifwe take off the 4" and put the asphalt over the soils left and get 10-15 years more before doing a total reconstruct would we be further ahead. Mr.Fryktal stated the contractor dug 20 plus test holes throughout the site and they found there is minimal Class 5 under the existing pavement. There are veins of clay on top and sand and rock. By blending this together the roads would last longer. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked who generated the test holes and when were they done. The contractor dug the test holes last week. Councilmember Pritzlaff was curious that was done now this far into the project. That is what the asphalt was sitting on for 35 years. Why not just leave the solid base down that has been packed all these years and put down 4" of asphalt and not expect 10-15 years out of this road. Mr. Fryktal replied technology has advanced in 40 years. Putting a stable sub-base under the pavement will make the road last longer. After 15 years it is not anticipated that the road will need to be reconstructed again. It could be edge milled and overlaid with a 1" layer of asphalt and get another 15 years out of it. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated because ofthe water and sewer underneath is why we would have to do a total reconstruct. They only need 10-15 years out of this road. City Engineer Mann stated someday the utilities will need to be replaced. They cannot determine when that will be. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated they do not need a road that will last 40 years. Mr. Fryktal stated if you are looking for a short-term road and having to do patching during that time when it breaks up because the material underneath is not stable that could be done. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated the flyash will be mixed with the existing soil and will there be as good a compaction as the ground is sitting on today. Mr. Fryktal stated he would expect it to be better and more stable. Councilmember Fogarty stated if flyash is successful in reconstructs why was it not suggested in the first place. It seems Class 5 must be far superior for the cost difference. Mr. Fryktal stated they thought of the flyash after they say what the cost was getting to after the updated version to complete the project. They looked for alternatives to keep the cost down. Councilmember Pritzlaff noted an item on the spreadsheet for Class 5 was $75,000. He asked where the pay item is for the amount to be hauled out. That is Council Minutes (Regular) September 18,2006 Page 4 why we have a different proposal because there was not a pay item for the amount of material that has to be hauled out. City Engineer Mann noted the item for common excavation is the cost to remove the soils that the Class 5 would displace, which is $83,200. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated figuring we were putting Class 5 down why and who did not have that figured in. City Engineer Mann replied there are two ways this item could have been shown in the specification. One way is to have two pay items. One would be the common excavation and then another pay item for the Class 5. Another way to show this would be to have the entire cost as part ofthe placement of the Class 5 which would include removing the soils and placing Class 5. It is a matter of how the specification is written. The specification did not say that the Class 5 included the common excavation and there was no line item for common excavation. Councilmember McKnight asked Mr. Fryktal about the number of roads Waseca and Cottage Grove constructed with flyash. Mr. Pryktal did not know about the number of roads for Waseca. Cottage Grove used this material on one road. Councilmember McKnight asked City Engineer Mann for his thoughts on using bituminous on the existing surface. City Engineer Mann replied the standard is 3.5" of asphalt and 6" of Class 5. That is why staff brought back that option two weeks ago. Realizing that cost became more and taking into account the types of soils we have on this project, staff saw an alternative to save some money and still meet the goals of the proj ect which is to have a road that will last 10-15 years. City Administrator Herlofsky distributed financial information showing the original budget, the budget after the bids, and the revised budget based on the $670,000 proposal. There is also a column showing the year-to-date costs ofthe project. At the top it shows the revenues. Assessments to homeowners of $162,752 remains unchanged and other funding sources were also shown. This includes the proposal using the flyash. Councilmember McKnight stated Council left two weeks ago thinking this was $610,000 now it is $670,000. He asked where the revenue portion is for the $670,000. Finance Director Roland replied the road and bridge fund. Ms. Mary Swanson, 1404 Lower Heritage Way, asked what the subsoil was in Waseca. Mr. Fryktal replied it was clay. Ms. Swanson asked if it changes the quality ofthe flyash mixture if you have sand, clay or gravel. Mr. Fryktal stated it does not change. Ms. Swanson stated if it is less cost and it is a quality road, is the City using them as an experiment or will this be done in the future everywhere because it is a good deal. She feels the spray material they put on the road was an experiment and it was not a good idea. If it is that good a deal it should be good enough for all of Farmington. Mayor Soderberg stated it sounds like it is new to Minnesota. Flyash is used in concrete. Councilmember Wilson stated MnDOT does test materials for how well they will work. If there are only two communities in Minnesota using this, is this material better for a warmer climate. City Engineer Mann stated they would need to do Council Minutes (Regular) September 18, 2006 Page 5 further research to determine if those are the only two communities in Minnesota. Mr. Fryktal stated he looked on the internet and found it was used in North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota. Mr. Dave Steinke, 1412 Lower Heritage Way, stated he has not heard a clear explanation to the questions asked. How does $100,000 worth of material get missed? Last time it was $609,000 and that was supposed to be all. Now we are looking at considerably more. Who is responsible for missing that and who is being held accountable for missing that? Why are the taxpayers of Farmington being asked to make up for that item that was missed. He felt they deserve that answer. It was also mentioned the existing base was there for 35 years and it worked fine according to the City's own evaluations in October 2005. Since we are asking for a 10-15 year road why are we spending any additional money on something that appears to be experimental? Even if we do have to maintain it and fix a pothole here and there why can't we save that money and use the existing base. A simple answer would be nice to get. It is a simple question we should get a direct answer. Who is the consultant employed by? Is it Bonestroo Engineering, is it an independent individual? Where is this information coming from? How credible is it? He did not mean to be disrespectful but at this point in time, the residents should be hearing that information as well. Not being able to tell us how many miles of roads this was used on, we should know that. If it was used somewhere else we should know that. Doing some research on the internet is a great tool, but it is not the end all as a research tool. There should be better answers available before we spend the money on flyash. A person can find a case on the internet to support anything you choose to have it support. Mr. Jerry Ristow, 516 Lower Heritage Way, stated at the last meeting a motion was made and passed unanimously to fix the road per the City standards. It is the code of the City to use 6" of gravel and 4" of blacktop. Now he was hearing something different. Does this meet the City code? Mayor Soderberg stated this is different than the standard. City Engineer Mann replied that is correct. Typically we have Class 5 base. The standard detail plates show Class 5. Mayor Soderberg stated if we were going to remain true to the motion made at the last meeting we would need to do the Class 5 base. There have been some points raised that this is experimental or outside the standards. City Attorney Poehler stated Council could limit themselves to the former motion, they could amend the specifications if there is enough evidence to do so and amend the motion to include the new option. The specifications should be changed for this project or on the City standards. This could be done as a test project. Councilmember McKnight asked if there was an estimate for putting the asphalt on the base as is. City Engineer Mann stated staff would have to calculate that. He believed it would be less than the $609,000, but there were some driveways that needed to be replaced that added some cost so they would have to see how Council Minutes (Regular) September 18, 2006 Page 6 that balances out. Councilmember Wilson would also like to see the numbers, but the next meeting is October 2, 2006. Weare coming into the time of year where it could be too late to put down asphalt. Mayor Soderberg stated there is no way to determine how long the utilities will last. With the flyash there is the potential to extend the life ofthe road 30-40 years with an edge mill and overlay. The utilities have been in the ground for 40 years. City Engineer Mann replied there are areas where utilities are 60-70 years old and are still functioning. The Main Street project had utilities that were 80-90 years old. Each situation is different. It is possible the utilities could last another 20-30 years, but it depends on conditions. Councilmember Wilson stated if we put down bituminous over the existing base and put this on the 7-year seal coat cycle would it last 10-15 years or would the lack of a Class 5 base cause issues. City Engineer Mann replied based on what has been experienced with the roadways thus far we could expect a similar experience as in the past. Councilmember Wilson stated he would be inclined to look at the asphalt without the Class 5. This would reduce the cost below what was stated two weeks ago. Councilmember McKnight asked if staff looked at maintenance for the first 10-15 years or the last 10-15 years. City Engineer Mann replied the first 10-15 years would be less maintenance. Councilmember McKnight stated this is not the area to experiment with flyash if it will be torn up in 10-15 years for the utilities. He agreed with putting the asphalt over the existing base. We struggled to get to the $609,000 at the last meeting now to look at $670,000 is a lot more money. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated if we use flyash we are saving money. From his standpoint we are not saving money if it is more than what was approved last time. He asked again out of $609,000 knowing that we were going to put $75,000 worth of Class 5 did we miss a $100,000 pay item. City Engineer Mann replied because when staff looked at the bid items, they used the bid items as they were bid to estimate the cost. There was an item for Class 5 and knowing that the Class 5 was meant to patch the roadway areas, staff utilized that number to expand the amount of Class 5 from what was originally planned for to cover the rest of the project as proposed. After doing that, staff reviewed the specifications and found that the original Class 5 as listed in the project did not include the subgrade excavation which has to be part of it in order to put the Class 5 in. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated initially in the contract the Class 5 was stated to address a few areas that might be bad. City Engineer Mann replied staff wanted to make sure there were quantities in the contract that would allow patching in some areas if needed. Councilmember Pritzlaffunderstood that, but when Council approved the $609,000 it said 6" of Class 5 throughout the whole project. Why at that point in time did we not know that we have to dig 6" of fill out in order to put 6" of Class 5 in. That was the pay item that missing that we now know increased the amount of Class 5 because we are not fixing certain areas, we Council Minutes (Regular) September 18, 2006 Page 7 are putting a 6" base on everything. He cannot see how $100,000 was missed when we knew we were going to put a 6" base over everything. City Engineer Mann replied because the original contract had 6" of Class 5 for those patching areas. Had the project gone as planned, where there was good asphalt, but there were a couple areas of patching, there would have been a change order to cover the common excavation because the specification did not include the common excavation with the Class 5. When staff came up with the $610,000 they looked at the pay item and it is reasonable where the common excavation is listed along with the Class 5 placement as one pay item. Knowing there was already patching included, staff assumed that is the way it was listed. When the entire specification was reviewed, staff found that was not the case, and the pay item was missing. If the original project would have gone as planned, there would have been a change order for any patching to include the common excavation. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated as far as maintenance and edge mill was mentioned. Mr. Fryktal stated that would be done every 15 years. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if that would affect the seal coat project done every 7 years. Would we have to do a seal coat 3 years after this was done? City Engineer Mann replied the purpose of a seal coat and a mill and overlay are different. The seal coat is to keep the water out of the cracks and keep the pavement from deteriorating. It also puts another layer of rock on top that helps the road from wearing down more. The mill and overlay provides structural strength to the pavement in a way seal coat does not. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he has to assume the City will stick with seal coat. In Hill Dee we were going to do a seal coat in three years and from then in seven years. Now the question becomes we have had two seal coats, how does that affect the edge mill? City Engineer Mann replied the edge mill can still be accomplished. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated when talking about the Class 5, is the $75,000 the total originally figured for patching or is that after the 6" base. Staff replied that was from the last meeting. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated if we use $10,000 of Class 5 to bring us down to $65,000. Why can't he assume $65,000 off of the $609,000 project they ordered at the last meeting? City Engineer Mann replied the Class 5 is not the only issue they found since the last meeting. There is also $13,000 to remove and replace the driveways mentioned that have the 4" lip. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked where the 4" lip came from. City Engineer Mann replied that was a description from Council that had been out there. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he saw one driveway in Centennial Court that had a very abrupt lip, but that is the only one he saw. City Engineer Mann replied Mr. Fryktal reviewed the driveways and included all of them in this cost. There are several driveways. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if that was created by the project or by the contractor that was doing the work. City Engineer Mann stated they need to find out if the contractor made that decision or if he was directed to do that. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked why assume the $13,000 now until we find out. He was not going to spend money on something that was not out there. Last time he stated $609,000 was the last number he wanted to see. Even if the issue with the Class 5 had not come up, staff would still be coming back to Council for more money. He saw on the revenue portion where it says Council Minutes (Regular) September 18, 2006 Page 8 miscellaneous he saw nothing as a dollar amount for engineering. He recommended milling off the 4" which he saw today and put down the asphalt. Councilmember Wilson asked about the borings and if that was a new budget item included. City Engineer Mann stated the contractor dug some holes to see what the soils looked like and that is not an additional cost. Councilmember Fogarty stated this is not where she wanted to see this project going and she has a lot of concerns. She has concerns with the flyash and does not know enough about it. There is not enough time to be educated on it and a decision has to be made tonight. This is not the area for us to do an experiment. She also had a concern with not being able to do it when it is raining. Ifwe hit two weeks of rain this proj ect will not get done this year and we cannot have that. When a complete reconstruct is done, is all of the Class 5 removed? City Engineer Mann replied the Class 5 gets mixed in and contaminated with the other soils. New Class 5 would be brought in. Councilmember Fogarty stated she would like to see the streets built up to code. If the Class 5 could be used again, it could save money in the total reconstruct, but that cannot be done. Putting the asphalt down on the current soil seems to be the right thing to do. City Attorney Poehler stated there is no liability to the City for not building it up to code. Mayor Soderberg stated by placing blacktop over the existing sub-soils we are guaranteeing that we will have to do a total reconstruct in 15 years. City Engineer Mann stated we would expect similar performance out of these roads as we have seen since they were built. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated where the new concrete was replaced, the valley gutters and the new curbs he assumed the City would not be responsible and that the milling company would be. He noticed Apple Valley milled off Cedar Avenue and he did not see any curbing being replaced. He asked if it was typical that curbing has to be replaced in a mill and overlay project. Mr. Fryktal replied the Cedar Avenue project was done by the County. The curbing varies from area to area depending on the soils. Councilmember Pritzlaff noted it was budgeted for 1/3 ofthe curbing to be replaced and now it is up to 50%. MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by Wilson to retract the motion from the last meeting and mill off all the asphalt, grade the soil, fix bad spots and put asphalt down over the current sub-soils. This will save money from the Class 5 that will not be used. City Administrator Herlofsky stated his concern is that the condition of the road will arrive back to the current condition sooner. Weare trading off investment for routine maintenance. Councilmember Wilson had a concern with not knowing the cost of the project. We are approving an open ended expenditure. Councilmember McKnight stated we cannot afford to wait. He should not assume it will be cheaper but he does. Councilmember Fogarty stated we are fishing Council Minutes (Regular) September 18, 2006 Page 9 blind and it is frustrating. Mayor Soderberg does not like experimenting but understood engineering brought the flyash option forward to keep costs down. The overlooked common excavation amount needs to be mitigated somewhere. It would be good to experiment with the flyash during a total reconstruct somewhere. When we build something we need to do it right. If we overlook costs, we overlook costs and that is unfortunate. He will not support the motion. Mr. Jerry Ristow stated he knows the Mayor was not here at the last meeting, but per the direction of the City Engineer to the four Councilmembers that were here, it was sub-standard and he would not recommend doing a road without 6" of Class 5 and 4" of blacktop. That is what the motion was. A good portion of the residents left that meeting with that anticipation. We could have had all new curb put in the area and they said no, the time was getting short and the project was supposed to be done September 1,2006. So to settle for the checkerboard curb and not take any other option we were going to get a road recommended by the City Engineer per City standards. If you are going to do something, be consistent. Don't give us a halfway road that will not work. Next spring you will be patching if you do not put the gravel in now. Mr. Ristow stated Councilmember Pritzlaff was out there today and saw the chunks. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated we have gone down 4" now for the asphalt and would have to go down an additional 6". There was something missed and in the financing there is nothing from engineering, but there should be. In trying to get the road back together and not see the costs go up, going over the old sub-soils would not be a bad thing to do because the road has lasted 35 years. Trying to minimize the extra dollar amount takes more off the amount of the proj ect by not using all the Class 5 and is saving the City money in that aspect. It is sub-standard from the roads, but in this case we will be in there in 15 years digging up the utilities. Saving the money now would be better. Mr. Ristow stated he saw the large rock today that will pull out with the blade and it will mix the clay and black dirt and you do not know what you will have. When it freezes you will have frost heaves and you will pay for it next spring. Do it right now. You are halfway there, finish the project. Councilmember McKnight noted Mayor Soderberg would not support the motion and asked for his recommendation. Mayor Soderberg stated he does not like the idea of experimenting with the flyash, but knows flyash is a concrete like substance and would create a suitable base for the asphalt. Class 5 would be his first choice, but they are trying to keep the cost down. If we know we will be digging it up and cannot reclaim the Class 5 it would be prudent to put down a suitable base, but keep the cost as low as possible. To use Class 5 we are looking at another $83,000 over the flyash cost. We need a suitable base or it will shift. It is some experimentation. The recommendation of the City Engineer is to do the flyash treatment and he will have to go with that, although his first choice would be the Class 5. Councilmember McKnight stated he is assuming in 15 years there will be a total reconstruct. When looking at $670,000 compared to $609,000 are we risking $60,000 by approving the motion. Will that money be spent in the next 15 years if they do not do flyash? City Engineer Mann replied the flyash will Council Minutes (Regular) September 18, 2006 Page 10 give a more suitable base. Whether it will be the same as Class 5 remains to be seen over time. There will be a more stable base with the flyash than without. Finance Director Roland confirmed the spreadsheet assumes the $670,000 flyash option. It also assumes there will be no increase to special assessments. Councilmember Wilson withdrew his second to the motion because they do not know what the cost will be. He would rather spend more on a known than spend money on something he does not know what the cost will be. Mayor Soderberg asked City Engineer Mann ifhe has reviewed the specifications enough to know that we are in good shape. City Engineer Mann stated Mr. Fryktal has reviewed the specifications thoroughly and he has been doing mill and overlay projects for 25 years. He trusts he has done what is needed to come up with an accurate cost with the knowledge we have today. Mayor Soderberg asked if there was a second to the motion to lay asphalt over the existing soils. MOTION DIED for lack of a second. MOTION by McKnight to go with option 4 as recommended by staff which is the flyash option at a cost of $670,000 and asked that staff investigate the potential sharing of costs with the parties involved. Councilmember Fogarty stated she is very concerned with this project not getting paved this year. At this point in the year it is a reality that this could not happen. Approving a project with this product when it is so weather sensitive sits badly with her. She does not want the residents not having a road this winter. In that case, you do the Class 5 because it can get done this year. Hopefully we will get 20-25 years out of the road and the infrastructure will not need to be redone. This project will not get cheaper. She cannot vote for anything that she does not know will have pavement this winter. Councilmember Fogarty recommended the $756,000 option. Mayor Soderberg stated it is an additional $83,000 to put down Class 5. That is our City standard and that would,be his first choice, but it is a lot of extra money. He asked where the money would come from. Finance Director Roland replied the gentleman referred to City standards being followed as to how the road is constructed. The City also has a standard in the special assessment policy, that assessments on projects cannot exceed the amount of the appraisal. Council has agreed to not increase the amount ofthe special assessments to cover the additional costs on this project, but she reminded Council that the appraisal value is $2,000 per property. With regard to the limiting of the costs it was our attempt to keep it under the $985 amount. There is still the option of increasing the special assessments. As far as revenues to support the additional funding, the road and bridge fund does have money we have been putting away over time as a result ofthe CSAH 31 project where MSA funds were used and we have been paying ourselves back. Those funds are revolving funds used to up front projects. There is ample funding at this time because the funds are over $1 million. The $985 assessment was based on a much lesser cost project and it still is under the $2,000 appraisal limit which is sustainable to a challenge in court. Due to the lateness of this particular project, at this point we would not be able to hold an Council Minutes (Regular) September 18, 2006 Page 11 assessment hearing within enough time to bring these assessments onto the 2007 tax rolls. Consequently the assessments would not come onto the rolls until the 2008 taxes. Mayor Soderberg seconded the motion. Councilmember Wilson stated the CIP for this project is $750,000. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated to the residents from what he heard last time it would be acceptable to have the asphalt over the existing sub-soil. The only way he could support the proj ect is if the residents supported the higher amount of $756,000. He noted Councilmember McKnight's motion included all parties involved. He asked what parties would be involved in sharing this cost. Councilmember McKnight stated all parties. The amount for the residents has been capped at $985. City Attorney Poehler stated they can look into that, but there would be no guarantees. Mr. Nick Schultz, 18869 Euclid Path, stated it sounds like time is of the essence. With the Class 5 it sounded like you had to haul the old base away. Will that take more time than using the flyash? Mr. Fryktal stated it would take at least as long or longer. Class 5 you should also not lay down in the rain. Mr. Jeff Thelen stated what they have heard over the last month is that these roads were laid over poor soil with 1.5" of blacktop and they survived very well for 35 years. Now we are going to take that same soil and strip off another 1.5" and have 4" of blacktop. Logic does not tell him those roads will not last for 30 years. He assumes the blacktop is better than 35 years ago. The biggest thing that confuses him is that Council is struggling with this and he sympathized with what they are going through. He hoped the one lesson we have all learned is that if we cannot trust our engineering firm, maybe we have the wrong engineering firm. He has heard two motions and assumed he will hear a third before the night is over. We should all be able to get on the same page and ask engineering for their recommendation and be able to trust that. Right now, there are very few people in this room that can trust them. Councilmember Wilson stated Council has mentioned a number of different options. The flyash option and the Class 5 option. It seems like every meeting we are being set back another meeting because we do not have all the information. He does not think the three options presented are outside the scope of what you might reasonably expect Council to be looking for. Mayor Soderberg stated there is a motion and a second to go with option 4 which is the 6" flyash option on the milled out area and 1.5" of bituminous on the flyash and bituminous on all roads and to explore options for funding from parties involved. Voting for: Soderberg, McKnight. Voting against: Fogarty, Pritzlaff, Wilson. MOTION FAILED. Council Minutes (Regular) September 18, 2006 Page 12 Councilmember Pritzlaff asked how much money is saved if there is a 3" base of Class 5 instead of 6" and what does that do for the road. City Engineer Mann replied some Class 5 will give you a different benefit than no Class 5. The cost would have to be calculated. MOTION by Pritzlaffto look at a 3" base of Class 5 and have all parties involved have some responsibility. Mayor Soderberg stated if we are going to start changing the standard, and he recognized the flyash was a recommendation from engineering, then we need to do a regular cross section just like City standards. Then the only thing we need to address is the additional cost of $756,000. MOTION by Wilson, second by Fogarty to complete the project using the Class 5 as standard also noting the project estimate of $756,244.99 is roughly $6200 over the original capital improvement plan as identified in the 2006 CIP. Voting for: Soderberg, Fogarty, Pritzlaff, Wilson. Voting against: McKnight. MOTION CARRIED. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS Mayor Soderberg noted a public hearing was advertised for Castle Rock annexation issues and due to an Orderly Annexation Agreement which will be addressed later, that hearing will not be held. a) Amend CUP Mining Operation ISD 192 - Community Development ISD 192 has requested an amendment to the original CUP approved on July 17, 2006. The original approval was for 60,000 cubic yards of sand to be mined from the 5.8 acre borrow pit site located in the southeast corner south ofMeadowview Elementary School. There was a miscalculation by the school district's engineer. They miscalculated by 100%. It was determined that in that borrow pit there was not 60,000 cubic yards, but 120,000 cubic yards. Therefore, the original CUP needs to be amended. The other situation is after the July 17, 2006 meeting the DNR and the SWCD reviewed the original haul route and stated the route should go 680 ft. to the west. There is a drainage ditchjust south ofthe original route. The agencies proposed that the original haul route would cause more adverse problems to the drainage ditch because of the number of trucks passing through. They proposed a new haul route that would go straight west. The DNR and SWCD along with the City Attorney and City Engineer approved a 7 ft. diameter corrugated metal pipe instead of the original box culvert. This is because it is one section and the width is not as large as a box culvert. The borrow pit is open right now and they are allowed to haul. Currently they are doing erosion control measures, stripping some ofthe top soil and putting in the new haul route with the corrugated metal pipe. The 120,000 cubic yards will add 3,000 additional trucks. The new route will have less of an impact to the roadway and the residents. The school district has requested the borrow pit remain open until December 15, 2006 rather than the original closing date of November 1,2006. Flagstaffwill be closed in certain areas during the hauling operation. The proposed closure will occur at the curve on Flagstaff and CR64. It will be open for local traffic. The other closure will be just south of the new high school property line. The hauling Council Minutes (Regular) September 18, 2006 Page 13 operation will occur from September 25 - December 15,2006. The 120,000 cubic yards remains in the original grading area. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant is allowed to mine 120,000 cubic yards from the borrow pit. 2. The applicant must obtain final City approval ofthe mining operation and the rough grading plan from the City Engineer. 3. The applicant must pay any applicable fees, provide adequate surety in an amount and form approved by the Director of Public Works, and comply with any other reasonable conditions imposed by the Director of Public Works. 4. All excavation activities must be consistent with plans submitted to and approved by the Director of Public Works. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated at the July 17, 2006 meeting when they approved the 60,000 cubic yards he understood a box culvert was approved. He noticed last week Wednesday before it came to the Planning Commission for an amendment, they had already put in the galvanized round culverts. Why the change before any type of approval from the Planning Commission or the Council. City Planner Smick replied the reason they made the change to the corrugated pipe and the haul route was the original route did show the box culvert on the north side of the drainage stream. The DNR and SWCD said they do not want that much impact to the area so the original route was moved with a metal corrugated pipe which is narrower and less adverse to stream impacts and is one section rather than three sections. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he assumed at that meeting that the culvert would be left, but it will be removed after the mining. City Planner Smick confirmed it will be removed, it is just temporary. Councilmember Pritzlaff noted there is a green utility box in the middle of the road for the haul route. Enebak Construction is aware of the utility box and they will be working with the utility company. Councilmember Pritzlaff noted there was a number mentioned of six trucks, 11 hours/day for 20 days. With the 120,000 cubic yards he asked how many trucks, how many hours a day and how many days. Enebeck Construction stated it will take place 10 hours/day and over the timeframe outlined. When the project was bid the 120,000 cubic yards was anticipated by the people bidding. The final grade plans indicate 120,000 cubic yards. Councilmember Pritzlaff noted there was an amount of $1 O/yard on the fill and asked if that was how much it cost to mine it. Mr. Doug Bonar stated he recalled speaking about a particular cost. This was a publicly bid project and to own sand on your property and have it excavated and transported to the site is still more cost effective than purchasing the sand independently, having it mined and transported to the site. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he received a fax today from Aggregate Industries that it would be $3/yard to have that material hauled from off site. Councilmember Fogarty asked about the road closure and ifthey can get across CR64. The road will be open to local traffic and there will be a meeting with the residents next week to inform them exactly what will happen. MOTION by Council Minutes (Regular) September 18,2006 Page 14 Wilson, second by McKnight to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by McKnight, second by Fogarty to approve the amended Conditional Use Permit for mining of a borrow pit at the southeastern portion ofthe Meadowview Elementary School property subject to the above conditions. Voting for: Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight, Wilson. Voting against: Pritzlaff. MOTION CARRIED. b) Adopt Resolution - Certification of Delinquent Utility Bills - Finance Delinquent utility bills can be certified to a property owner's taxes as a special assessment over one year for collection. Delinquent bills are 90 days or more overdue. Owners were mailed notices and they may pay their delinquent bills by the end of business on October 17,2006. At the time notices were sent delinquent bills amounted to $166,000. Staff anticipates this to be under $100,000 at the time of certification in October. Only those with delinquent bills after October 18, 2006 will be certified to the taxes. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked how many households this covered. Staff explained this also includes people who have moved and left an unpaid bill. The closing companies should call the City to determine ifthere is a delinquent bill so the money can be escrowed at the time of closing. Otherwise the new owner is billed this amount. The number is significantly less than last year. Staffwill advise Council of the final number after the certifications. Ms. Susan Poirot, W 265th Street, stated they own a building and had three rental tenants last year. The tenant moved out in October 2005 and the first time she knew they did not pay their utility bill was August 25, 2006 when she received the notice that they would be assessed on their property taxes. They had no idea the tenant was not paying the bill. She felt the City should notify the property owner if there are tenants who are not paying their bills such as a duplicate bill. She did not order garbage service from the City, the tenant did. The tenant is still doing business in Farmington at a different location. She assumes the City tried to collect from them, but does not know for sure. She has a bill for $67.91, but it is the principal of the matter. It is not fair, as a business owner if she tried to collect a bill that was due a year later from someone and she had not notified them that they even owed it, she would not bother to send them a bill for that money. Mayor Soderberg stated that is the process that is available to the City by law, to certify these once annually. Only bills that are 90 days or more overdue can be certified. Finance Director Roland stated the City does have the ability to send out multiple bills. Ifthe property owner has renters the City encourages them to have the City send them a duplicate bill so they can see iftheir tenants are paying the bill. Staff now asks if the resident is a tenant or the property owner. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Pritzlaffto close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARIED. MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by McKnight to adopt RESOLUTION R106-06 certifying the delinquent accounts as special Council Minutes (Regular) September 18,2006 Page 15 assessments to the 2007 taxes of the appropriate properties. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Approve Park Master Plans for Daisy Knoll Park, Westview Park, Dakota County Estates Park and Mystic Meadows 2nd Addition Park - Parks and Recreation Ms. Lil Latham of Hoisington Koegler presented the highlights of the Master Plans for the above parks. Mystic Meadows Park phase 1 is on hold for one year. It will take a year for construction plans, bidding, actual construction, and grass development. The park would be available for use in 2009. The land for phase 1 will be obtained through park dedication. MOTION by Wilson, second by Fogarty to approve the master plans for Daisy Knoll Park, Westview Park, Dakota County Estates Park and Mystic Meadows Second Addition Park. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. City Administrator Herlofsky mentioned staff has had discussions with Newland about the Fairhill development. At the last Parks and Recreation Commission meeting there were comments that they are looking for support from the Council to help them in discussions with Newland to have a park that is 60-65 acres. Staff feels it needs to be emphasized that a very large park is needed. Mayor Soderberg stated the Parks and Recreation Commission wanted some direction from Council as to where we want to go. Newland has mentioned there are park amenities scattered throughout the development. Mayor Soderberg would rather see a larger park than scattered amenities. Council reached a consensus that they would rather see a larger park. b) Approve Agreement for One Year Extension of Recycling Contract - Parks and Recreation In 2002 the City entered into a five-year recycling contract with Dick's Sanitation. The contract expires December 31,2006. At the August 7, 2006 meeting Council directed staff to negotiate a one-year extension of this contract. Staffmet with Dick's Sanitation and reached an agreement. Parks and Recreation Director Distad gave highlights of items covered in the agreement. Any excess recycling revenue will be donated to the Youth Scholarship Program by DSI. They will be recognized through advertising of this program. A drop off site will be provided for electronics and tires on two Saturdays at the Central Maintenance Facility. MOTION by McKnight, second by Fogarty to extend the recycling contract for one year. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Council Minutes (Regular) September 18, 2006 Page 16 c) Adopt Resolution - Approve Charleswood Marketplace Preliminary and Final Plat and Site Plan - Community Development This site is located on the corner of Pilot Knob Road and 195th Street. They plan on splitting a 4.9 acre site into three lots with an outlot on the south. Parks and Recreation Director Distad has requested a sidewalk within the development. As it is less than 5 acres the park dedication will be cash in lieu. Regarding transportation there will be three accesses all from Eureka Avenue. The access at Eureka Avenue and 195th Street will be a full intersection until traffic warrants meet the requirement for a right-in, right-out. The middle access will require a cross easement. Contingencies are as follows: 1. The satisfaction of any engineering and planning comments. 2. A restrictive easement must be obtained and recorded, limiting access to the drive in specific circumstances (i.e. no hazardous chemical trucks, etc.) 3. During the well site construction the easternmost north/south drive on the site will have to be closed down in its entirety until the project is completed, which may require the drive to be closed for up to one year. 4. The developer shall provide the City with written documentation regarding Mid America Pipeline Company's approval of construction and development within its gas easement. 5. The preparation and execution of the Development Contract and approval ofthe construction plans for grading, stormwater and utilities by the Engineering Division. 6. The submittal of a landscape plan acceptable to the City Planner. 7. A cross easement will have to be provided to allow the necessary ingress and egress at the center access point. 8. Extend the proposed internal sidewalk south to Eureka Avenue. MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by Wilson to adopt RESOLUTION R107-06 approving the preliminary and final plat for Charleswood Marketplace contingent upon the above conditions. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. d) Adopt Ordinance - Text Amendment Section 10-6-1 Regarding Residential Swimming Pool Fences - Community Development Currently the code defines a swimming pool as any enclosure in ground or above ground having a water surface area exceeding 100 sq. ft. and a water depth of not less than 1.5 ft. It also states a pool area shall be enclosed by a non-climbable safety fence at least 5 ft. in height. Staffhas received numerous calls from residents regarding this code. Staff proposes any permanent outdoor pool structure in ground or above ground intended for swimming, wading or recreational bathing having a capacity of 5,000 gallons or more shall be considered a swimming pool and shall require a permit approved by Building Inspections and must meet the following restrictions: Council Minutes (Regular) September 18,2006 Page 17 - A pool area shall be enclosed by a non-climbable safety fence or barrier at least 4 ft. in height. - The fence shall have a self-latching gate with the latch at 38-42" above the ground level. - Storable pools do not require a fence or barrier provided all means of access such as ladders are removed and the pool is covered when not attended. - Storable pools do not require a permit from Building Inspections. - A storable swimming pool has non-metallic, molded, polymeric walls or inflatable fabric walls constructed on or above the ground and is so constructed that it may be readily disassembled for storage and re-assembled to it's original integrity. Councilmember Fogarty asked why we want to reduce the fence height to 4 ft. She was comfortable with 5 ft. Staff explained they have received concerns throughout the years from residents of having to add an additional 1 ft. to their fence. Surrounding communities require 4 ft. Councilmember Fogarty felt the covers on the pools could be more dangerous. Councilmember Pritzlaff also had a concern with the covers. He noted having the railing on the top of the pool and they sit on the edge of the pool that will protect them from falling backwards. Councilmember Wilson felt requiring a 5 ft. fence could cause a hardship and that people would be responsible. There would be no liability on the City's part according to what the code requires if someone were injured. MOTION by Wilson, second by McKnight to adopt ORDINANCE 006-562 amending Sections 10-6-1(A), 10-6-1 (A) subd. 4, 10-6-1 (A) subd. 5, and 10-2-1 ofthe City Code. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 1) Adopt Resolution - Bio-Zone Application - Community Development The City has an opportunity to apply to enroll in a program that may provide economic benefits to the City. In 2003 the legislature implemented a program called the Biotechnology and Health Science Industry Zone program. This provides additional incentives for companies to create new facilities. The benefit companies would receive from being within a bioscience zone was protection from various state taxes, exemptions from state and local sales and use taxes, exemptions from corporate franchise taxes, and job credits of various kinds and research and development credits. This would not affect property tax revenue. This year the legislature decided to re-open the process and allow cities to apply. Dakota Future is coordinating applications on the part of various cities. A bioscience zone is any business that creates bio-medical products or engages in agricultural type research or provides support services to those industries. Staff prepared a map showing zoning districts that would allow the construction of manufacturing facilities that could make bio-medical devices and other types of uses consistent with the statute. Staff identified 13 parcels. All property owners are in support of the program. MOTION by Fogarty, second by McKnight to adopt RESOLUTION R10S-06 approving the bioscience zone application. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Council Minutes (Regular) September 18,2006 Page 18 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Approve Advertisement for Bids - 1 st Street Garage - Wold Architects Wold Architects presented the plans for the 1 st Street Garage. The existing garage will be retained for temporary storage. The new garage will be constructed on the southwest corner of the site. There will also be a gated impound lot on the property. The building will be 1200 sq. ft. larger than anticipated in November. The total project cost is $645,000. Bidding will be done in October, construction will start soon after and finish construction in April 2007 which times out with the start of construction for the new City Hall. Councilmember Pritzlaff questioned the height ofthe building being 22 ft and asked what will be stored in there that would require that much height. Staff replied there will be plow trucks, etc. A mezzanine will also be included in the building. Councilmember Pritzlaff noted there is also a mezzanine in the fire station and asked ifthere was a fork lift available to put materials up there. Staff stated there is a forklift at the Maintenance Facility and there is also a forklift for the skidsters. Councilmember Pritzlaff did not want to have to be moving forklifts from one building to another and creating spaces that would be hard to get to. MOTION by Wilson, second by Pritzlaffto approve the advertisement for bids. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Adopt Resolution - Castle Rock Orderly Annexation Agreement - Community Development Adopt Resolution - Approve Mock Annexation - Community Development Adopt Resolution - Approve Olson Annexation - Community Development The Castle Rock Town Board approved the Orderly Annexation Agreement. The agreement covers 918 acres. For any property owner within this area that wants to become part of the City once they petition for annexation the township will not oppose it. In exchange for that the City has agreed any property owners in the township that own property outside of the boundary would not be eligible for annexation for a period of 10 years unless the township consented. A revenue sharing arrangement has been worked out with regard to property taxes that will be generated by new residential construction in the area. MOTION by McKnight, second by Fogarty to adopt RESOLUTION R109-06 approving the Orderly Annexation Agreement between the City of Farmington and Castle Rock Township. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Annexations for the Mock and Olson property have also been approved by the Castle Rock Town Board. MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by Wilson to adopt RESOLUTION Rll1-06 approving the annexation ofthe Olson property. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by McKnight to Council Minutes (Regular) September 18,2006 Page 19 adopt RESOLUTION Rll0-06 approving the annexation of the Mock property. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Councilmember Fogarty: Wished Councilmember Wilson good luck in his marathon. The groundbreaking ceremony for the new high school will be Sunday, October 1, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. Councilmember McKnight: On September 19, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. there is a meeting for anyone interested in volunteering or to propose new activities for the 2007 Rambling River Days. Councilmember PritzIaff: He was asked by a resident why Spruce Street does not line up with the new Spruce Street going into Vermillion River Crossing. He noted the lanes of traffic do, the sides of the curbing do not. On the Perkins property there is a house being built and it has siding on it, but there is not a finished street leading to it. Mayor Soderberg: He met with representatives from the Girl Scouts and was surprised to learn how many Girl Scouts there are in the City. He will be having breakfast with them on November 8, 2006. 14. ADJOURN MOTION by Fogarty, second by McKnight to adjourn at 10:45 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~a ?Yl~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant