Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12.05.05 Council Minutes COUNCIL MINUTES PRE-MEETING December 5, 2005 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 Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; Robin Roland, Acting City Administrator/Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director; Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer; Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director; Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant 2. APPROVE AGENDA MOTION by Wilson, second by McKnight to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. CITIZEN COMMENTS 4. COUNCIL REVIEW OF AGENDA Councilmember Fogarty noted the solid waste exemption is for a rental property and asked ifit will be vacant for a long period oftime. Staffhas typically allowed an exemption until it becomes occupied. Councilmember Fogarty suggested a policy for when properties are vacant for a short period of time so it can be approved administratively. Staffis currently working on criteria for exemptions. Staffwill check if it is required by ordinance or state statute that exemptions need to be approved by Council. Councilmember Wilson asked about the contract for Mr. Robert Vogel for HPC consultant services and asked what the City was getting for $4,000 that staffwas not able to provide. Administrative Services Director Shadick replied they receive his expertise and he interprets Department of the Interior Standards for historic preservation. The hourly wage has to be established to account for Mr. Vogel's hours when submitting the reimbursement forms to the state for the CLG grant. By setting a wage we can use his services in a variety of ways, rather than paying by project. The Heritage Landmark designation is the main focus right now. Council Minutes (Pre-Meeting) December 5, 2005 Page 2 Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if when people apply for Boards and Commissions they receive information as to how many times they meet and when. Staff replied for new applicants they are informed they meet monthly. A calendar will be available showing when the meetings are held. Councilmember Wilson noted the 5-year term for the EDA is a long time. Councilmember Fogarty stated eventually all the seats on the EDA will be for five years except for the Council seat. Mayor Soderberg confirmed Council will receive a history oftheir attendance prior to the interviews. This is included in the interview packets. 5. STAFF COMMENTS Human Resources Director Wendlandt has e-mailed a list of questions to the Council for the City Administrator interviews. The Council will meet at 8:30 on December 8,2005 for the interviews. Council will narrow the 20 questions down to 13. 6. ADJOURN MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by Wilson to adjourn at 6:46 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~/77~~ c>/" Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR December 5, 2005 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 Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; Robin Roland, Acting City Administrator/Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director; Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer; Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director; Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Chris Gore, Ben Rowan, Chris & Ravit Berg, Roxanne Mainz 4. APPROVE AGENDA MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by Wilson to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS 7. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by McKnight, second by Pritzlaffto approve the Consent Agenda as follows: a) Approved Council Minutes (11/21/05 Regular) (11/17/05 Special) b) Set January 7, 2006 for Boards and Commissions Interviews - Administration c) Adopted RESOLUTION R131-05 Approving HPC Consultant Contract- Administration d) Received Information HPC 2005 Annual Report - Administration e) Acknowledged Resignation Police Department - Human Resources f) Acknowledged Resignation Administration - Human Resources g) Approved Solid Waste Exemption - Parks and Recreation h) Approved Assessment Agreements - Ash Street Project - Engineering i) Approved Sewer Meter Contract - Engineering j) Approved Bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Council Minutes (Regular) December 5,2005 Page 2 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Truth-in- Taxation Hearing - Finance The purpose of the hearing is to outline the impact of the City's budget on 2006 property taxes. The proposed levy is $6,668,204 which is a 14% increase over the 2005 levy. The 14% was arrived upon by using the growth in the market value of all properties in Farmington. This is partially due to adjustments in the valuation of homes and also new homes. General fund revenues are estimated at $7.765 million which is 67% from property taxes. There was no levy limit for 2006. Expenditures are proposed to increase by 9.1 % due to operation cost increases, fuel utility costs, existing contracts and additional staffing. After the requested reduction ofthe 2006 budget by Council, staffing was adjusted by $60,000- 70,000. The levy also includes $175,000 for acquisition of capital assets. Staffing includes two new patrol officers, a promotion to administrative sergeant, an accounting technician, a maintenance worker/mechanic and an administrative support specialist for Park & Rec. These positions will be filled throughout the year. Ofthe 14% tax levy increase, 11 % will go to the general fund and 3% will go to debt service requirements and the capital acquisition levy. The overall revenue increase in the general fund is 9.1 % as is the expenditures. This is a balanced budget. The tax levy dropped one percentage point from 2005 to 2006. The City's portion of the increase is equal to or less than the increase in the market value. The county's website shows for each property what the 2005 taxes were and the 2006 taxes. In each case the City's portion dropped by 1.5%. However, the property taxes on other areas such as the county, the school district, or other taxing districts did not have the same effect. In 2005 the cost to a homeowner for City services was $66/month. In 2006 the cost for City services will drop to $65/month. Ms. Roxanne Mainz, 18941 Englewood Ct., asked why the tax base and the levy must go this way. Finance Director Roland stated that is what we aim for. Ifthe tax base grows at a certain percentage and the levy grows that percentage or less, then if your home stays the same price two years in a row, your taxes should stay the same two years in a row. Ifthe levy is less than the growth in the tax base, then your taxes should go down. Ms. Mainz thought that would be more the goal rather than trying to keep it even. She asked if the City was increasing the tax quite a bit. Finance Director Roland replied the goal of Council is to be able to capture the growth in the market value. Out of the last four years, three of those years there has been growth in the market value of over 20%. We have not increased the levy by that 20% due to levy limits. In a growing community you need services and money to provide those services. As the community grows, so do the expenditures. Once there is a stable, built-out community there should not be the need for an increase in expenditures and the levy amount should level out less than the growth amount. Ms. Mainz stated what she disagreed with was there should be some efficiencies gained as we grow and she was not seeing those. Instead of adding more administration, police officers sure, but if we cannot get all the garbage picked up, maybe we should outsource that instead of doing it in- Council Minutes (Regular) December 5, 2005 Page 3 house. Her business looks at efficiencies. As they grow, they do not add more staff. They look at how they can make efficiencies with what they have and she is not seeing that in the government. She would like the City to look at those issues as corporations are doing. She is getting to the point where she cannot live in her house anymore because she cannot afford to. Mayor Soderberg noted we do look at efficiencies as we can and there will come a point as the City grows where efficiencies will take over. Weare not quite there yet. As we approach 30,000 - 40,000 we won't see the necessary need for increase in administrative staff and support personnel. Police officers and fire and rescue yes. As far as the goal of not raising the levy as much as the tax base and the market values, we made a little progress now as the rate went down a percentage point, although it is small. Ms. Mainz asked the Council to seriously consider efficiencies as she may have to move. Mayor Soderberg noted the increase is divided between several taxing entities. The City is doing what they can to keep it as low and manageable as possible. The increase in the City's portion was due to the increase in the value ofthe property. Councilmember Wilson noted the City is working with the county on High Performance Partnership programs. Mayor Soderberg stated this program is the major cities and the county working together to find efficiencies. One example in the process is joint dispatch to consolidate dispatching services and still maintain the same level of service. Finance Director Roland stated she received a call from a resident asking how he can get involved in this process. She recommended between April and May he should send an e-mail to Council and identify the things in the community that were important to him. MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by Wilson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) 203rd Street Wetland Buffer Discussion - Engineering At the April 18, 2005 Council Meeting, Council reached a compromise for the wetland buffer issue raised in late 2004 and discussed in a workshop early 2005 regarding wetland buffers on private property. Wetland buffers are no longer allowed on private property. They are on City outlots. The compromise was to allow the buffers to be reduced in width to a minimum of 10ft. along the back property line if a resident was willing to grant the City a permanent conservation easement. The easement will stay with the title of the property. Staff sent out forms to residents in August 2005 regarding the conservation easement. Two situations have been identified. Council Minutes (Regular) December 5,2005 Page 4 The first property is at 5215 203rd Street. There is an encroachment into the City buffer. Sodding has occurred past the property corner. The original buffer runs close to the limits of the deck. There is also an irrigation system installed within the buffer and close to the property line. These encroachments were installed prior to the discussions in 2004. The as-built was approved with the sod the way it is. The second property is 5241 203rd Street. There is also an encroachment into the City property with landscaping that goes well into City property. The 10ft limit of the conservation easement is just beyond the stone retaining wall. The owner has sent the Conservation Easement paperwork to their mortgage company for signature so it was their intent to grant the City the conservation easement. The improvements installed beyond the conservation easement were installed subsequent to the mailing of the materials for the conservation easement. During the construction ofthe first portion of the landscaping there were rocks installed beyond the conservation easement line and the building inspector indicated to the landscaper the rocks needed to be brought back behind that line. So the original landscaper was notified of the buffer line. The enforcement and protection of wetland buffers and City property in the past has required that a property owner remove the objects of encroachment from such areas at their own expense. In the case of 5215 203rd Street the sod and irrigation system in the buffer and on City property would need to be removed by the owner at their expense. In the case of 5241 203rd Street the landscaping would need to be removed from the buffer and City property at the owner's expense. Seed for restoring the buffer has been provided by City staff in the past. Both property owners have been informed of the situation and of staff s recommendation to remove the amenities at the owner's expense. Jessica and Ben Rowan, 5215 203rd Street, stated they are aware of the meetings the City had regarding the wetland buffer and agree that the buffer should be protected. They did not attend the meetings because the City had approved and released their escrow. They believe the wetland buffer should begin at their property line which would leave 50 ft. of wetland buffer. They closed on their home on November 21,2003. On December 9,2003 an as-built survey was sent in. In the Spring of 2004 they added the deck and were aware of a drainage easement on the original survey. Part ofthe deck was within that easement, it was revised and then the deck was approved by the City. In June and July 2004 the building inspector directed the job supervisor to correct the grade at the rear property line before the sod and irrigation was installed. On August 4, 2004 the City approved the landscaping, sod, grading and released the escrow. On September 9,2004 the wetland buffer sign was installed, one year after closing on their home. On September 22, 2004 they received a letter from the City requesting the land beyond the sign be returned to natural vegetation. They contacted staff regarding their concerns. December 14,2004 a revised as-built Council Minutes (Regular) December 5,2005 Page 5 survey was sent to their builder with the wetland buffer line on the survey through the rear of the property. Their house is for sale. They have a purchase agreement signed by a potential buyer. This has since been terminated because the City advised the buyers that the rear of the property was to be returned to its natural vegetation. This is a major concern for the buyers and for the Rowan's. Mr. Rowan noted on the sign posted in their garage regarding easements and buffers, it states wetland buffers cannot be affected by grading. He felt when the inspector has the job supervisor grading along the wetland buffer before the sod and irrigation system is installed that is a double standard. Mayor Soderberg noted this situation arose with other property owners and that is why the compromise was reached. He was not sure where the ball was dropped. Developers should tell the builders, and builders should tell the excavators. The buffer still needs to be maintained to protect the wetland. Ms. Rowan felt for other homes on that side of the street it was brought to their attention before landscaping was installed. In their case, they were the first house in that phase of the development. Their landscaping was installed 6 months to one year before other neighbors. Mayor Soderberg noted the developer was aware of the buffer before they started grading the road. There was a communication lapse between the developer and when the home was purchased. Ms. Rowan stated it did not make sense to her that when the grading is being inspected and when the property is being approved, it is not brought to their attention. They were made aware of this months after the fact. Mr. Rowan stated if they had known about the buffer requirement they would have abided by it. He did not feel they should suffer for it or they cannot sell their house to the potential buyers because they cannot leave their property the way it is. It was not their mistake, they should not have to suffer for it. Mayor Soderberg stated issues like this are the reason it was changed to not allow conservation easements on private property. In the future, this type of issue will not come up again. It is unfortunate, but Council made the compromise in giving back as much ofthe backyards as possible and still maintain the integrity of the wetland. When there is a problem with a transaction like this, it usually ends up in a court action to take it back to the builder. Mr. Rowan clarified that Council was blaming the builder and not the fact that a City employee did not get the sign in the yard with the sign in the diagram placed in the garage stating there is a wetland buffer there. The sign was not in place. That is the City's fault. Mayor Soderberg replied but the notice was in place. Mr. Rowan said there was no sign in his yard, so why should he think there is a wetland buffer. He has the original survey from the builder and the wetland buffer is not shown. Councilmember McKnight looked at the small area beyond the property line, and stated he has a problem directing staffto do this when the City approved the permits. He asked if we can look at a compromise on getting the area that is beyond the property line back to the natural habitat. Mr. Rowan stated initially they were very serious about sodding their property to the property line and not beyond. With the steep grade in the lot next to them, when it rained the dirt washed onto the sod, so their landscaper agreed to pull out the wrecked sod and Council Minutes (Regular) December 5, 2005 Page 6 replace it. The sod then went over the line. Councilmember McKnight stated he appreciated Mr. Rowan's comment that if they had known about the easement, they would not have done this. They have a permit and he has a problem with saying remove the irrigation system and pay for it. Councilmember Wilson stated he had a concern in March when they approved the conservation easement. We will have to accept that we cannot treat every property equally. If the as-built is approved, there is nothing suggesting you cannot do exactly what the property owners did. The property corner on 5241 will have to be looked at significantly differently as that is extending well beyond the property line. He cannot in good conscience vote to take away property that the City approved when it is impacting the sale of the property. Councilmember Fogarty agreed with Councilmember Wilson. There were other people who dropped the ball and City staffmade some assumptions. There was clearly miscommunication back then. Once we are looking at an irrigation system, the City dropped the ball. Once a permit is issued, that is our job to make sure everything else falls in line. She was not thrilled about letting part of the buffer go because it is very important and she absolutely expects the property line cleaned up. Councilmember McKnight stated the key issue is all the work was done before this was an issue. Councilmember Pritzlaff thought the compromise was good, but in this case, the work was done before everything else. He agreed with Council, to make them remove this would not be fair. If the inspectors missed this, that is our responsibility. There were some communication issues with the builder and the developer. He would like to see a straight line along the rear property line. Attorney Jamnik stated a resolution will have to be ratified because there will have to be an Encroachment Agreement approved by the Council. This will be brought back to the December 19, 2005 meeting. Mayor Soderberg asked if this sets a precedent for enforcement of other property. Attorney Jamnik replied Council is revisiting the April 18, 2005 compromise which is based on a pre- existing condition. Other people in a similar situation will possibly approach the Council for the same or similar deal. There are parcels to the east that have acted following the compromise but as mentioned, they did not have sod down or an irrigation system installed within that conservation easement. But Council will be asked by property owners for the same or similar treatment and Council will have to justify the departure in this case from those situations. Mayor Soderberg asked if there was anything the City can do to put some teeth into these boundaries. Attorney Jamnik replied there are, but none are perfect. There are set iron monuments on the property corners. In two situations you not only have encroachment into an easement or a setback requirement but you have encroachment onto City owned property beyond the monuments for the property lines. There is no perfect solution to protect City property. Council Minutes (Regular) December 5, 2005 Page 7 Councilmember Pritzlaff stated the silt fencing is not supposed to be beyond the original buffer limit. If we wanted to enforce something, if the inspectors see a silt fence is not erected in the right spot or is down during construction we could implement some type of fine to make sure nothing is done beyond the silt fence. Mayor Soderberg asked how much buffer is beyond the property line. Mr. Rowan showed the survey to Council which showed 25 ft to the property line, so there should still be 50 ft. of buffer. Mayor Soderberg stated in regard to the property at 5215 203rd Street, because this was a pre-exiting condition before Council's discussions on the revision of the original buffer limit to a conservation easement and because there were City permits issued and approved, the property line will be the new buffer line for this property and this property only. Anything beyond that will be restored to natural grasses. Seed will be provided by Engineering. This will be placed on the December 19,2005 Council meeting. Attorney Jamnik will draft an Encroachment Agreement for Council approval. Councilmember Pritzlaffnoted due to the winter weather now, this will have to be worked out with the future buyers to do the work in the Spring. Chris and Ravit Berg, 5241 203rd Street, they closed on their home on October 8, 2004 and started their landscaping within a day or two. The original landscaper installed a retaining wall and brought it to the rear of the property line. The City inspector came to inspect the property to release the escrow. At that time, the Bergs were told that the retaining wall exceeded the wetland buffer zone. Mr. Berg stated that was the first time they heard about the buffer. The City asked them to remove the portion of the retaining that extended into the buffer, which they did. The City signed off on the original portion of the retaining wall. Based upon discussions with staff they understood that the change to the conservation easement would allow them to retain the entire easement back to the property line. Once they had that space back, they thought they could do what they liked. As far as the second addition to the retaining wall, which extends into City property, that was a mistake on their part. There was a misunderstanding as to where their rear property line is. The installed the retaining wall to try and resolve some issues with the neighbors to try to keep the mud back. They are willing to remove this portion in the Spring back to the property line. They would like to keep the remainder of their landscaping. In the photograph, Mayor Soderberg noted there is another house where the silt fence is placed in the wetland and grading has been done. He felt there is something that needs to be done to stop the builders from doing this. Attorney Jamnik stated if we can catch them while they are in construction, it is possible to red tag the building permit and stop construction until they conform to the ordinance requirements. If the City misses it from an inspection process, then we might deal with it after the fact similar to the previous property. City Engineer Mann noted the original retaining wall had been placed further into the easement area and the inspectors asked that it be moved back. That portion of Council Minutes (Regular) December 5, 2005 Page 8 the wall is now where it should be. None of City staff were aware or at all condoned any of the construction beyond that line. Mayor Soderberg added moving the wall back was in anticipation of the conservation easement being granted. Mr. Berg stated there is still some misunderstanding between what was communicated to them and what was just said. It sounds like the City had no knowledge of what was going on out here and that is not true. We discussed this with staff several times and the inspectors walk through the back on a weekly basis. Their understanding was that they could do this with the change in the easement. Mrs. Berg stated the silt fence was wrapped around the trees and the silt fence is approximately where the end of the yard is. As a result of removing the retaining wall there will be the same mud problem. Mayor Soderberg noted that is why we will provide the seed to restore the area. Councilmember Pritzlaff felt the mud issue will go away with seed. If you draw a straight line, will you abruptly take out the rock or will you have to come back further into the buffer to feather it out. Mr. Berg stated it was a very steep grade going down and there was not thick vegetation to keep it in place. City Engineer Mann stated they will have to regrade the area so a buffer can be established. There cannot be a drop off. Staffwill determine from the original grading plan what the grade was. It appears there was fill brought in where the rock are so the grade is higher now than it was. Staffs intent was to re-establish the buffer in all areas the developer has encroached into. There does have to be a buffer established and vegetation that will impede erosion. Councilmember McKnight noted Mr. Berg talked about an April timeline and there being some confusion as far as what they could do. Mr. Berg replied he does not understand where the miscommunication was. He did not know if it was within the City itself or if they misunderstood. Mrs. Berg stated they worked with their builder. Mr. Berg stated they were in communication with the City and told staff what was being done. This has been going on since March or April 2004. They did not know there was an issue until two weeks ago. Mr. Berg was not sure what the original grading plan called for, but there is a steep drop off. The whole area is steep. It was not built up by them. There was a steep hillside and they had to build the retaining wall to hold it back. Either the builder built up their property or the neighbor cut theirs down to make it level. Councilmember McKnight asked what communication was done with residents in March or April. City Engineer Mann replied they kept all the neighbors informed as to the meetings. There was a workshop in January and it went to Council in April. Staff communicated with the neighbors as to the outcome. Councilmember McKnight asked if there was communication sent in January or was it communicated after it was resolved. Jen Collova, Natural Resources Specialist, replied all the residents were told in April. They were sent a packet of information. Once the paperwork went through the legal process and staff received the Conservation Easements, the residents were sent the easements to sign with information about what this meant. After those are signed, she sends them an updated survey with where their lot line is and where their conservation easement and where their use able new yard is. Council Minutes (Regular) December 5, 2005 Page 9 Since the Bergs have not gotten their Conservation Easement signed yet, she has not yet sent them that additional letter. Mrs. Berg stated she just received this information within the last couple weeks. City Engineer Mann showed the revised survey to Council which showed it was revised in March 2005 showing the wetland buffer. It also shows the rock retaining wall going beyond the buffer, which the inspector had them remove up to the buffer line. They did that up to the conservation easement line. Councilmember Wilson stated the silt fence is not meant to be a property line. It is placed where there is a steeper grade to prevent erosion. City Engineer Mann replied the silt fence does not have to be on the property line. It depends on what the grades are. The silt fence should have been put on the original buffer line because the ordinance states the buffer should be untouched during the grading process. In this case, that was completely disregarded by the developers' contractors to begin with. This was continued on by the developers' lack of communication to the builder. Councilmember Wilson stated there are varying levels of blame depending on where the property is. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked what kind of communication we had with the neighborhood. Was it a public hearing as they would have been sent a notice of the hearing. He asked if everyone on 203rd Street was notified. City Engineer Mann was not certain if everyone was notified ofthe Council workshop. However, everyone was notified after the April 18, 2005 Council meeting. Mrs. Berg stated the residents were not notified because if they knew there was a hearing, they would have been here. If they knew there was a workshop, they would have been here. They did not know about anything until they received a letter showing the new boundaries one week ago. Mr. Berg agreed they never heard about the workshop. Mayor Soderberg thought the City notified everyone who had a wetland buffer. Mayor Soderberg asked Council what they wanted to do with the portion between the proposed conservation easement line and the property corner. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated ifthey go from property corner to property corner is the City liable for re-grading. Mrs. Berg stated they will have the landscaper come and he can re-grade it if the City will give him a recommendation on how to do it. Mr. Berg asked how it would be re-graded without coming way into the yard. City Engineer Mann replied there will have to be some type of transition and it will have to be designed to make it work. Mr. Berg asked if something can be planted on the steep grade to hold it back. Attorney Jamnik asked if it was the sense of the majority ofthe Council to re-establish the proposed conservation easement between that line and the property corner to the extent we can by blending in with the neighboring property owner as well as the outlot. Mayor Soderberg stated he would be inclined to do that very thing. To establish the original conservation limit that was proposed and work on establishing a transitional grade. The reason he would go back to the original proposed conservation limit is because the inspector advised the Bergs' to remove a portion Council Minutes (Regular) December 5, 2005 Page 10 back to that point. Mayor Soderberg assumed that was done in anticipation of the conservation easement. Had the inspector followed what was in place at that time, it would have gone back to within feet of the deck and most of the retaining wall would had to have been removed. Councilmember Fogarty agreed, this is a completely different situation than the previous one. There was a misunderstanding, but she felt the City did their best to explain what was happening. The fact someone pointed out you cannot go past this limit, they were taking into account the conversation Council had already had. She agreed the grading needs to be fixed. She would like to see the proposed conservation easement limit imposed. Councilmember McKnight stated he agreed, but would like to get an answer on the notification issue before any final action is taken. Councilmember Pritzlaff also agreed, it has to go back to the conservation easement line to feather it out. Councilmember Wilson clarified doing landscaping does not require a permit. It is up to the owner to verify lot corners, placement of trees, etc. He supported the conservation easement limit. Mr. Berg asked about grading towards the neighbor's yard. It is a 6 ft. drop. Mayor Soderberg stated that will also be reviewed. Mrs. Berg stated the area between the proposed conservation easement limit and the property corner there is an in-ground pond. She did not like it that Council was not understanding they did not get any notification at all as to the workshop. She does the mail in the house and they did not receive any notice. They have spent a fortune. She called the City several times and the inspectors are in the back on a regular basis. They are willing to compromise to the property corner, but not as far as the pond is concerned. It is on their property. She asked if a permit needed to be pulled and was told it was not needed. She talked to staff about the pond and talks to the inspectors on a regular basis. Mrs. Berg stated she has no intention of taking out the pond unless someone else wants to dig it up. They will remove the stones beyond the property corner and will comply with grading. Mrs. Berg stated she appreciated not being invited to any of the workshops. They are tax paying citizens and should have been invited. Mrs. Berg continued to insist she talks with staff on a weekly basis. They just finished their basement and had many inspectors there who saw the landscaping. Mayor Soderberg stated the list of who was notified which occurred in January and April will be verified. This will be on the December 19, 2005 Council agenda for action. Mrs. Berg continued to insist that she opens the mail and they did not receive any notification. They invested a lot of money in this landscaping. Councilmember Wilson recalled Council directed staff to notify any affected owners. It was never the intent to exclude any residents. Council would like to examine what paperwork and inspections were done by the City. Mrs. Berg stated they felt excluded and they will look into that further. They talked to staff a million and two times and have never been invited to anything. The City will be disturbing their yard and the wetland and it will cost them a fortune. Mr. Berg stated as far as the retaining wall, their intention was not to do damage, but to Council Minutes (Regular) December 5, 2005 Page 11 protect from erosion. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated this issue came to Council in November 2004 and assumed there were articles in the newspaper. There have also been inspectors telling them to move back to the conservation line. Mrs. Berg suggested a compromise where they would remove the retaining wall back to the property line, but they will need a suggestion as to how to retain the dirt. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated that was not his compromise. He was saying if they remove the rock to the property line, what would staff have to do to feather it in. Mrs. Berg agreed with that and they have a landscaper who can work with staff, but from the conservation easement limit to the property corner they have a large pond and she wants to leave it there because it is on their property. Mayor Soderberg stated staff will do the research for the next Council meeting. b) Approve Funding Metro Watershed Partners - Engineering At the last meeting there were some questions as to the fact that Farmington and the Dakota County Vermillion River Watershed has participated and there was a question as to why both entities would participate. Staffhas recommended to be involved with the Metro Watershed because they produce many articles, materials, brochures, exhibits, etc. that assist the City with the MPDES Phase II best management practices. It shows the City is committed to addressing storm water issues and meeting educational requirements. MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by Wilson to approve the expenditure of$1,500 to support the Metro WaterShed Partners for 2006. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Cataract Relief Association Pension Request - Finance In August the Council intended to receive a request from the Cataract Fire Relief Association with regard to their 2006 pension request. That item was tabled to allow the Cataract to speak with the Council at a workshop. Subsequent to the last workshop, they were informed they needed to bring forward a request before the end ofthe year in order for it to take effect January 1,2006. The Cataract Association request contains $62,500 as the annual payment to the Association from the City in order to fund the pension. There is a slight difference in the second portion of the request. The Association is still requesting $3,500 per year of annual service for benefits. At the workshop, the amount put forward by the Council was $3,350. The action requested was to approve an amendment to the Fire Relief Association's by-laws increasing the annual pension from the current level of $3,200 per year of service to $3,350 per year of service effective January 1,2006 as per Council's discussion at the budget workshop. Councilmember Pritzlaff noted the $62,500 is an increase from $60,000. The original request was $3,500 and $65,000. During the workshops he felt going from $3,200 to $3,350 was doing something for the long-term firefighters and going from $60,000 to $62,500 was showing something for the short-term which is 20 years and less and newcomers. The firefighters provide a great service to the City and he thanked them for that. The rest of Council agreed. Mr. Jay Clinkscales, Treasurer ofthe Cataract Relief Asssociation, stated they have met several times to come to a resolution. In the past, when the funding is at Council Minutes (Regular) December 5, 2005 Page 12 the appropriate percentage there has not been any question. According to past practice, they submitted their request to Council using state guidelines recommending an increase from $3,200 to $3,500. In the workshop, he recalled that if they were above the 90 percentile funding the increases would not be an issue. Taking an increase of $300 would keep them within the 90% funding ratio. The Association cannot understand the position of staff and the Council to not allow that increase. The City has used the Stanton Group 6 for salary comparisons for all City staff. The Fire Department pension benefit was more than $700 below the median point for this group. It is a 22% difference from what the current proposal is from the City. At a 4.7% increase it would take over five years to get the department to the pension of a 2003 level. The funding is there for the increase to $3,500. The Association has a responsibility to maintain the funding investments within the state guidelines. So the chances of the fund taking a dive are very slim. Mayor Soderberg stated at the workshop we discussed this number for this year and early next year look at the fund balance and look at adjustments for next year. Mr. Clinkscales agreed they discussed moving forward in a manner that would increase the City contribution. Mayor Soderberg added as well as the benefit. Mr. Clinkscales stated there was a disagreement at that point. The Association disagreed with that stance that we would not increase to $3,500. The Association appreciated the City's proposal to increase the City's contribution to $62,500 versus the $60,000 that was originally in the budget. However, in past practice if the funding was there it was not an issue for the Association to take an increase in the pension within the budgeting guidelines. In the past if the funding was not there, they did not submit for an increase in the pension. Ifwe follow past practice, the $300 increase falls well within those guidelines. Councilmember Prizlaff spoke with Mr. Bill Sauber this past week. There are six members that have 20 years of service or above and are at an age to where they can take their retirement. The goal is to keep the fund at 95%. He asked Mr. Sauber that if all six firefighters were to retire in one lump sum this year the fund would drop to 88% at $3,500. Mr. Clinkscales stated that is correct, but the chances of all six retiring at one time are very slim. Councilmember Wilson stated he appreciated the Fire Department wanted to come to the budget workshop and Mr. Clinkscales was right about Council not worrying about the type of investments. The point that is of concern to the Council is the number of people who could retire. Mr. Clinkscales felt the funding is there and past practice shows the sound judgment they have made. Having six people eligible for retirement and collecting their pension has been a past issue and has not been a problem. At 4.5% they will never get to the Stanton Group 6 guideline which is used for every other department. Mayor Soderberg stated when this was brought to Council's attention it was late in the process and that is why next year they want to start earlier. This is not to diminish the value of the firefighters to the City. Mr. Clinkscales stated the support of $3,500 would show that support by the CounciL Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he does not want it to be portrayed that ifhe does - -- - - - - - - - -- -- -- - Council Minutes (Regular) December 5, 2005 Page 13 not agree to the $3,500 that he does not value the service of the firefighters. As a ' Councilmember he has to look at the 88% and the 95%. The firefighters are valued 100%. You cannot put a price on what they do for the City. The service the firefighters provide is one thing, this is completely different. He thanked all the firefighters for the service they provide and it is a great service to the City. Mr. Clinkscales stated taking the increase to $3,500 would not cost the City a dime. MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by McKnight to amend the Fire Relief Association by-laws increasing the City's contribution to the pension fund of $62,500 and an increase in the benefit to $3,350. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Councilmember Pritzlaff: Thanked the Chamber for the ribbon cutting ceremony at the new Liquor Store. This weekend was the first weekend for the Village Holidays at the Fairgrounds. It also runs next weekend. He volunteered to work at the admission gate. City Attorney Jamnik: Regarding the Angus lawsuit, the District Court granted summary judgment and dismissed the lawsuit. The property owner has the right to take the parcel through the PCA voluntary cleanup program at which point contribution from the City may be sought. Regarding the Xcellitigation, oral arguments at the Court of Appeals are scheduled for next Wednesday. Finance Director Roland: As a part of the Hipp partnership, there was a letter from the Administrators to the co-chairs ofthe house and senate capital investment committees indicating the county had done their part and bonded for the Dakota Communications Center and they were requesting that the state take up the balance of the funding for that center under the state's bonding program. December 7,2005 from 4:30 -7:00 p.m. there will be a reception to meet the City Administrator candidates at the Maintenance Facility. Mayor Soderberg: It is a great new liquor store. He asked Finance Director Roland to provide a report to Council showing what the City has done to retain current businesses and attract new businesses and what we are currently doing. As we have an economic development person on staff, hopefully we have seen some activity in that regard. Acting City Administrator Roland stated that report will be provided in mid- January. She noted there should also be a report on the status of the goals set in March. Mayor Soderberg stated he had a conversation with the President of the NDC about having an economic summit where Council would talk casually to business owners about what can and cannot be done to attract and retain businesses. This would take place in the earlier part of next year. Council Minutes (Regular) December 5, 2005 Page 14 Council recessed at 9:25 p.m. and reconvened at 9:30 p.m. for Executive Session. 14. EXECUTIVE SESSION Discussion regarding ISD 192 litigation. Respectfully submitted, ~~/Y?~~ C-// Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant