Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03.20.06 Council Minutes COUNCIL MINUTES PRE-MEETING March 20, 2006 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Soderberg at 6:30 p.m. Members Present: Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight, Pritzlaff, Wilson (arrived 6:42 p.m.) None Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; Robin Roland, Acting City Administrator/Finance Director; Dan Siebenaler, Police Chief; Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer; Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director; Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director; Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner; Jen Collova, Natural Resources Specialist; Lena Larson, Administrative Assistant Public Works; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Members Absent: Also Present: 2. APPROVE AGENDA MOTION by McKnight, second by Fogarty to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. CITIZEN COMMENTS 4. COUNCIL REVIEW OF AGENDA Councilmember McKnight asked about the attendance at the neighborhood meeting for the Hill Dee reconstruction. City Engineer Mann stated there were approximately 25 people in attendance. The main issue was some residents felt because other neighborhoods use their road that some of the costs should be shared by other neighborhoods. Staff explained everyone is assessed for the street in front of their house. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked about the license to cross DNR waters and asked if the pipeline will go under the river. City Engineer Mann confirmed this. The pipe is jacked under the river. The license costs $237.00 for a lifetime license and he asked why it would have to be renewed. City Engineer Mann stated it is a 50-year cycle. Councilmember Pritzlaff then asked about the MSA mileage designation and noted the mileage the City has designated is 2.05 miles below the total mileage allowed to be designated. Staff explained this means the City can designate 2.05 miles. The proposed Council Minutes (Pre-Meeting) March 20, 2006 Page 2 designation is 1.03 miles. Staff would have to check on the total number of miles designated. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked for a clarification on the code amendments to the street right-of-way and pavement width. Staff noted the changes concern the sidewalk and the bike trail. Staff is allowing additional right-of-way when there are sidewalks and trails to have room for boulevard trees and snow storage. The street widths are not changing. Councilmember Pritzlaff also had a concern with the MUSA item where it stated he recommended the City Council revoke MUSA. He stated he never used the word revoke. He was not looking at revoking it. He wanted to bring it back to the committee. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated regarding the item for the Sunrise Ponds Preliminary Plat (the Perkins property) he wanted to pull the item from the agenda and have it presented at a meeting where Community Development Director Carroll is in attendance. Councilmember Pritzlaff felt he has been the head of this and he should be presenting the item. Mayor Soderberg felt Assistant City Planner Wippler can present the item. Councilmember Pritzlaffwill ask during the regular meeting if the majority of Council wants it presented by Community Development Director Carroll. 5. STAFF COMMENTS Acting City Administrator Roland added an appointment recommendation to the agenda. (Councilmember Wilson arrived). Lena Larson, Administrative Assistant and Jen Collova, Natural Resources Specialist presented information on the creation ofthe new Green Team. This group looks at issues with recycling, and issues with building buildings and doing this in a more environmentally conscious way. The team members include Dwight Bjerke, Jen Collova, Lisa Dargis, Randy Distad, Don Hayes, Lee Mann, and Lena Larson. They will be exploring ways the City can reduce its environmental footprint and make responsible environmental choices that will set a positive example for employees, the public and other governmental entities. The initial projects will include reviewing new city-owned building projects, enhancing the internal recycling and waste reduction efforts and researching environmentally preferable purchases. The benefits include having a reduced impact on the environment, economic benefits, a move towards overall sustainability, government leadership and compliance with state and federal requirements. Councilmember Wilson asked if there were separate recycling bins in the downtown. Staff explained they will be reviewing that. Councilmember Wilson asked if it could be added to the March 6, 2006 Minutes that he acknowledged his brother and sister-in-law were in attendance. Council Minutes (Pre-Meeting) March 20, 2006 Page 3 6. ADJOURN MOTION by Fogarty, second by McKnight to adjourn at 6:48 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~/?'7~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MARCH 20, 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 Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; Robin Roland, Acting City Administrator/Finance Director; Dan Siebenaler, Police Chief; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director; Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer; Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director; Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director; Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Nick Schultz, Megan Rice, Jim & Sandy Jenkins, Devlin Larson, Randy Oswald, Susanne, Esther, Sarah, David, Chris, Wolfgang Sixl, Mark & Kathy Langer, Vern Lindback, T. Brothers, Bill Jacobson, Jean Beikler, Craig Strand, Dorothy Flicek, Kelly Pietsch, Krista Flemming, Ruthe Batulis 4. APPROVE AGENDA Councilmember Wilson added a comment to the March 6, 2006 Minutes. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked Council about pulling item lOb) until Community Development Director Carroll is here to present the item. Mayor Soderberg stated that is an operational issue and if the Administrator agrees with having it presented, he would be comfortable with that. Other Councilmembers were comfortable with having Assistant City Planner Wippler present the item. Acting City Administrator Roland added item 71) Appointment Recommendation Parks and Recreation. MOTION by McKnight, second by Wilson to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Introduce New Employee - Administration Ms. Danielle Cahlander was introduced as the new Communications Specialist. 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS Council Minutes (Regular) March 20, 2006 Page 2 Mr. Nick Schultz, co-owner of Bugaloo's Ice Cream Shoppe, and Ms. Ruthe Batulis, Northern Dakota County Chamber, presented a petition from 33 business owners of the downtown corridor asking the Council to reconsider doing both the Elm Street and Spruce Street projects in the same year. The owners feel with the access limited from the north and west sides of town due to streets being tom up it will significantly hurt their businesses. Mayor Soderberg stated when this was discussed during the goal-setting the impact to the downtown was a significant concern. They discussed phasing the projects so both accesses would not be closed at the same time. With this much concern, Mayor Soderberg felt it would be in Council's best interest to meet with the business owners as those proj ects approach. He appreciated the time taken to get the names on the petition. Councilmember Fogarty stated that information came from a workshop and nothing has been set in stone. The Council wants to work with the business owners. They always intended to make sure access was not cut off in both directions. Mr. Schultz stated the business owners were concerned with the analogy of "like a band-aid and rip it off all at once." One business owner said this was more like an amputation. The owners want to make sure the Council and City realize how much of an affect it would have on the businesses. Councilmember Fogarty assured him they did. The intent was to not do this to the businesses two years in a row. It would not be done all at once in the same year. Mr. Schultz stated he would rather have the projects done in two consecutive years rather than having both roads tom up at once. He was worried about the access and the public's view of construction at both ends, how will traffic get across the railroad tracks, or not knowing which access is open. Ms. Ruthe Batulis stated this is a great example of keeping the lines of communication open, making sure the businesses know what the time line is on an ongoing basis. Meeting with the businesses will help everyone get on the same page with regard to both projects. Mayor Soderberg directed staff that as the proj ects approach, before they are brought to Council to order the projects a meeting will be scheduled with the business owners to discuss the plan and obtain their insights. Councilmember Wilson clarified that the Elm Street project is on the Dakota County CIP so the Council does not have any control over that. That is such a significant project, we will definitely keep that one moving. With regard to the Spruce Street project, the portion of Spruce Street involved would take 3-5 weeks. City Engineer Mann stated it would not take an entire summer for that one block. Staff will look at both projects and meet with the business owners and Council. At the workshop it was discussed to possibly phase the projects to keep one access open. Mayor Soderberg felt the concern is that one block involves the railroad tracks. If Elm Street and Spruce are closed at the tracks, the only access from the west side is Ash Street. Mr. Randy Oswald, 19282 Evenston Drive, Chair of the Parks and Recreation Commission, stated last week's article in the Independent entitled "Community Center Likely On Hold for Now" has caused serious concern within the community and the surrounding areas. The article states that at a recent Council workshop the proposed Council Minutes (Regular) March 20, 2006 Page 3 Community Center project may be placed on the back burner for a long, long time. Mr. Oswald stated a large recreation project in Farmington has already been on hold for the past 8-9 years and that is a long, long time. The last time a major recreational facility came before the Council, it was voted down before the voice of the people could be heard because there were other needs in the community such as a Maintenance Facility, Police Station, and there were community financial issues. Farmington has challenges. With aging facilities, a greater than desired dependency of75% or better on the school district for City recreational space needs, a growing population that is asking for more recreational space and an acceptable debt load limit that is in danger of being passed. He asked is the building of a new City Hall an appropriate priority to be setting at this time. While Farmington's business district and the City Hall Task Force, of which he was a member, have had the project of a new City Hall be de-prioritized for a Fire Station, the citizens ofParmington are demanding a Community Center be built. He asked which of these two facilities serve more people and better utilize the value of the community. If the Council truly wishes to de-prioritize the Community Center and continue the recreational space reliance on the school district, then he would offer one possible solution, this is not the only possible solution. Mr. Oswald stated that would be to allow the school district to build the new high school on the Christensen property on Flagstaff Avenue, end the costly dispute with the school district, and allow the community to get the spaces it needs, not only for educational needs, but also to provide more space for the recreational needs the community is demanding. While it is known that he is opposed to this solution, because he believes the decision for land use should remain with the City, it is just that, a possible solution. He realized no one on this Council was in office the last time the issue of providing a major recreational facility came up. He felt it needs to be pointed out that people have been waiting. The idea of a Community Center is not staff driven, or Park and Rec driven, it is community driven and they are the ones who requested this. Councilmember Wilson asked if the Park and Rec Commission have met on this. Mr. Oswald stated they have had one meeting and it was requested to bring this back to the next meeting for further discussion. It is anticipated from that meeting there will be a recommendation to Council one way or the other. Finance Director Roland stated she will attend the next Park and Rec Commission meeting and present the financial information. Councilmember Wilson stated if a vote was taken in the community as to whether residents would rather have a Community Center or City Hall, a Community Center would win every time. Looking at the tax burden of a Community Center is a hefty burden. Councilmember Wilson stated in his opinion, Council has to keep property taxes as low as possible, keep residents in Farmington, expand business opportunity in Farmington and along with that will come a growing tax base. At some point it might become more feasible. He felt the article in the Independent grossly mischaracterized any comment the Council made at the workshop. For what he knows about City Hall and there is new staff coming that are serving the needs of the community, is a high priority. The costs for this project and a Community Center will go up. He agreed it has been a citizen initiated process. It will be a tough choice once we get there. Council Minutes (Regular) March 20, 2006 Page 4 7. CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Wilson pulled item 7j) for a question. MOTION by McKnight, second by Wilson to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: a) Approve amended Council Minutes (3/6/06 Regular) b) Received Information Capital Outlay - Parks and Recreation c) Approved School and Conference - Parks and Recreation d) Received Information January and February 2006 Financial Report - Finance e) Approved License to Cross DNR Waters - Engineering f) Adopted RESOLUTION R32-06 Designating Municipal State Aid Route - Engineering Approved Appointment Recommendation Fire Department - Human Resources Approved Appointment Recommendation Fire Department - Human Resources Approved Appointment Recommendation Fire Department - Human Resources Approved Bills Approved Appointment Recommendation Parks and Recreation - Human Resources (Supplemental) APIF, MOTION CARRIED. g) h) i) k) I) j) Adopt Ordinance - Text Amendment to Section 11-4-3 of the City Code Regarding Street Rights-of-Way and Pavement Widths - Community Development Councilmember Wilson asked ifthis will reduce the available lot usage size by residents who live on a street described in this category. With more right-of-way, it would seem there would be less usable yard. Mayor Soderberg clarified he was asking ifthis applies to existing streets. City Engineer Mann replied it does not apply to existing streets. This would apply to roadways in the future that are platted as part of future plats. As far as usable space in yards, the lot requirements are still the same in the code, so the developer would have to configure a property with this type of right-of-way and still have the lots meet the minimum size. This amendment would be taking 6 more feet of the overall land in the area of the roadway. The right-of-way would be 6 ft. wider for the purpose of allowing enough room for the sidewalks and the trails. MOTION by McKnight, second by Fogarty to adopt ORDINANCE 006-552 amending section 11-4-3 (P) street right-of-way and pavement width. Voting for: Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight, Pritzlaff. Voting against: Wilson. MOTION CARRIED. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Adopt Resolution - Hill Dee Street and Utility Reconstruction Project - Engineering The improvements will serve the property owners along Upper and Lower 182nd Street, Euclid Avenue and Fayade Avenue. The improvements include reconstruction of the streets, sanitary sewer, water main and construction of a storm drainage system. The Hill Dee neighborhood was built in the early 1970's. The streets are deteriorated and require extensive patching each year. The sanitary sewer improvements will bring the sewer system up to City standards and reduce inflow and infiltration. The storm water system will convey the drainage Council Minutes (Regular) March 20, 2006 Page 5 off of the streets and prolong the life of the street and improve the safety. The improvements to the water main will provide for adequate fire flow, hydrant flushing pressure and standard spacing of fire hydrants. A neighborhood meeting was held on March 14,2006. Approximately 25 people attended and staff answered their questions. The main question was some residents felt because other neighborhoods use their street that those other neighborhoods should participate in the cost of rebuilding 182nd Street. Staff explained the homes pay for the street in front of their lot. The total estimated project cost is $2,891,000. The assessment policy indicates that 35% of reconstructed street and lateral utility costs are assessed to benefiting properties. Assessments for new lateral street and utility costs are 100%. The trunk sanitary, storm sewer and water main are funded with City trunk funds. A benefit appraisal has been done on the project. The City cannot assess more than what the appraised benefits are for the improvements. The appraisal indicates that the maximum benefit would be $7,000 per residential equivalent unit. The remainder of the costs would be funded from bond proceeds, the sewer fund, the water fund, and the storm water fund. Councilmember Fogarty asked what the real assessment is to the property. City Engineer Mann stated it was $11,700. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked how many homes would be affected. Staff replied there are 94 residential units identified. This does not include City properties which equaled 12 residential units. Councilmember Pritzlaffrecalled for the Pine Knoll project residents were assessed $4500 for the sewer and $2000 for the road. This was the same type ofproject. Mr. Craig Strand, 5850 Upper 182nd Street W, stated he is not thrilled about this, but the road needs to be done. His concern was Upper 182nd Street is a main thoroughfare. All the construction past Exley and between Upper 182nd Street to 190th Street has two roads to go through, 190th Street and Upper 182nd Street. This road is constantly used by people living in the back, such as Everest Street. While he agrees the sewer and the curbing are a direct benefit, he feels the people along the streets in the back need to share in the repaving. They use it as much as anyone else. He agrees the road needs to be done, but there is only one way in and out for all the residents and they use the road constantly. Mayor Soderberg stated according to the assessment policy, 35% of the project is assessed directly to the properties immediately fronting the road. The balance of the project is paid for by the rest of the City so in some degree the rest of the City is helping pay for the balance of the project. Mr. Strand felt that is a large amount for Lower and Upper 182nd Street. Upper 183rd is not affected or Everest Court. He understood the storm and sanitary sewers, but the road is being used by everyone. They also paid for Pilot Knob Road. There are a lot of heavy trucks using the road. Ms. Dorothy Flicek, 5770 Upper 182nd, stated they helped pay for Pilot Knob Road, now they are being charged $7,000 for this. What is the next road we will Council Minutes (Regular) March 20, 2006 Page 6 start building that they will pay for? Between the school taxes, her kids went to school in little shacks and she has been paying for all these schools. When she sees these big houses and traffic racing down the street, she does not understand why they cannot help pay for it if they use it. How many times will they be paying? They are getting older and will be on fixed incomes. Soon they will give the City their houses. Mr. Robert Italiano, 5795 Lower 182nd Street, asked ifthere is a plan on how the residents can pay for this. Finance Director Roland stated once the project is completed, the actual dollar amount which will not exceed $7,000, would be assessed to the property owners by a notice being sent, there will be another public hearing at that time, when residents can protest if they wish to do so. If the Council chooses to approve the assessment, those residents assessed would have 30 days from the day ofthe meeting to pay the full amount at City Hall without interest. After the 30 days, the certification of the assessment would go to the county and the assessments would be over a period of 15 years. The estimated percentage would 5.5%. This would be added onto the property tax bill for 15 years which amounts to $700/year. Mr. Italiano asked how long the project will take. City Engineer Mann stated bids will be received on April 21, 2006 and the project would be awarded at the first meeting in May. The project would start the first week in June and the project should be completed in September or October. Mr. Mark Langer, 5525 Lower 182nd Street, stated his concern is on top of the hill and to the south of 182nd Street it is higher so all the storm water runs back down. All the new catch basins will be serving that whole area and they do not pay a nickel for this project. They are paying the burden for a whole section that does not have storm sewers that will get service out of their catch basins. He feels the other residents should have to pay their share and they should not pay the full $7,000 when others will receive benefits from the project in their neighborhood. City Engineer Mann stated at the neighborhood meeting there were concerns expressed about drainage in the area. Staff has been and will continue to look at those issues. The procedure is the storm sewer in the street handles the street. If there is other drainage that gets to the street through yards then the storm sewer will pick that up. In future projects where those other homes are, there will be street reconstructions and storm sewer installed in those areas as well. At some point, everyone will have to pay for their street to be reconstructed and for their storm sewer to be either reconstructed or installed. Right now, staff is dealing with the existing drainage patterns. The intent of the storm sewer is to drain the street. Staffwill be looking into whether or not there are issues beyond the street they need to take care of. Mayor Soderberg asked what the street classification is for Upper 182nd Street. City Engineer Mann replied it is a local street. In some ways it does act like a collector as the county has installed a signal at Pilot Knob Road and Upper 182nd Street. Mayor Soderberg asked if the policy on reconstruction on collectors is different than local streets. Staff replied it is not. Council Minutes (Regular) March 20, 2006 Page 7 Mr. Langer stated his issue is the runoff on the streets, not coming through yards. When it rains you can see where the water flows. He saw them survey the crown of the road and that is not where the water runs. It runs on the edge of the road where the soft curb is. Ms. Flicek stated they also have water in their basements. When they landscaped on top of the hill, they fixed the waterway for the water to go right into her basement. She has had water in her basement for 20 years. There are 5-6 homes with water in the basement due to the reconstruction ofthe hill. City Engineer Mann stated they need to identify what the issue is and staff will have to do some research and surveying to see what the drainage patterns are. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked since there is a signal at the comer, would the county participate in the cost. City Engineer Mann replied it is a City road and the county has never participated in a City road project. Mr. Strand stated they all have wet basements. He has tried drain tile and landscaping and because of the clay soil conditions, the water just runs. There are 5-6 houses with this problem. There will have to be some research done on this. When he moved in 10-12 years ago, Upper 182nd Street was a sleepy road with two lanes. Now there is so much traffic that they installed a signal, which means the traffic patterns have pick up significantly. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he took the 94 units at $7,000 each and that comes to $658,000 out of $2 million that is coming from residents, which is not half of the project. He feels this is in line with the Pilot Knob project. Councilmember Wilson stated the LMC has been advocating the street utility legislation. Anytime a public works project is done, you will go from having no additional property tax to up to $700/year. He asked ifit was worthwhile to look at a different type of funding policy in the future. Ifthere are 6,000 units at $50 annually that could raise $300,000 a year. He asked if the City has the ability to do that. City Engineer Mann replied the City does not have the ability to do that. The street utility concept has come up to the legislature several times and has not gone anywhere. In the past Council and staff have discussed this and it would be a nice option for a City to have ifthey needed it. Council has not taken a position on whether they would be interested in implementing a street utility. At this time we do not have that option. Councilmember McKnight stated there are projects like this throughout the City and he equates this to the Ash Street project. He has many people saying they do not use that street, although they do. He understood their concerns and the residents that live there pay the bigger chunk of the bill. Council Minutes (Regular) March 20, 2006 Page 8 Councilmember Fogarty also understood the residents. It is a lot of money. She lives on the comer of 190th Street and Everest Path and also has another road in front of her home and she is within a half mile of Pilot Knob Road. She will also be assessed in future years. She is not imposing anything on anyone that she is not willing to take on herself. She realizes this is a lot of money, but the Council has to have a policy they follow to pay for the roads. Mr. Strand agreed the road needs to be done. He noted staff said the legislature will not let us do the street utility. He asked if there was any way to do this. Mayor Soderberg stated the City policy is the directly benefiting properties pay 35% ofthe reconstruction. On this project, 35% ofthis project would be $11,700. There is also another policy that even though the 35% is more, the City cannot and will not assess anymore than the actual benefit by appraisal. The appraised benefit came back at $7,000. It has been his experience that these are conservative numbers. MOTION by Wilson, second by McKnight to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Fogarty, second by McKnight to adopt RESOLUTION R33-06 ordering the Hill Dee Street and Utility Reconstruction Project, authorizing the preparation of plans and specifications for the project and setting the bid date for the project. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Adopt Resolution and Ordinance - Approve Sunrise Ponds Comprehensive Plan Designation and Rezoning - Community Development Bridgeland Development has submitted an application for a comp plan amendment and rezoning for the Perkins property. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at their February 14, 2006 meeting. The developer is requesting a comp plan amendment from non-designated to low-medium density residential as well as a rezoning ofthe property from A-I to R-2 PUD. The Planning Commission recommended approval contingent on the finalization of the annexation process and the approval of a PUD Agreement. The property was annexed on March 9, 2006. Council will be reviewing the PUD Agreement. The developer is requesting a PUD because a number of the lots do not meet the regular R-2 standards. Mayor Soderberg noted the density being proposed is 6.44 units/acre. The traditional density would be less than that. Councilmember Pritzlaff requested that the vote of the Planning Commission be included in the memos in the future. Councilmember McKnight stated he has had concerns all along due to the 21 Oth Street issue. He will continue to not support this because ofthis issue. MOTION by Wilson, second by Fogarty adopting RESOLUTION R34-06 granting a Council Minutes (Regular) March 20, 2006 Page 9 comprehensive plan amendment from non-designated to low/medium density residential and adopting ORDINANCE 006-553 rezoning the Perkins property (Sunrise Ponds) from A-I to R-2 PUD. Voting for: Soderberg, Fogarty, Pritzlaff, Wilson. Voting against: McKnight. MOTION CARRIED. b) Adopt Resolution - Approve Sunrise Ponds Preliminary Plat - Community Development The plat consists of 110 single family villa units on 17.09 acres. The development is located west of Cambodia Avenue, TH3 is to the west, and Bristol Square is to the south. The property is currently being used by the Perkins Trucking Company. There are several structures that would have to be removed as well as existing well and septic systems that will have to be sealed, capped and abandoned. On March 9,2006 the annexation for this property was approved. There is a density of 6.44 units/acre. There will be detached family homes on lots ranging in width from 36 ft. to 46 ft. The 36 ft. lots are on the inner ring ofthe development. There will be attached or detached garages in the rear that will be accessed from an alley. The lot areas range from 3,373 sq. ft. to 10,478 sq. ft. As they are going below the required 6,000 sq. ft. for an R-2 district this will be a PUD. The setbacks are 20 ft. in the front, 6 ft. on the sides, and 10 ft. in the rear. As this is a PUD, this allows for staff input and developer flexibility. They are varying from the code as far as the minimum lot area, lot width, rear yard setback, maximum lot coverage which the code requires 30% for an R-2 and the developer is proposing up to 45%. The 45% does include decks. They also vary in the maximum detached garage size. The developer proposes to limit it to 650 sq. ft. The code allows 1,000 sq. ft. As far as rear garage setback, the code allows for 10 ft. setback from an alley and the developer is proposing 12 ft. The Planning Commission reviewed the PUD Agreement at their March 14, 2006 meeting and determined it was satisfactory. The design standards allow for controls over architecture, materials, etc. They also provide for specific standards for attached and detached garages. The developer has agreed to supply a minimum often base floor plans so no two homes next to each other will be identical. The homes will vary from 900 sq. ft. to 1,800 sq. ft. These will be affordable units. A Homeowner's Association will be implemented. All the roads except for 210th Street and Cambodia Avenue are private roads. The association will be in charge of maintenance and upkeep of the remaining roads. There will be a small park with a gazebo which is a private park area. The Planning Commission wanted to see a small tot lot. The development is adjacent to one existing roadway, Cambodia Avenue. The plat shows the westerly extension of 21 Oth Street through the northern portion of the site to the edge of the property. There will be no parking allowed on 210th Street. 213th Street is critical for this development and the Devney and Winkler development. The traffic engineer has indicated that the City ma~ consider allowing the Perkins property to develop in total without the 21 ot Street connection with the specific caveat that specific progress is being made to provide the 21 Oth Street connection to TH3 and that a plan is identified that shows the Council Minutes (Regular) March 20, 2006 Page 10 schedule for completion. Once the extension of 21 Oth Street is provided the last extension needed is on the Regan property as well as the City property through the Prairie Waterway. The majority of Cambodia Avenue is located outside ofthe plat. The portion from 21 Oth Street to 213th Street was annexed with this property. Cambodia will be required to be improved all the way up through the northern portion of the property. An easement agreement has been reached with Mr. Krall regarding a section of Cambodia Avenue. Lots 1,2, and 3 of Block I access onto a shared driveway. This shared driveway is within the Great River Energy electric easement. GRE has indicated this is allowable, however the Planning Commission had some reservations in allowing a shared driveway, particularly the aesthetics. They directed staff to work with the developer to find a solution. The MUSA Review Committee met on March 8, 2006 and recommended approval of immediately allocating MUSA for this property. This will be discussed during the next item. Engineering has recommended approval contingent upon the satisfaction of any engineering requirements. Approval of the preliminary plat is contingent on the following: 1. The satisfaction of any Engineering and Planning comments. 2. Obtaining permission from the electric company to have a shared driveway within the electric easement on Lots 1, 2, 3 Block 1. 3. The placement of a tot lot within the park/open space adjacent to the gazebo. Councilmember McKnight had stated previously that if the 21 Oth Street issue could be worked out with the adjoining property owner, that he would support this project. This is a 110-unit project. There is an intersection at 210th and Cambodia and to the east 21 Oth Street would still be gravel. We will force the majority ofthe traffic to 213th Street which is his first red flag. The transportation is full of red flags. We will allow them to use 213th Street temporarily. Is this for 10 minutes or 10 years? The developer has to show that progress is being made on the 21 Oth Street issue. How do we measure that? When is it satisfactory to this Council? They should have a plan to identify the schedule to complete the 210th Street connection to TH3 before the Perkins property is allowed to develop fully. This is a 110-unit development and will be one phase. He feels this is enough to stop this project. Putting the extra traffic on 213th Street and go west to try to go south on TH3, that is already a dangerous intersection to make a left-hand turn at certain times. There is the same issue with going west on 213th Street and try to cross TH3 to Main Street. It is the same area where TH3 goes from four to two lanes. He noted Council has talked about the City controlling development and what we would like to see. This development is bringing in these red flags, that none of us want to see. There are too many ambiguous issues for him to support this. Council Minutes (Regular) March 20, 2006 Page 11 Councilmember Fogarty had some of the same concerns. She liked the fact it is affordable and feels it is the appropriate place for this type of housing. It is a new type of housing stock for the community. Her biggest concern is having 110 homes and a little tot lot to serve them. These homes are intended for retired people, single people, new couples, and people without children. The reality is this could be full of children. She was aware Park and Rec was comfortable with what is presented, but she disagrees. She feels we need a park somewhere. There are too many housing units without a more substantial park. Because of this, she cannot support it. Mayor Soderberg noted Tamarack Ridge Park is not too far away. Parks and Recreation Director Distad noted eventually the connection will be made from this development to Tamarack Park on a trail through the Hometown Addition. Tamarack Park is less than a half mile away. Councilmember Fogarty considered this to be a long distance away for a park. Councilmember Wilson agreed with Councilmembers McKnight and Fogarty and will vote no for the same reasons. Councilmember Pritzlaff also agreed with the previous comments. He asked what progress has been made with 210th Street. When he watched the Planning Commission meeting, he noted staff has not talked with Mr. Regan about 210th Street. City Engineer Mann stated staffhas repeatedly met with Mr. Regan and multiple, multiple times indicated to him the City's intent to have 210th Street go through to TH3. He could recall five different meetings where they indicated that is the City's desire and intent to have that road connection made. Staff has not been able to come to an agreement with Mr. Regan. It is staffs opinion that at some point they will have to come up with a plan to help encourage those discussions and help facilitate coming to that agreement. That may require an option discussed in the past, that is not a desirable option, but at this point staff has not made much progress with Mr. Regan. However, he is very aware of what the City's intent is and staffhas met with him since the Council Meeting where this was discussed and the last resort options the City has. Staff has also had multiple meetings with Mr. Regan regarding negotiations and easements for trunk utilities, etc. The Traffic Engineer did indicate in a memo that if the Perkins property were to fully develop that he would prefer there be a plan so staff would know when 210th Street would connect. He also indicated that he would not recommend developing more than 50% of the Perkins property, 50% of the Devneyproperty and 50% of the Winkler property without that connection. In his recommendation memo he did put in a bottom line as to what could develop without the 21 Oth Street connection and at what point the threshold would indicate that 21 Oth Street would need to be there. Staff can forward that memo to Council. Councilmember Pritzlaff noted Mr. Regan spoke at the Planning Commission meeting regarding past issues and he said he had other fish to fry to get things done. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked at what point in time do we tell him we want these things done. City Engineer Mann replied in 1997 he discussed with Mr. Regan the resolution of the easements that the City acquired from his property through eminent domain for the Southeast Trunk Sanitary Sewer project Council Minutes (Regular) March 20, 2006 Page 12 in 1996. There were several meetings where they discussed the amount the appraiser had indicated for the easements. They discussed what the ultimate settlement might be and in every meeting Mr. Regan indicated he preferred to address the issue when the property was developed. Staff feels Mr. Regan would prefer to roll that easement compensation into the development ofthe property once the property came into the City. Councilmember Pritzlaffwould like to have this settled and not have a developer tell Council what to do. City Attorney J amnik stated he will review the situation and bring back some options. Councilmember Wilson asked about obtaining permission for the shared driveway and if they can have their own driveways. Staff noted the electric company has indicated they will allow the shared driveway. The other option would be to allow them to enter onto 21 oth Street which staff does not want as it is a collector street or they can have the shared driveway or lose three lots because of this. The powerline will run along the north side of 21 oth Street. Mayor Soderberg noted 21 oth Street has been identified from the beginning as part ofthis project. Having access to TH3 is a critical connection. Council had discussed making sure 210th Street happens with this project. If210th Street does not happen with this project, the project cannot happen. He asked ifthere were any mechanisms that could be put in ~lace to prevent them from developing fully and is there any plan in place for 21 ot Street. City Engineer Mann replied regarding getting 210th Street done, staffhas had discussions with Mr. Regan, but have not made progress. There is a way to help the process along. If the Council were to set a deadline for staff to negotiate with Mr. Regan and charge staff to negotiate with all due haste and effort, if a deadline was made that if negotiations do not work until this point then the Council could facilitate the issue by considering eminent domain. This would make the process go forward with a known timeframe. Mayor Soderberg stated if there is going to be development on this property and the Devney and Winkler properties, this road needs to go through. He asked the City Attorney if anything can be done to prevent full phase development. City Attorney Jamnik stated the approval could be conditioned on a phasing and establish a percentage threshold that cannot be exceeded until 21 Oth Street is constructed to the west to TH3. Mayor Soderberg asked if this should be tabled until the schedule is determined for 21 Oth Street or if a vote is taken and the project is defeated, what process is left to the developer. Attorney Jamnik stated ifit is defeated it could be subject to a re-consideration vote at the next meeting or it would have to be re-applied for. If it is tabled, the main issue would be where we are in the timeframe. There is 120 days for a preliminary plat from the date of filing which was the end of January. This could be tabled to acquire a timeframe for 210th Street. Mayor Soderberg stated all ofthe Council wants 210th Street to go through with this project. He asked Council ifthey wished to develop a timeline for staff to conclude negotiations with Mr. Regan or at such time consider eminent domain. Councilmember McKnight noted we do have a timeline with the 120 days. Council Minutes (Regular) March 20, 2006 Page 13 Mr. Richard Hocking, Attorney for Bridgeland Development, stated they started with 174 townhomes. This gives the City needed affordable housing. However the City was not comfortable with townhomes, so they eliminated 64 units from the original request. This will be a custom home project. They have been working under a transportation study done by the Traffic Engineer on September 7,2005. That study clearly says that this project, 164 units, can fully develop and use 213th Street and TH3 acceptably. The study says that for the development of the remaining properties in the Cambodia Avenue and 21 Oth Street area (Winkler and Devney) 210t Street to TH 3 will be a necessity. Then there is a memo from the Traffic Engineer done on March 14,2006 where the developer heard about it at the Planning Commission meeting. They requested a copy and did not receive one until today. The memo is erroneous because it is still talking about 163 townhome units. They are at 110 single family units which is 2/3 of what the Traffic Engineer refers to. Even with the 164 units he is indicating half of Winkler, half of Devney and half of Perkins could be developed and use the 213th Street connection to TH3. Winkler and Devney will not happen until the study is completed and other issues happen on the east side. Mr. Hocking felt they are in a different category than the other properties. They stand alone on a 17 acre parcel that comprises 15% ofthe total units there would be on all three parcels. 110 units is far less than what 50% of all three parcels would be which the Traffic Engineer is saying would be an acceptable count. Based on the transportation report in September and the current report, factually inaccurate in their favor, it indicates 210th Street is not a necessity at this time for the 17-acre Perkins parcel. He understood these two roads are key to transportation on the east side. In this case there is a developer who has no frontage on either collector street. If this development does not happen soon, Mr. Perkins is not going anywhere and will continue to operate his business from this location. They anticipate completion of the infrastructure in the fall of2006. They would like to see a model home late in the fall. There will not be significant marketing until Spring 2007 and depending on market conditions, they expect a 2-3 year build out. He requested the Council approve the plat. Councilmember Wilson stated from a Council perspective perhaps the Council has not done as good ajob conveying to staff that we will not allow development unless this road goes through. He thinks this will be a great addition and provide a diversity of housing. Council does not have the memos from the Traffic Engineer and he felt it was important Council review these. Mr. Hocking agreed it is unfortunate Council does not have the memos from their own Traffic Engineer that they have relied upon as they moved through the process. They are well under the number of units he calculates for this parcel. In light of everything they new and all the discussions with Council they understood that would impact the Devney and Winkler properties, but it would not impact the Perkins property being only 17 acres and being able to utilize 213th Street. They are concerned the project will be lost. Council Minutes (Regular) March 20, 2006 Page 14 Mayor Soderberg stated the Traffic Engineer makes recommendations to the Council and they tend to follow those recommendations. Council has indicated from the beginning that 210th Street needed to be a part of this. The challenge now is for Council to find a way to make sure it happens simultaneously with this proj ect. He asked Council when they need to know that 21 Oth Street from the edge ofthis property to TH3 will happen and how long will it take to get to that point where we know we will have a project. The Traffic Engineer has said 213th Street and Cambodia Avenue can handle the volume of traffic based on whatever number he had, but the Council decided a long time ago that they wanted 21 Oth Street to happen at the same time. With regard to 210th Street through this development, that would be normal as part of the transportation plan. If that is in the transportation plan, that segment would be built. As far as Cambodia, it has happened with a number of developments where a roadway outside ofthe actual plat is improved to serve the plat. If Council thinks this is a good project, then we need to direct staff very specifically to get 21 Oth Street done whether it is by negotiation or by eminent domain and we need to set a timeline for it. Mayor Soderberg asked City Attorney Jamnik if Council can give that direction tonight regarding 210th Street. City Attorney Jamnik replied it is Council's choice whether they want to link that with this project, whether the timeframe gives Council enough comfort to go forward with this project with the subsequent direction that staffwill bring a plan for acquiring 210th Street and constructing it roughly contemporaneous with this project or whether Council wants to table this for tonight and bring the plan back. If the issue is layout and parkland, etc. then we have a bigger problem. If it is just 21 Oth Street then the Council can give direction to bring them back together or go ahead with the project and bring back a plan at a future meeting. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he has said to staff to have this happen it needs to connect to TH3. He would like to have the project, but cannot have a road dead end and not have the access. Mr. Regan has a 10 year lease with the storage company, so that road might not happen for 10 years and he cannot live with that. Mr. Hocking stated then Council does not anticipate Perkins, Devney, Winkler or anything else on the east side will happen until something is done with 21 Oth Street to TH3. He has clearly heard from Council that 21 Oth Street is going to happen. If you cannot do Perkins, you cannot do Devney and you cannot do Winkler without 21 Oth Street. If Council wants to do those, then you know 21 Oth Street is going, so why risk losing what we have now with Perkins and building Cambodia and part of 21 Oth Street. We know the timeframe it takes to acquire property for public purpose and that will have happened before anyone is living in a house in this development. He was puzzled why Council would put this project in jeopardy and multiply the problems with condemnation and having to deal with Mr. Perkins and his business when we know 210th Street will be there anyway before there are any homes on the property. City Attorney Jamnik asked for clarification on whether 210th Street is the primary issue or are we dealing with lot layout, the PUD, etc. Mayor Soderberg Council Minutes (Regular) March 20, 2006 Page 15 stated it is 21 oth Street. He is fine with the lot layout, etc. Councilmember Fogarty stated 210th Street and the park issue. Councilmember McKnight stated 210th Street. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated 21 Oth Street. Councilmember Wilson stated 210th Street. City Attorney Jamnik asked Mr. Hocking what his projected timeframe is for the final plat submittal. Mr. Hocking replied within two months. City Attorney Jamnik stated in that case it is 50/50 whether Council wants to table it and bring it back to the next meeting or approve it and have staff work out these two issues prior to final plat. Mayor Soderberg asked if two months is enough time for staff, before final plat, to get this resolved with Mr. Regan. He is willing to support eminent domain if Mr. Regan will not negotiate. This is a critical connection to development on the east side. City Attorney Jamnik stated they can have either a negotiated settlement within 30 days or resolution for condemnation within those 30 days. He could provide an update in two weeks. Councilmember Wilson stated because he would like to see the memo from the Traffic Engineer, he would agree to table this to the next meeting for additional information and a plan as to what staff intends to do. Councilmember McKnight agreed to table this item. Acting City Administrator Roland stated Council will be making a motion to table this until April 3, 2006. At that time Council will be presented with more information with regard to the traffic memo and a plan from staff as to how to proceed with 21 Oth Street within the 30 day timeframe. City Engineer Mann stated on April 3 they will bring back a plan, but they are aiming towards a decision at the May 1 meeting as to whether or not to pull the trigger on eminent domain. Parks and Recreation Director Distad showed a park map showing the location of Tamarack Park to the Perkins property. There is also a park of at least 10 acres planned in the Devney and Winkler property. There is also the green space through the Prairie Waterway that would be accessible to the trail system. There are sidewalks and trails in the Hometown Addition that will connect with 21 Oth Street. Mr. Hocking stated they can wait until April 3, 2006 but anything past that will put them in a position where they will not be here anymore. He hoped Council would say to get this done. If the deal is lost, and Mr. Perkins stays on the property, he will be told he does not benefit one bit by 210th Street going through his property and that he should not be expected to contribute at all. Mr. Hocking has a client that is ready to pay to build all of two collector streets. Councilmember Pritzlaff appreciated all the time Mr. Hocking and his client have put into this project, but staffhas also put in a lot oftime. Mayor Soderberg felt the majority of Council wanted to table this item. MOTION by Wilson, second by McKnight to table this item until the April 3, 2006 meeting. Councilmember McKnight stated this is March 20. We sat here on November 20 and said 210th Street. He appreciated the two more weeks, but his issue is not new. It is 210th Street. Let's not act like it's a surprise. Do your Council Minutes (Regular) March 20, 2006 Page 16 best to get it worked out which he knew they would. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Consider MUSA Recommendations for Newland Communities, Regan Property and Perkins Property - Community Development The MUSA Committee has held two meetings to discuss MUSA for the above properties. The MUSA phasing plan allocated MUSA to the Newland Communities property in four phases, including an initial allocation of 250 acres. An additional 250 acres has been phased for allocation in 2006. On December 19, 2005, 520 acres was annexed into the City. The MUSA Committee recommended modifying the R-2 and R-3 boundaries so the R-2 contains a portion ofthe R-3 that was recently annexed. The Planning Commission agreed with this at their March 14,2006 meeting. The Perkins property was not part of the 2004 MUSA phasing plan as the property was not in the City at that time. The property is located west of the intersection of 21 Oth Street and Cambodia. The property was annexed into the City on March 9, 2006. The MUSA Committee has recommended that MUSA be allocated to this property and the Planning Commission agreed. The Regan property also was not part ofthe 2004 MUSA phasing plan. It was annexed into the City on May 16,2005. A comp plan amendment from non- designated to commercial as well as a rezoning from A-I to B-1 was approved by the Council on February 21,2006. The MUSA Committee recommended allocation of7.05 acres for MUSA. The Planning Commission also agreed. The Sauber property is north of Tamarack Ridge. The property was annexed into the City on March 9,2006. The property owner wanted to connect to the City sewer system because of a failing septic system. The MUSA Committee determined MUSA could be allocated administratively because the property was less than 5 acres. This eliminated the need for the Planning Commission to comment. Staff recommended the Council approve the Sauber property for MUSA. Councilmember Wilson suggested approving Newland, Regan and Sauber and waiting until the next meeting for the Perkins property. Councilmember Pritzlaff suggested approving Perkins with a contingency that issues would be worked out to show the Perkins property the City is serious about the project. City Attorney Jamnik advised against this. Councilmember McKnight agreed with waiting for two weeks for the Perkins property. MOTION by Wilson, second by McKnight to approve the MUSA designation for Newland Communities property, Regan property, Sauber property and table the Perkins property until April 3, 2006. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Council Minutes (Regular) March 20, 2006 Page 17 d) Approve Request for RFP's for Economic Development Plan Summit Facilitator - Community Development At the March 12, 2006 goal setting retreat Council expressed a desire to conduct an Economic Development Summit in early May. Staff proposed an RFP process which would be used to select a consultant to plan the summit, organize it, help facilitate the meeting and prepare a summary of the meeting for presentation to Council. The RFP outlines a timeline, desired background, and approach. This will be sent to a number of firms. Staffwill have a firm ready for Council selection at the April 3, 2006 meeting. Councilmember Wilson liked the idea of the summit and felt it was something they could look at at some point. After the workshop he felt the City has a lot of collective talent where they could select the right team of people. He suggested the team be comprised of Council, staff, EDA, Planning Commission, and the Chamber for a total of 15-20 people. They could spend a half day to discuss the big picture idea. He felt if they have a summit without a clear objective, they might be trying to capture too much without having more of a defined scope in terms of what information we want to find out. He was concerned that having a summit with such broad goals might not be as productive as it could be if a smaller group met to create some objectives. At that point we might have an idea of where a facilitator might be beneficial. He would also like to have the Chamber and staff work together to put together an agenda as being a first step to building a collaborative relationship. As opposed to spending money, this would be a way to get good information and ideas and spend no money at the moment and at a later point when we have a better idea of what we want to do, we could spend money. Mayor Soderberg stated we want to develop an Economic Development Plan, but does that mean a marketing plan for selling the City to potential businesses, does that mean where we are going to build or where we are going to focus on building those businesses. Councilmember McKnight felt that is what the plan will help determine. He did not think that would come out of the summit. He felt the summit is the higher vision, goal discussion. Mayor Soderberg hoped that is what a summit would do. To get input so they have a sense of where we need to go. Councilmember Pritzlafffelt marketing the City has to be a part of the plan. Mayor Soderberg stated this is exactly what we asked staff to do. He asked Council if they want to continue in this direction or pull back a little. Councilmember Wilson's suggestion was to hold off on a facilitator and approach this inhouse. Councilmember Fogarty was concerned with reducing the size, and containing it inhouse, that they will miss the big picture. There can be some great advantages to bringing someone in from the outside who has dealt with economic development and growth to help us focus where we need to go and where to start. Without someone with some experience and knowledge we may waste valuable time. Getting four or five hours at one time will be difficult, but to get that a second time because we did not have a strong enough goal at the first session will be very difficult. She was concerned that because we are starting out, we do not have the expertise to help us focuS'. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated this is treading on new water. He is not in a position to say what an economic plan Council Minutes (Regular) March 20, 2006 Page 18 should be. To have some help to explain the details might be a good thing. Councilmember Wilson wanted to make sure they are prepared to give objectives of what they want. Ifwe can define what a facilitator will help a group do and produce a report afterwards, then we will be ok. If we cannot do that, and a facilitator is left without a sense of what we want, he felt we need an objective of what information they want to get from a facilitator. Acting City Administrator Roland stated a facilitator will ask Council questions to direct them to their own answers. This could be done internally with a small group but in a way that is what we have been doing. An economic development plan outline was brought to the EDA and an EDA member had some great suggestions. It has been an inhouse process up to this point. Mayor Soderberg stated the RFP is moving them toward a summit. The Council wants input from the business community as well as others. Staff understood that for the summit Council wanted one big session of brainstorming with a lot of different participants and a facilitator who would direct those conversations towards a particular end, gather the information learned, and bring back a report highlighting the items that have a recurring theme so Council could formulate a vision and a strategy to go from there. Then Council would delegate to the EDA the development of the plan to go with that vision and strategy. Councilmember Wilson recommended adding business community in the first paragraph ofthe RFP. Councilmember McKnight was comfortable with the original plan of having a summit. MOTION by McKnight, second by Wilson to approve the RFP. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. e) 2006 Council/Management Goal Setting Recap - Administration Council had reviewed the goals from the Goal Setting Workshop. Councilmember McKnight noted these are recapped very well. He wanted to know the Council spent plenty oftime Thursday night talking about their role as a Council, being the vision setters and the goal setters for the City. The Council is working to get there. All five members were on board with those discussions. MOTION by McKnight, second by Fogarty to approve the action items presented in the recap. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Court of Appeals Decision - GRE/Xcel HVTL Routing Permit - City Attorney The EQB issued a route permit for a high voltage transmission line through the City to be constructed by Great River Energy and Xce1. The City and a group of property owners along 21 oth Street appealed the decision. The routing decision by the EQB was upheld by the Court of Appeals indicating that it was supported by substantial evidence, was not arbitrary and capricious and did not violate due process. A challenge of a state agency in these types of areas is very difficult. To file a petition for further review would cost $1,000. City Attorney Jamnik did not recommend doing this. Mayor Soderberg and the rest of Council agreed with this recommendation. Council Minutes (Regular) March 20, 2006 Page 19 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Councilmember McKnight: Since the Castle Rock Township elections are over, he requested staff contact the township to set up the next meeting of that group. Councilmember Pritzlaff: He talked about a meeting with some people on February 24, 2006 and it was cancelled. He understood it was to be rescheduled this past week and he had not heard anything. He has received calls from a couple people that wanted to take care of the issue. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he was disappointed the first week that it was not done, and even more disappointed when he received phone calls. On another issue, there is a question out there. Acting City Administrator Roland replied staff has to contact someone who is no longer in state and they have not been able to do that to obtain the information. As soon as staffhas an answer, a meeting will be scheduled. Finance Director Roland: The LMC has their Annual State of the City Legislative Conference on March 30, 2006. It goes from 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. The conference is at the River Centre and then at the State Capital. If Council is interested in attending, they should advise staff. There is a reception from 4 p.m. - 6 p.m. She received an update regarding the 2006 Business Excellence Awards through the NDC. The awards dinner is April 21, 2006 at the Eagan Community Center. The annexation bill had a hearing today at the legislature and two other hearings during the week. She will forward information to Council as it becomes available. City Engineer Mann: The System Plan Update Workshop will be held on March 22, 2006. Due to the unavailability ofthe Traffic Engineer the transportation portion of the workshop will have to be rescheduled. Human Resources Director Wendlandt: Asked Council to schedule a workshop to discuss fiber to the premises. The workshop was set for April 5, 2006 at 5:30 p.m. Mayor Soderberg: He gave the State of the City Address to a joint meeting of the Rotary and the NDC on Thursday. A taping will be scheduled for March 29, 2006. 14. EXECUTIVE SESSION - Discuss ISD 192 Litigation Council recessed into Executive Session at 10:01 p.m. 15. ADJOURN Respectfully submitted, /;' -~/ . -n/7~ 4 e~ c.y,-y~/L-(,Cl:-- t7' '-" €{nthia Muller Executive Assistant