Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04.03.06 Council Minutes COUNCIL MINUTES PRE-MEETING April 3, 2006 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Soderberg at 6:30 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight, Pritzlaff, Wilson None Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; Robin Roland, Acting City Administrator/Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development 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; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant 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 Wilson confirmed the Spruce Street project is part of the CIP. Staff explained it is and there is a $950,000 grant. The City will front the costs and do a special assessment back to the developers. It is part of the Development Contract that developer's pay special assessments, however, staff will be looking into abatement for these properties as Council discussed last summer. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked how the Community Service Officer position became vacant. Staff explained the last CSO was promoted to Police Officer. Acting City Administrator explained the supplemental items which include awarding the Spruce Street project and considering a resolution supporting House File 3550. Mayor Soderberg received a letter from Metro Transit. They are having a commuter challenge. There will be a news conference Tuesday at the metro dome at 11 :00 a.m. This is to encourage citizens to take transit, or walk, or bike to work. 5. STAFF COMMENTS Council Minutes (Pre-Meeting) April 3, 2006 Page 2 6. ADJOURN MOTION by McKnight, second by Fogarty to adjourn at 6:34 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR April 3, 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; Kevin Carroll, Community Development 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 Dick & Mary Swanson, Mike Morton, Ruthe Batulis, Bill Coleman, Lynda Von Holtum, Tom Nash, BSA Troop 116 - Joline Neve, Aspen Management 4. APPROVE AGENDA Councilmember Pritzlaffpulled item 7a) Council Minutes 3/20/06 Regular for an addition to the minutes. Acting City Administrator Roland added supplemental items 9a) Spruce Street Project and item 12a) Consider Resolution Supporting House File 3550. MOTION by McKnight, second by Soderberg to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Introduce New Employee - Parks and Recreation Mr. David Lynch was introduced as the new Facilities Maintenance Worker. 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS Mr. Bill Coleman, Dakota Future, stated they are a county-wide economic development organization. It is a membership organization funded by the private sector. Their mission is to support the creation and maintenance of a world-class social and economic environment in Dakota County. They have two areas of emphasis. First, they want to work with their partners to address big picture issues such as work force and infrastructure, make sure the existing businesses have the assets they need to succeed and that they are an attractive place for prospective businesses. Second, they want to market the county's location for business so that when businesses within the metro or outside are Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 2 looking at sites, Dakota County communities are high on the list for consideration. Their goal for marketing is to attract companies and growth industries that pay high wages. They have spent the first year setting the groundwork for the marketing activity and created a web site, DakotaFuture.com. Their main emphasis this year is their industry cluster initiative. They are working with Dakota County businesses in groups. There is a manufacturing initiative, a food energy and chemical group, and a group on information processing. Dakota Future is partnering with Dakota Electric on Economic Development 101. This will be held May 9,2006 from 6:30 - 8:30 p.m. at Dakota Electric. 7. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Fogarty, second by Wilson to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: b) Adopted RESOLUTION R36-06 Approving Gambling Premises Permit- Administration c) Approved Temporary 3.2 Beer License - Administration d) Received Information Capital Outlay - Parks and Recreation e) Received Information School and Conference - Police Department f) Approved Grant Application - Fire Department g) Approved Appointment Recommendation Police - Human Resources h) Authorized Response to Agency Comments - Southeast Area Surface Water Management Plan Update - Engineering i) Approved Bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. a) Approve Council Minutes (3/20/06 Regular) (3/22/06 Special) Councilmember Pritzlaffwanted to acknowledge Ruthe Batulis was in the audience at the last meeting. He requested a change be made to his comments under Roundtable. The tape will be checked to verify the comments. MOTION by McKnight, second by Fogarty to approve Council Minutes (3/20/06 Regular) (3/22/06 Special). APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Adopt Resolution - 2006 Mill and Overlay Project - Engineering The project consists of milling and overlaying several residential streets in the Sunnyside and Chateau Manor neighborhoods. The improvements include replacing heaved and cracking curb and gutter and a 1" milling and repaving of the streets. The streets are 40-50 years old. In 2003 the City performed a pavement management study where various levels of maintenance were identified to try to prolong the life of City streets. This included full reconstructs, mill and overlays and seal coat projects. This project was in the CIP in 2005, however, it was delayed so there would not be two projects assessed at the same time due to the Ash Street project. The utility infrastructure in these areas is in satisfactory condition. The mill and overlay should make the streets last another 10 years. A neighborhood meeting was held and two residents attended. They were concerned about the assessments and the need for the project. Staffhas received five objections since the meeting concerning the assessments and some feel the project is not necessary. The total project cost is $465,000. The City's Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 3 assessment policy indicates 35% of the curb and gutter and street improvement reconstruction costs would be assessed to benefiting properties. The total amount to be assessed would be $162,750 which would equate to $985 per residential equivalent unit. There are 165 residential equivalent units included in this project and some belong to the City. The remaining $302,250 would be funded out ofthe road construction and maintenance fund. The benefit appraisal indicates the maximum benefit received by properties would be $2,000 per residential equivalent unit. Councilmember Pritzlaff received phone calls from some residents. Initially he thought the streets were smooth and there were no potholes. After attending the neighborhood meeting, it was explained the delaminating is the problem and it is just too old. The seal coat would just be peeled offby the plows. He understood this area was not seal coated in the last cycle. City Engineer Mann stated there have been times when the area was scheduled for seal coat, but it was pulled out of the project because it would not be effective. Once there are potholes, the mill and overlay would not be effective and there would have to be a full reconstruct. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked at what point does the infrastructure not become satisfactory? Would it be good 10 years from now or between now and the life of the road would it have to be dug up because ofthe infrastructure? City Engineer Mann stated there will be a point where a reconstruct will be needed for the road and utilities. The utilities should last another 10 years if not more. There are no significant issues with water main breaks. The sewer tends to drive the issue more. Staff regularly televises the sewer lines and cleans them. At this time there are no significant issues with the sanitary sewer. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked about the amount of gutter and curb to be redone. Staff estimates one third to one half of the curbing has been budgeted. A seal coat will be done three years after the mill and overlay. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated it would be nice to not assess the same people two years in a row. There is a chance that the company that did the work on Ash Street may bid on this project and be able to keep the costs down. Councilmember Pritzlaff would like to see a gap in assessments for the people that were assessed for Ash Street, but delaying the project could increase the cost. Councilmember Wilson asked ifthis assessment would be for five or ten years if certified to the taxes. Finance Director Roland noted that will be up to Council and the project will not be bonded. If it were assessed over ten years, the interest amount paid would be higher. Councilmember McKnight asked about delaminating. City Engineer Mann explained delaminating is when the surface part ofthe oil that is part of the asphalt comes off and the surface starts to wear off. There have been a couple streets where this has started. Councilmember McKnight asked if it was the entire Sunnyside area that was skipped in the seal coat cycle because ofthe condition. City Engineer Mann replied that and knowing that the mill and overlay was coming. Councilmember McKnight asked what would happen to the road if it Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 4 was delayed one year. Staff replied deterioration would continue. There is a program in other areas staffwants to get done, so by putting offthis project, others would be put off as well. Councilmember McKnight asked if they would be put off or doubled up in one year. Staff noted doubling up is a possibility. Councilmember McKnight stated they should have put in a year gap between projects for the residents. He would consider waiting one year. Councilmember Fogarty noted this is part ofthe pavement management plan started in 2003. City Engineer Mann stated a project was not in the CIP until 2005. In 2003 it was too late to initiate a project. Councilmember Fogarty noted it is an important plan and it could save the City money over the years. She is hesitant to delay it, but also does not like to see the residents assessed back to back. It is important to keep it on schedule. She was concerned waiting a year might force the residents to pay for a full reconstruct. Mayor Soderberg asked what the infrastructure is made of in this area. City Engineer Mann replied it is clay tile. Most of the clay tile that is getting close to 100 years old is becoming an issue. It depends on which areas ofthe City it is in. Mayor Soderberg noted the mill and overlay is being done because the base is still satisfactory. Staffis unable to tell if the base will be degraded if the project is delayed one year. City Engineer Mann noted there will be some deterioration. There are a few areas in the project where staff anticipated doing a full mill where the asphalt has gone further. There are a few spots where they will go the full depth. Mayor Soderberg asked ifthe base continues to deteriorate after a new overlay is done. Staff replied the issue is with the water that gets in. If the mill and overlay and seal coat is on and the water is kept out, the base should last as long as the mill and overlay lasts. A mill and overlay can be done a few times before a full reconstruct is done. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated at the neighborhood meeting staff noted the life of the road will last 10-15 years. He said Assistant City Engineer Gross was saying a much longer length of time. He asked if 10-15 years after the mill and overlay was more for the infrastructure or the road itself. City Engineer Mann stated we may decide 15 years from now another mill and overlay would take care of it. The main goal is to avoid the full reconstruct. This is a new program for the City and staffwill be able to tell as time goes on as to the procedure used to keep the road in shape. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated Assistant City Engineer Gross was thinking the road would last 20-25 years. If the infrastructure underneath does not last that long, then it will have to be dug up. The whole road all the way across will be milled. Mr. Pete Gerten, 707 Centennial Circle, stated the curb was new to him. The notice did not say anything about curb replacement. He agreed there is a lot of curb as he has an issue with the curb at the end of his driveway. His street was seal coated in 2003. His cul-de-sac is very noticeable that the seal coating is still on, there are no potholes, no delaminating in the circle. There is nothing wrong Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 5 with the surface. It was seal coated in 2003 and in 1996. He asked why they paid to have it seal coated in 2003 on a 7-year cycle and they are going to grind it off and throw it away. Heritage Way may be a different issue, but Centennial Circle does not need an overlay. He thought they should do some spot work. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the tar. He stated he has not received the bill for Ash Street and was assuming they were waiting until they finished the project. He will get the bill for Ash Street and another one is already stacking up. He needs a new driveway. That has been waiting for 18 years. It will cost $18,000 to replace his concrete driveway, but the assessments are stacking up so that will have to wait. Mayor Soderberg noted Mr. Gerten should have already received the notice for the Ash Street assessment. Mr. Gerten stated they received the notice, but have not received the bill. Finance Director Roland noted that is the bill. The dollar amount is listed at the bottom and it was due to be paid within 30 days of the hearing, which is also on the notice. A separate bill is not sent. Mr. Gerten thought that was the estimated amount and you wait until the project is finished before it is assessed. Staff stated that is when the notice should have been received -last fall. Mr. Gerten asked if the project is finished. Staff stated it is substantially completed. The last wear course goes on in the spring. Mr. Gerten stated he was unaware that it was even billed. He thought that was the estimate. He does not want that on his taxes. The school is already raising the taxes enough. Councilmember Pritzlaff noted at the neighborhood meeting if someone wanted to contact the company that does the project, they could potentially get a deal on getting their driveway done. Mayor Soderberg recalled when the seal coat proj ect was done, there were portions of that area that were eliminated from the seal coat proj ect. He asked staff to verify that Centennial Circle was not eliminated. If it was not eliminated we may need to re-Iook at the extent of the mill and overlay. If there are certain areas that need to be pulled out, staffwill review the situation. As far as the curb work, there may be a drainage issue and that could not be done separately. Mr. Mike Morton, 608 Heritage Way, stated his street was not seal coated in 2003. He has talked with his adjoining neighbors and they do not think their street needs to be done. They live on a long stretch and traffic goes pretty fast. In the summer it is kids on their way to the pool. They do not think they need it improved this year. He also thought the Ash Street notice was an estimated bill. They are looking for some relief. He noted staff said it raises the value twice what the assessment is. Mr. Morton stated their value is going up based on the percentage ofthe legal limit. It does not have to do with street repair. He is looking for some relief between the levies. He would like to work on the first one before they have another one. People need some time to save. He would like a new driveway, but he could not afford the good deal with getting the street done. He feels it is worth the risk to wait. Let the residents decide. He is sure it needs to be done eventually, but he will take the risk for the relief. Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 6 Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if it was put off a year and the road condition became worse, and it was $500-$600 more does that make sense? Mr. Morton stated he is willing to accept the risk. He would like to see the City get the most they can. He still has a $65 assessment for the seal coat. The 7-year cycle has not been used up. The residents need a break. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated his concern is if they can get the same company that did the work on Ash Street to do this project and keep the costs down. Mr. Morton stated he could use a break even if it is only one year. Ms. Lori Johnston, representing the ownership of the apartment buildings on Centennial Way, asked what is considered an equivalent unit. City Engineer Mann replied the area for an apartment building is divided 10,000 sq. ft. into the area of the apartment buildings and however many units you get dividing that 10,000 in or whatever the minimum lot is, dividing into that. It is not as many units as the apartment has, but it is more than one. It follows how many units would fit in the smallest lot size in that area. Ms. Johnston stated she also looked at the streets and is a firm believer in preventative maintenance, but she did not see the delaminating, a lot of cracking or chipping. She feels some crack sealing could be done and be put back on the seal coating list and buy another five years. Councilmember McKnight asked ifthe first payment ofthe Ash Street assessment for Mr. Gerten and Mr. Morton would already be on their tax bills for this year. Mayor Soderberg stated they can pay offthe Ash Street assessment this year before December. Finance Director Roland stated they would have to pay it at the county and they will pay a full year's interest through the end ofthe year. Councilmember McKnight noted they have heard from 10 residents that they are willing to wait a year. It is their risk. He would also be willing to wait a year. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if there would be any benefit to crack sealing and instead of a mill and overlay, do a seal coat and let it go one or two years. City Engineer Mann replied based on the pavement management rates and the inspection by staff, for the most part most of the roads are beyond the seal coat point. He would not recommend spending money on seal coat that is not going to be effective. As far as any other maintenance procedures, that will have to be a call by the Street and Utility Supervisor. Various things have been done in that area for several years. Crack sealing will not address delaminating and other issues. Councilmember Pritzlaffwas looking at keeping the water off the base and this is a potential way of putting it off one or two years. There are a few residents here who are willing to take the risk, but do they speak for everyone else. He didn't want to come back in a year and say the reconstruct costs $1500- $2000. He was looking at some way to help minimize the risk. Staff felt the Street and Utility Supervisor will have to make that call if the project is delayed. If there are things that can be done to help the situation, he will do them. Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 7 Councilmember Wilson stated no one is happy to get their road done, but they are happy when it is done, but no one wants to pay for it. $985 is a good deal compared to $7000 that residents in Hill Dee will be assessed. There is a good probability that the same contractor as Ash Street will bid and have a favorable bid. He would like to see the project move forward. The residents' comments about assessment after assessment are valid. He asked if we can do the project and delay the assessment one year. City Attorney J amnik replied yes, but state law allows you to defer the first installment payment, but it is with interest. So you are not doing any favors. The first payments are primarily interest and all you are doing is stacking it up. Mayor Soderberg noted the costs to the project to delay it could outweigh any accrued interest if the assessment is delayed. If the assessment were delayed, people could pay it without any interest assessment. City Attorney Jamnik stated you levy it, but you defer the first installment payment. It goes to the county right away after 30 days as a deferred assessment. City Attorney Jamnik stated you will be paying the deferred interest amount for the full amount. If the assessment is large enough and the interest is low enough, it may make some financial sense. Finance Director Roland estimated the interest to be at 5.5%. Councilmember Pritzlaff noted the first road off of TH3 is the worst one. Staff noted Centennial Drive is parallel, Heritage Way is perpendicular. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated next year staff will be looking at doing the west or the north portion for a mill and overlay. He asked if there would be a cost savings to have one company do a bigger mill and overlay project all at once. This project could be delayed one year, but next year do the whole area. Staff stated the unknown is what the price of oil will do this year and next year. Acting City Administrator Roland stated this is two years of the mill and overlay project. It was going to start in 2005, but did not. If this project were delayed to 2007 it would actually be three years of the project that would be done. $350,000 was budgeted per project per year. The estimate for this year is significantly less than the $700,000 which was in the CIP. Mayor Soderberg stated the project has been put off already and to put it off any longer we run a greater risk. It is more than just $985. Mr. Pete Gerten stated he would like to see 7 years out of his seal coating. He did not want Council to vote for this without checking into when his road was seal coated. He was told it was good for 7 years when it was done. Councilmember Fogarty was concerned if we do not do it now, it will be much more later. That is tough for the residents, but it is also tough for the City to take. The residents are paying 35% of the project and the City is paying 65%. If the City's expenses are tripled that hurts the whole City and other projects that can be done. When you get behind in pavement management, you will never catch up because the price tag goes up. There have been some great ideas with deferred Council Minutes (Regular) Apri13,2006 Page 8 assessments if that is what the residents want. Ifthe project is delayed this year, she would want it doubled up for next year. MOTION by Wilson, second by Fogarty to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if the project is delayed one year, can the whole area be done at once. City Engineer Mann replied staff can do whatever size area Council directs. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked ifthe money budgeted for this year can be carried over to next year for the project. Finance Director Roland felt it should not be a problem. City Engineer Mann stated the next project would be Sunnyside going up to Ash Street. Councilmember Fogarty noted Mr. Gerten stated he paid for a seal coat in 2003. If Council chooses to do this project this year, is there an opportunity to reduce that amount off of the assessment. Finance Director Roland replied the City has credited seal coating in at least one instance. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated if the proj ect is delayed one year he would want to do all the streets whether they were seal coated in 2003 or not so everything is up to a certain date. If we have to give money back on seal coats, that is the way it will be. Councilmember McKnight stated he is not an engineer and he cannot rate streets. He would support waiting a year to avoid the back to back assessments. Mayor Soderberg stated he lives in that area as well. A delay would cost the entire City. It becomes more expensive for the whole City to delay it. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Wilson to adopt RESOLUTION R37-06 ordering the 2006 Mill and Overlay Project, authorizing the preparation of plans and specifications for the project and setting the bid date for the project. Voting for: Soderberg, Fogarty, Pritzlaff, Wilson. Voting against: McKnight. MOTION CARRIED. 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT a) Spruce Street Project - Engineering Three bids were received. The low base bid was submitted by Eureka Construction, Inc. in the amount of $2,697,437.46. The alternate 1 amount for the entrance monuments is $213,415.50. The total of these items is $2,910,852.96. Staff presented the project cost breakdown and comparison to the feasibility report estimate as updated in the CIP. The report included the roadway, bridge, Denmark Avenue and storm sewer. That construction amount was $2,146,064. In the bid received the amount is $2,109,259. The bid is slightly below the report estimate. In addition to these four items there was also the street lighting and the wetland mitigation. Those costs are very close to the estimate. Since the feasibility report, there have been some things added to the project. The first was some trunk water main that is $316,376. That item will be financed by the Water Board from the trunk water charges that developers pay. Also included is some roadway streetscape such as median planting, some sidewalk areas, benches, trash receptacles, etc. Also included was the entry monuments. The roadway, streetscape, and alternate 1 would be funded from the bond proceeds supported by the debt levy. Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 9 Councilmember McKnight was concerned with spending money on the entry monuments with the burden the City is putting on the tax payers. One comment made to him with regard to the entry monuments is that it is not his money and that he needs to consider that when he is making decisions. MOTION by Wilson, second by Fogarty to adopt RESOLUTION R38-06 accepting the Base Bid of Eureka Construction Inc., resulting in a Total Adjusted Base Bid of $2,697,437.46, and awarding the project along with alternate 1. Voting for: Soderberg, Fogarty, Wilson. Voting against: McKnight, Pritzlaff. MOTION CARRIED. 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Parks and Recreation Department Annual Report - Parks and Recreation Parks and Recreation Director Distad presented the 2005 Annual Report for the Parks and Recreation Department. There are four divisions, recreation, parks maintenance, facility maintenance, and solid waste. Highlights included completing a community center feasibility study, approval was given to further study a community center including looking at potential sites, partnerships and conceptual planning of a community center with more precise cost estimates. Plans for updating various parks were approved. There were 28 scholarships provided to youths who needed assistance to participate in Park and Rec programs. A total of 4,093 youths participated in 50 different recreation programs. 60% of all registrations were completed through an online program. There were 102 programs offered at the Rambling River Center which resulted in 15,812 participants. The annual membership increased to 447 members, which is an all time high. 497 volunteers logged 2,332 hours to provide additional coverage. New fitness equipment was purchased for the Rambling River Center. 91 memberships have been sold to the fitness room. A partnership was created with the Dakota County Dreamcatcher's 4H Club that resulted in more than $13,000 being raised to purchase 150 new chairs, 10 new chair racks, 6 new computers, a new color laser printer and a new leg press for the fitness room. This project won the club two awards one at the state fair and a community service award. The pool had 12,866 swimmers. There was 7,500 tons of garbage hauled. An additional 1,368 tons of garbage was kept out of the landfill through residents' recycling efforts. A cardboard compactor was installed and the City receives revenue for the cardboard. Curbside clean-up day was held in the spring. The Rambling River ballfields were renamed the Feely Fields in honor ofthe Feely family. Six miles of new paved trails were constructed resulting in 36 total miles of paved trails. New parks were constructed. The Civic Arena was renamed the Schmitz-Maki Arena. There were improvements made to the arena, warming house, and the pool. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) 210th Street Update - Engineering Staff outlined a plan to accomplish the 210th Street connection to TH3. It shows the timeline for bringing the Council to use their powers of eminent domain if Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 10 necessary and how the project could be completed by early fall or late summer of 2007. The initiation of quick take does not rule out negotiations continuing or a settlement being reached with Mr. Regan before the powers of eminent domain are exercised at the end of 90 days. The traffic engineer recommended Sunrise Ponds be allowed 80 building permits until August 2007 at which time the road would be complete. After that the remaining building permits can be released. Regarding the finalization of the easement acquisition from the Regan property for the southeast service area trunk sanitary sewer project and the 2000 trunk water main project, the City Attorney proposed this be resolved as part of the process for the acquisition of 21 oth Street. Councilmember Pritzlaff noted the traffic engineer said 80 building permits would be allowed, what if the road issue is not resolved. City Engineer Mann replied the timeline shows the road issue would be worked out. This would be by eminent domain if necessary. Mayor Soderberg stated this is the timeline Council asked for and it addresses how we will get 210th Street done. Council needs to determine if we are going to allow the properties that are currently in the City on the east side to develop. If we are, 210th Street is an important part of that. He does not like to use eminent domain, but the state gives us that tool for public projects. This is a public project. Council has led the property owners to believe development was ready. We granted MUS A, they are in the City, we completed the systems update which identified we have the capacity to serve them and beyond that. We need to be careful we do not unduly hold the land owners back. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked what it will cost the City to get the right-of-way. City Engineer Mann replied the City currently has an appraiser to look at the property. When the time comes for eminent domain there will be an appraised price for the Council to make their decision. During the legal process there could be some change in the price. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if Mr. Perkins originally owned the property. Staff believed he did. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated so then he sold it and now we will use taxpayer money to buy it back again for the road. He was not thrilled about spending taxpayer money to buy back a road for something someone sold. He also asked about the capacity. If the Perkins, Winkler and Devney properties fully develop, how does this affect a particular developer to the south? How is his capacity affected? Councilmember Pritzlaffwas referring to the golf course property. At one time, it was discussed that ifthe Winkler, Devney and Perkins property fully develop that this would not affect the capacity for that development. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if this would affect the development or would he be on a different sewer line. He understood from the system update plan that ifthese properties fully develop, he is on the main interceptor coming down Biscayne. City Engineer Mann replied the Perkins property was already included in the plan from 1996. The Winkler and Devney properties were outside the City's boundary line for serving. During the CR 72 turnback proj ect, we did stub sewer and water to the Devney and Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 11 Winkler properties into 213th Street in order to be able to serve that, because the Council was bringing those properties in. As far as what capacity is left, at the workshop staff indicated what capacity was left for how many potential units. Depending on how the developments layout, we mayor may not have the capacity to serve all of that with the lines we currently have. It depends on the density. Councilmember Pritzlaff saw a request for MUSA for the golf course long before he saw a request for MUSA for the Perkins property. It was not recommended by the MUSA Committee for the golf course, but to say this was looked at before the golf course raises questions for him. City Engineer Mann stated the main tie to public works and MUSA is sewer service. The Perkins property was considered to be planned on being served in the 1996 plan. The Devney and Winkler properties were anticipated to be served, while outside the boundary based on stubbing sewer and water to it in the CR72 project. Through the system plan update staff has identified ways to serve everyone. How the sewer capacity is allocated is up to the Council. Staff intends to bring the paperwork for initiating eminent domain to the May 1, 2006 meeting. b) Adopt Resolution - Approve Sunrise Ponds Preliminary Plat - Community Development This item was tabled at the last meeting due to the issue with 21 oth Street. There were also some concerns regarding additional park space in the development. Parks and Recreation Director Distad provided an alternative that would increase the park space. He proposed that Outlot B in conjunction with the adjacent lot be parkland with a tot lot. Staff received a drawing from the developer showing the Outlot as a park with a tot lot. The drawing does not include the adjacent lot. Approval of the 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. 4. The revision ofthe plat to convert Outlot B and Lot I, Block 2 into a tot lot if desired or required by the Council. Councilmember Fogarty was comfortable to see the Outlot as a park. She would like the lot to the east included. Councilmember McKnight stated he has struggled with whether he is comfortable using eminent domain. From the beginning he has had a concern with 21 oth Street. He would have liked this to be worked out with the property owner to the west. He is not comfortable taking the property to the west by eminent domain which means he would not be comfortable with moving this project forward. His answer might be different in a year or two when he looks at the entire side, but today he is not comfortable using that ultimate power that he has to take potential land to the west. He cannot support this proj ect. Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 12 Mayor Soderberg stated this project is a pivotal project to development on the east side. Development on the east side means that puts traffic through town. It is also an economic development tool for the business community. Ifwe defeat this project, we are not looking at a year down the road, we are looking at multiple years and that could be detrimental to the downtown business district. It will not make it or break it, but it will help them. He does not believe development will occur for 4-5 years. We have property owners that have spent a great deal of money preparing for development based on actions we have taken. Councilmember Wilson felt like at various times there has been different information about this proj ect, whether it be the road, or the densities, or transportation. He noted Councilmember McKnight identified the transportation concern. We cannot predict what an eminent domain situation might look like, but there is a possible issue out there which could be a substantial burden to taxpayers which he does not believe should be a taxpayer burden period. We need to realize where this development first initiated. It initiated as an R-5 to the Planning Commission in an area which was not envisioned. We only have one opportunity to develop any part of the City. The fact we have deliberated about this as far as density and transportation and he feels he has received different information on that, he does not feel comfortable with where we are at. He does not feel as though he needs to develop the east side from the Council table. He thinks it will take more vision and more thought. We only have one chance to do it. Farmington has been here for a long time and it will be here for a long time to come. One decision which may result in a 3-4 year delay is worth it for the long term success of the City. He is not willing to make a decision he does not feel comfortable with without more plan and more vision for what the big picture will look like. He will not support this. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated there were two Joint Council/Planning Commission meetings and feels they got nowhere. They created zone A and B and that has been thrown out, because there was a document that supersedes it, so he feels that was a waste oftime. We cannot plan what is not in the City. We should have known that up front that we could not do this east side planning. He likes the project, but does not think one project has to kill a portion of the City. He feels it has come way too quick. Everything has been pushed. One person may want this more than the rest of the City and he cannot go with that. He asked where the storm water pond is on this development. Staff noted the Wausau pond was sized to handle this property. It is not located on the property, but is directly to the west. There is also a ditch that will be required to be widened to handle the storm water. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated this is 17 acres, 110 units and there is no storm water pond required on the development. The pond is adjacent to it. The Tollefson development has 15 acres with only 60 units and it requires a 4 acre storm water pond when there is a large pond next to it. City Engineer Mann stated the Wausau pond will take care of several properties. The Tollefson pond was identified on the surface water management plan map in 1997 as a pond that Council Minutes (Regular) Apri13,2006 Page 13 was necessary. This pond has been there. There is an outlet from the storm sewer that comes across TH3 into the ponding area. Both ponds are required to handle the storm water in the area. Councilmember Pritzlaff agreed with the economic portion and having the east side, but he believes this property may be too far north of some of the east development that could occur. With Spruce Street being designed to go across, he felt that is the road we need to focus on to have traffic come into the City. He feels he has had no planning on the project. It is forced and it is not what he wants to see. He asked Mr. Hocking how does it make sense from Council's perspective to spend taxpayer money to buy back a right-of-way that was owned by the person who owns this development. Mr. Richard Hocking, Attorney for Bridgeland Development Company, replied he cannot answer how it makes sense for Councilmember Pritzlaff, he can only answer that for himself. Mr. Hocking stated from the perspective of a real estate attorney and a developer's attorney because the tool of eminent domain is one that has been used for decades and in millions of situations. He has faced no public opposition with this project. That is uncommon. Ifwe let anyone individual decide that no more traffic should go by their home then none of us would be living where we are. When the City has determined that growth is something they want, then the keYto that is road systems and utilities. When you cannot get those by cooperation, then that is what the tool of eminent domain is for. It would be wonderful if everyone who owned undeveloped parcels in a particular neighborhood decided to develop at once. You start somewhere and go on from there. They worked off a September transportation report that was not disputed until an updated report was done the day they were approved by the Planning Commission. They have been rezoned, the comp plan has been amended, they have received MUSA, they have relied on that September transportation study, and they have been given every indication that the project works. At the last meeting the only issue was the park and the access to 210th Street. Now there has been a third update to the transportation plan saying 80 building permits would be allowed. The transportation plan still indicates that the Perkins parcel can use 213th Street. It also says 50% of Winkler and 50% ofDevney and all of Perkins can use 213th Street on a near term basis. 110 units is 14% ofthe units the traffic engineer saw as governing the three parcels. Those other two parcels are not here for preliminary plat. The other two parcels are not in zone A, they are. If Council determines they have to have 21 Oth Street in place, and choose not to use eminent domain and put off this parcel, Perkins stays where he is and Mr. Regan comes up with a plan that works, now Mr. Perkins is not going anywhere. It is a domino effect. The determination has to be made whether this is happening or not. If Council's message is that they do not care whether the east side develops for 10 or 15 years, for every property owner along 21 Oth Street to agree at the same time that they will develop, that is the logical extension of what Council is saying. If you start with one, the market forces dictate to the rest ofthe land owners. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated we live by development pays for roads. He feels this development needs that road to begin with. The owner of the property owned Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 14 that right-of-way and he thinks Mr. Perkins should get the right-of-way through the Regan property. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated Mr. Perkins originally had it, he sold it, and now he wants Council to use taxpayer money to take back a road. He has made two decisions tonight to save taxpayer money and he is not going to make a third one just to throw it all away. It does not make sense to use taxpayer money to make a road when we live by development pays for roads. Mr. Hocking stated the message to the entire east side would be we do not intend to do anything with the east side until someone agrees to build 21 oth Street through the Regan property and somehow acquires the land besides. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he is not saying the entire east side. He said if the City does anything else on the east side he wants Spruce Street to go through to bring people into the City for economic growth. This property does not do that for him. He considers this property to be northeast. This is not the east side. If he says he does not want this development because ofthe road issue it is not that he does not want to develop the east side. He does not want to develop this with the road issue. Mr. Hocking asked what other parcels on the east side would develop irrespective of whether 210th Street goes out to TH3. Councilmember Wilson asked why should we talk about east side development from the podium. He is challenging Council and making assumptions that he knows are not accurate. The potential approval of MUS A is next on the agenda. Councilmember Wilson does want east side development, but he will not haphazardly do it. That is what it feels like we are doing. This is new turf in terms of an area to be developed. He does not take it lightly and does not view it as a haphazard decision. A fair comment would be there has been some inconsistent information between Council and staff with respect to different parts of this, whether it be density, how to develop, or the priority of different infrastructure. Development on the east side is important, but doing it right is important as well. Councilmember Fogarty stated she is worried the Council may be missing the forest for the trees. They are very focused on the Perkins property, but when she looked at the 21 Oth Street issue it came down to do I or do I not want to allow development on the east side of Farmington. If she wants to allow development on the east side of Farmington, and she will not differentiate between property owners and how far north or how far south, it is the east side of Farmington. It is all economic stimulus. If she wants that to develop, then it requires 210th Street. She feels they have to take a comprehensive look at this. There has been a system update and they have made sure the property owners can all be serviced. Weare not choosing whoever runs to the table first gets to develop. Anyone who wants to develop will have that capability. We cannot always plan out 1000 acres of property. For her to say no to 210th Street and no to the Perkins property, which is a very small piece of property, she is more concerned about the larger pieces of property. The Devney and Winkler properties came to Council two years ago and laid out what they wanted. We agreed they had a right to develop that property and asked them to hold on to analyze the entire area. To deny 210th Street going Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 15 through and to deny the Perkins property is also telling Devney and Winkler, who played by the rules for two years, you do not get to develop either. We have given them strong indications that these private property owners will be allowed to develop. It is unfair at this point when they have been so patient to say no. Councilmember McKnight stated he does not consider saying in November that 210th Street is an important issue a last minute issue. This is April. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked Mr. Hocking if they are willing to get the right-of- way themselves from Mr. Regan. Mr. Hocking replied acquiring the right-of-way and acquiring the road is just under a million dollars. That is absolutely impossible. He has never heard of such a thing. They are already building collector streets on the north and east sides entirely at the expense of one developer of a 17-acre parcel which will have a substantial benefit. Winkler and Devney will benefit substantially by his client building two sections of collector streets which will be in place. His client is not asking Winkler or Devney to contribute to that. They have no legal right to make anyone off-site do anything. The economic feasibility of that is so far from reality they cannot even think about it. They have huge expenses with building a section of Cambodia and 21 Oth Street that run along side the plat. Mr. Frank Blundetto, representing Manly Land Development and they have interests in the Devney property, stated 21 Oth Street is important to a lot of people, not anyone single developer. There is a domino effect on the transportation issue in that they are looking forward to contributing to the north-south corridor on Biscayne. They are prepared to start building roads that are on the east side ofthe City. They have played by the rules and gone through the entire process and answered every question and concern. The golf course is important to them. What happens with them is important to the golf course. There is no right path from a scheduling standpoint. A million dollars is a lot of money for that right-of- way, but we need 21 Oth Street. He is not hearing anybody give direction that Council has to use eminent domain. It is available as a tool. There is still opportunity not to use eminent domain. There are other options. Mayor Soderberg stated last fall 21 Oth Street was identified as a key road. It is a key road for any development on the east side. Council needs to decide if we are going to seize this opportunity to get this segment of 21 Oth Street done, if necessary by eminent domain, in order to allow development on the east side. This is the best opportunity to get it done for the foreseeable future. If it is not done, it could be 3-5 years or beyond. Spruce Street could be more expensive to go across the Prairie Waterway than building this short segment of 21 Oth Street. Mr. Blundetto stated when we talked 1 ~ years ago to Planning and staffwe used a plan where we were winding up significant grading at Parkview Ponds. He could have moved equipment from that property onto another property. They were told to hold off and they are still playing by those rules. If Council sees them as an opportunity to continue to build roads to the east or north-south corridors, take advantage of that and let them begin. Find a way to make that happen. Council Minutes (Regular) Apri13,2006 Page 16 Councilmember Pritzlaff stated for the developers that will develop adjacent to that, have all the developers - Regan, Perkins, Devney, Winkler, meet to work out the acquisition of the right-of-way and the road. He cannot justify spending a million dollars of taxpayer money for a road when development pays for roads. Mr. Blundetto stated he is heavily taxed and burdened with building roads as a developer and they willingly do so. If there is a party that is stopping this through exorbitant fees because they want to make a million dollars on something that is worth less than that, that is a difficult thing to burden anyone with. We need to figure out 210th Street. Acting City Administrator Roland stated we need to differentiate between what the right-of-way would cost and what the road would cost. If210th Street was built as a City project it would be built as a 429 project and the costs of that road would be assessed back to benefiting properties. A case could be made that benefiting properties would be those to the east of Cambodia or to the south. Perkins is part of that area, but they are building 21 Oth Street from Cambodia to the west. It is important we not get carried away with the dollar amounts thrown out. What the right-of-way might cost or what the road might cost, we cannot say at this point. Mr. Hocking stated a million dollars is the cost of a private party acquiring all of the right-of-way and building the entire road. He does not mean to say that is what would be involved with the City. There is also a powerline issue that part of this right-of-way would be involved in, there are assessment procedures, we are talking about two different things with a developer acquiring and building the whole road and the City doing the same thing. Mayor Soderberg stated we have a preliminary plat that was tabled last time because of 21 Oth Street, there is a plan on how staff intends to proceed, there was a park issue identified and some corrections made. Council needs to decide whether to approve the preliminary plat. Councilmember McKnight noted staffhas talked with Mr. Regan several times and that negotiations are continuing and options to address his concerns are being explored with him. Community Development Director Carroll stated it is important to note that Mr. Regan is not here tonight. He was provided with a copy of the memo on 210th Street. He and City Engineer Mann have had conversations with Mr. Regan. He has known for a couple of years that the City had an interest in putting a road through this property. He was with Mr. Regan at the EQB meeting where staff said the logical place to put the powerline through was not on the north side of the bus garage property, but on the south side because that is where the City intended to put a road through. Mr. Regan has known that all along. He is a businessman. He understands how eminent domain works. He understands that he would be reasonably compensated for the use of the roadway. If you look down the former railroad right-of-way you will not see any containers stacked there. Mr. Regan is not renting that space out right now. He has Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 17 indicated to staff that he has given Mobile Mini Storage some assurances that he would try to make the space available to them by July 1, 2006. He was going to wait until spring to remove the rest ofthe trees and brush. He will have to build a driveway off of TH3 to get in there. He may have to do some landscaping, or grading, or bring in some fill. He has to make an area for them to park the containers. Community Development Director Carroll asked Mr. Regan why there are not containers there now. Mr. Regan said they were looking for a way to expand their business. At the last EDA meeting, they looked at ways to address that. The first concept did not go very well, but there are other options. Given sufficient time, staff can work out something that will be acceptable. He knows there is a concern with imposing some of these costs on taxpayers, but we have developers on the east side who have been planning for some time to develop. They understand that some share of that cost will be borne by them. Perhaps there is a way to structure it so the entire cost is borne by them. There are a couple things tied up with this. There is a pocket of properties on the east side of TH3 that staff feels is an underutilization of that space. Those properties are . never going to sell and will never develop unless there is better roadway access. You will not get a high quality commercial development off Chippendale Court. Part of staff s belief is if we can get this piece of 21 oth Street through the Regan property, once you have a collector with a traffic light at the intersection, it would give impetus for the redevelopment of that entire property. That would be lost if we do not proceed with this. Something else that would be lost is if the Devney and Winkler properties do not develop there are other roadway connections that do not get built either. You lose a chunk of the Biscayne Avenue corridor on the east side of the Devney and Winkler properties. You lose an opportunity to get those two property owners to set aside enough right-of-way for the Met Council interceptor that needs to go through there. If you lose the improvement to Cambodia Avenue on the east side of the Perkins property, you lose an ability to get a stretch of road paved that will go from 213th Street up to CR66. That is partially paved now. There is a piece of the road missing north of Perkins, but if the piece is paved next to the Perkins property, you create opportunities to get other roadway connections. Ifwe do not seize this opportunity, some or all of these opportUnities will be lost. Weare focusing not only on the development of the Perkins property, but the incidental benefits that the City would get from all of the development that would occur around there. Staffwill work as creatively as Council will allow to find a solution that works for everyone. Councilmember McKnight asked how influential staff can be. Acting City Administrator Roland replied sometimes what developers do is they wait until the very last moment before they make a deal. That is what eminent domain is doing in this situation. Community Development Director Carroll added they will test Council's resolve. Councilmember McKnight asked Mr. Blundetto if the City made any promises to him on the east side properties he is involved with. Mr. Blundetto replied the direction he received from the leadership has caused him to spend a lot of money here and be patient and play by Council's suggestions. He did not want to say he has been promised anything, because technically he has not Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 18 been. He has been in the business a long time and has dealt with this City for a really long time on different issues. He understood the direction he received as being legitimate and correct. He has acted accordingly and he intends to develop the properties and to contribute further to the community on infrastructure and investment. Councilmember McKnight asked Mr. Blundetto ifhe was willing to sit down with staff and Mr. Regan to discuss this issue. Mr. Blundetto replied absolutely. He is not willing to harm himself because someone is trying to take more than they deserve and he was not implying that. He will not position himself adversely, but he would help this community any way he can. Councilmember McKnight asked Mr. Hocking if he was willing to sit down with staff and Mr. Regan and the other property owners to try to work out this issue. Mr. Hocking replied he would. He stated he also represents Mr. Regan. Councilmember McKnight stated he understood Councilmember Fogarty's and the Mayor's comments. His traffic concern issues, etc. from last November still exist today. This does affect the whole east side and it puts him in a tough place. He could vote to approve the preliminary plat to move this forward. Acting City Administrator Roland talked about waiting until the last end, and he appreciated that, but you need to be at the end of that limb to get this done sometimes. He is not promising anything if he did that about voting for eminent domain, which could then potentially mean this development out there and all the traffic goes out onto 213th Street which was his concern last time. He has voted no all along to this. Community Development Director Carroll stated staffhas envisioned a process that would start with determining what a fair price is for the right-of-way. There are appraisals that are underway right now that will get that information for us. Once the appraiser says what the land is worth, then we have a number to talk with people about. We can figure out ifthere are other parties that would benefit from the roadway segment. It would put staff in a position to craft an agreement where everyone pays a reasonable amount to get it done and there is no burden on the taxpayer. Everyone agrees development should pay for itself, and we have developers who are prepared to pay their fair share as long as we know what that is. Every one of these developers has been willing to meet with staff whenever we wanted to do that. Councilmember Wilson asked why 21 oth Street is not on the Thoroughfare Plan if it is so vital. Spruce Street is envisioned to go through. It seems this came out of the blue, even though it might have been worked on at a staff level. At least from his perspective it just came out in October/November. City Engineer Mann recalled that the Winkler and Devney properties need to have a connection in addition to Spruce Street and in addition to 213th Street. For those properties to fully develop there needs to be a connection like 21 oth Street. Right now 21 oth Street is the only spot where we have that opportunity. As far as why 21 oth Street is not on the Thoroughfare Plan, in 1998 when the 2020 Comp Plan was developed the Regan property and the Perkins property were not in the City. The Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 19 City does not put thoroughfares on the Thoroughfare Plan that are outside the City limits unless they are county roads that have been identified by the county. Since the Perkins and Regan properties have come in, staffhas not looked at that area from a thoroughfare standpoint to do a thoroughfare update. It has been discussed since 1997 that 210th Street would ultimately be a roadway. The other issue with Spruce Street is right now it is not open on the west side ofTH3. There are issues with that that in some ways make the issues with 21 Oth Street pale in comparison as far as the ability to get that street open across TH3. There is also the issue with the spacing of signals between Elm Street and Spruce Street whereas Willow Street is identified as a potential signal by the state, Spruce Street is up in the air as far as a signal because it is too close to Elm Street. Councilmember Pritzlaff agreed with Mr. Blundetto. He has gone with all of Council's suggestions. He stated he has only heard about this for six months. He does not want to see the proj ect go away, but on the other hand he does not want to let 80 units be developed and then be told he has to use eminent domain. Ifhe can be assured that we either wait longer, he would approve the project but not with eminent domain. He would like to table this until all parties get together and work the issue out so he does not have to use eminent domain, then he does not have a problem with it. Mayor Soderberg noted we are not voting on eminent domain tonight, we are voting on a preliminary plat. The schedule we have is staffwill work on it for 30 days and hopefully by May 1,2006 staffwill have a resolution. Councilmember McKnight asked Mr. Blundetto and Mr. Hocking to meet with all parties involved and that is a great suggestion. The issue before us is a preliminary plat for Sunrise Ponds. MOTION by Fogarty, second by McKnight to adopt RESOLUTION R39-06 approving the Sunrise Ponds Preliminary Plat and PUD Agreement with the contingencies. Councilmember McKnight stated with the transportation issues discussed tonight, the economic development issue, the access issues to the east side and TH3, he will vote for this to give staff and the developers whatever the timeframe is by law to get this worked out without eminent domain. He will not take that tool off the table. He is not happy the way this came to Council, but he is giving staff and the developers a chance to get this done and meet the goals this Council has set on this project. Staff and the developers have to get this done. He knows they will try. Get in a room and get it worked out, please. Mr. Peter Knable, engineer for the project, asked about the additional park and tot lot and if Council wanted to include the adjacent lot with Outlot B. Councilmember Fogarty stated if that lot is not included it is still doubling the amount of park space in this development. She would be comfortable not including the lot as long as they build the tot lot. AMENDED MOTION to adopt RESOLUTION R39-06 approving the Sunrise Ponds Preliminary Plat and PUD Agreement and to convert Outlot B to a tot lot and that it will be developed. This will also be added to the resolution. Voting for: Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight. Voting against: Pritzlaff, Wilson. MOTION CARRIED. Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 20 c) Consider MUSA Recommendation - Perkins Property - Community Development This item was tabled at the last meeting. The Perkins property was recommended for MUSA by the MUSA Committee and the Planning Commission. MOTION by Fogarty, second by McKnight to adopt RESOLUTION R40-06 approving the addition of the Perkins property to Farmington's portion ofthe Met Council's Metropolitan Urban Service Area. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. d) Consider RFP's City Survey - Administration The City solicited proposals to conduct a community survey. Three proposals were received. The last survey was done in 2001 and was a telephone survey. In order to compare results it is recommended to do another telephone survey. CJ Olson Market Research and Anderson, Neibuhr & Assoc submitted proposals for telephone surveys. The cost ofCJ Olson was $13,928 based on 400 surveys and $16,125 based on 500 surveys. Anderson, Niebuhr would charge $34,800 based on 400 surveys. CJ Olson would ask 20-25 questions and Anderson, Niebuhr would ask 60 questions. Both companies would work with staff to design questions, provide a final report and recommendations and a presentation to Council. Staff recommended CJ Olson Market Research and using 500 surveys. The budgeted amount was $20,000. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Wilson to approve CJ Olson Market Research for 500 surveys based on 20-25 questions. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. e) Consider RFP's Economic Development Summit Facilitator - Community Development Staff only received one response from Barsness Consulting Services which is well-known in the economic development field. Community Development Director Carroll asked if Council was satisfied with this one response or ifthey would like to receive more. Most ofthe other firms who were sent RFP's commented on the short turnaround time. There would be several more proposals if they had additional time. There are also a couple more people who would be interested in receiving the RFP. Staff provided a new timeline if Council would like to receive more proposals. The timeline suggests a submission deadline of April 12, 2006, however staff would not be opposed to extending the deadline to April 14, 2006. Councilmember Pritzlaffwanted to wait until City Administrator Herlofsky arrives. He wants the new City Administrator to be totally involved with this. Councilmember Pritzlaff is from the Crow Wing County area and has seen the commercial growth there. He would like Administrator Herlofsky's experience and forethought included in this process. He will be here in 28 days and feels he should be in on the start of the process. Mayor Soderberg noted invitations are distributed the week of May 1, when Administrator Herlofsky will be here and the summit will take place the week of May 15 or May 22. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he was also looking at the RFP. Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 21 Councilmember Wilson stated he did not think buying an additional nine days will do a lot for the RFP's. If we move down the whole timeframe we are giving those organizations mentioned more time to return their proposals. An additional nine days with the weekend and Easter will not do a lot to receive additional proposals. This is a good proposal, but he is not going to spend taxpayer dollars on just one proposal. He would rather have a few more to look at and be more deliberative. He would rather do it right the first time, rather than feel like we are moving this through quickly. He would like to push the entire timeframe back one month. He asked if the Chamber was contacted when the RFP was sent out. Acting City Administrator Roland stated Ms. Batulis was at the Council Meeting when the RFP was approved. Councilmember Wilson thought it would be a good idea to give the business community a call directly or let them know formally that the Council initiated this type of action and start building those bridges. He understood Ms. Batulis was there. Acting City Administrator Roland stated the RFP's were sent to professional firms who are economic development facilitators. The Chamber is the Chamber of Commerce. They are not a professional firm that would be in line for this. Ms. Batulis was here, we discussed it, we could have called her the next day, but it was submitted to professional firms and through EDAM, which is a statewide organization that has a good deal to do with economic development. Councilmember Wilson was not suggesting that the Chamber has a separate arm for economic development summits. His thought was to start building that communication bridge. Given the initial time frame we only had seven business days and he was not surprised we only received one back. Councilmember McKnight was fine with option B as proposed by staff. Councilmember Fogarty would have liked to have had more to compare, but all of Council approved the deadline. If Council chooses to send this back out, she is comfortable with that. She does think this firm should have the opportunity to fine tune their proposal. Staff agreed. Mayor Soderberg stated based on the comments received about the short turnaround, he asked if those firms indicated they could turn around in two weeks? The suggestion to give a longer amount oftime has some merit, but he does not want this to languish forever because then we will be doing an economic summit in November or December. Community Development Director Carroll stated when they were not receiving proposals staff contacted all ofthe firms and asked that they indicate why they did not submit a proposal. Almost all of them indicated the short turnaround time for the RFP and the short span oftime from picking the facilitator to actually getting it planned. Under the proposed schedule they would have 11 days. Staff feels several proposals would be received, but if Council wants to move it back, staff agrees with that. Initially it was on a fast track, but if Council wants to slow it down, staffwill do that. Councilmember Pritzlaffwas not looking at slowing it down, but we might as well do it right and take some time. As a Councilmember he always wants things Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 22 the next day, but in this case the deadline might have been too short. He would like to have Administrator Herlofsky totally involved with this all the way through, including this portion. Mayor Soderberg felt the comments have some merit and would favor having the RFP brought back to the May 1 agenda and look at the time space to allow the facilitator to understand what we are trying to accomplish and to plan for it. Staff asked if it was acceptable to move the summit into early June. Mayor Soderberg stated he did not want it moved a long time out. City Administrator Herlofsky will be at the May 1 meeting so he will have an opportunity to comment on the RFP's and to participate in the planning of the event and in the event itself. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if staff can send the RFP's to Administrator Herlofsky. Staff noted the Council packets are being sent to him. Community Development Director Carroll suggested having the submission deadline on the Wednesday preceeding the Council meeting, which would allow staff Thursday and Friday to send the proposals to Administrator Herlofsky. Mayor Soderberg noted we want to adjust the schedule to have a good event. Ifwe schedule this and have the business community involved once for a couple of hours, a second time will be harder. We want to respect the business community and do things right for them. 12. NEW BUSINESS a) Consider Resolution Supporting House File 3550 - Administration Staffwas contact by Representative Garofalo who presented this legislation to the MN legislature. This is the initiative to appropriate $850,000 to the construction of sewer and water infrastructure to connect the new Farmington High School, wherever it is built, to the City's infrastructure system. The resolution indicates support of this action from the Council. MOTION by Fogarty, second by McKnight to adopt RESOLUTION R41-06 supporting passage ofHF 3550. Voting for: Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight. Voting against: Pritzlaff, Wilson. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Pritzlaff did not believe in supporting this because it is taxpayer money from all ofMN coming to Farmington to work on infrastructure and he did not feel that is fair to other communities to pay for something we have a levy on. The School Board took it to the voters and they have their money for the school. To give them more from other taxpayers out ofthe community does not make sense to him. The other issue, is when this was brought up an article in the paper stated the superintendent supported this because it could fund the infrastructure and then more money could be put into the school building itself. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated the school was designed, it has a price tag, and give them another $2 million and they will spend it. He was not willing to give that money to let them spend, spend, spend. 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Councilmember Pritzlaff: He gave Council an update from the March 29,2006 Cedar Group meeting. Next week the county will work on the Cedar Avenue traffic study. Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 23 There is a high priority for a $5 million bonding bill to continue work on this project and they anticipate receiving it. The Chairperson noticed the lack of cars at the park and ride on Pilot Knob and asked Councilmember Pritzlaffwhat Farmington has done to promote the 157th Street Station. Councilmember Pritzlaff said it was mentioned at a Council Meeting, it was on the website and he asked two local papers to do an article on it. After asking both papers twice, only the Farmington ThisWeek did an article on it. The committee asked if it could be advertised more. The park and ride opened on December 5,2005. He asked something more be done to promote the 157th Street station. Councilmember Fogarty understood it was under utilized because of the timing of the routes of the buses that stop there. She was not certain they could do anything to change that. Acting City Administrator Roland suggested it could be put in the upcoming newsletter. Staffwill check ifit is the routings that are the problem, and ifit is they can talk with the Dakota County Transit people about needing a different schedule. Staffwill also make sure it is still on the website. Councilmember Pritzlaff recalled in 2006 they were going to change the routes. He asked if Council was willing to do something extra in the paper to promote it other than an article. Mayor Soderberg suggested starting with the newsletter before they place an ad in the paper. Ifthe paper would do a story, that would be the best thing, otherwise we can use the communication outlets we have. He wanted to hold off on spending advertising dollars. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he has received a few phone calls about an article in the Independent stating City Council reminds itself of annexation policy. He did not think that was all Council's problem. There was a document that was approved on January 15, 2005 and then some other documents came, we had meetings and set zones A and B which negated the first document. This was discussed at the goal setting session. This would not have happened if that first document from 2005 was in the packet for the MUSA meeting. Everything generated from that and it was left out ofthe packet unintentionally. Councilmember Pritzlaff then asked about the tree preservation presentation. Community Development Director Carroll replied it is still being worked on and asked if Council would like to see it at the next meeting. Councilmember Pritzlaff recalled this happened over a month ago and the last time the City Planner was not here and Council agreed to wait until she returned. Acting City Administrator Roland noted when it went to the Planning Commission there were a number of other issues on the agenda and it was postponed and was not considered by the Planning Commission. It will be on the agenda for their April 11, 2006 meeting and it will be at the next Council Meeting. Councilmember Pritzlaff noted last year Council approved having monthly workshops. We have had workshops for certain reasons, but he thought there would be a monthly workshop based on what the Council wants to work on, not just a specific item. He stated the Perkins item could have been discussed at a workshop, rather than at public meetings. Mayor Soderberg replied we have had workshops and they are directed by Council. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated the last workshop was the systems update plan. He did not recall being asked ifthere was anything else Council wanted to discuss. Mayor Soderberg stated if there is something he wants to add to a workshop, he can Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 24 contact staff to amend the agenda. We have covered the things we have asked staff to cover. Councilmember Fogarty noted we have to be reasonable about people's time. The workshops are taking 2-3 hours, you add a couple more agenda items, it becomes unproductive. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he did not want to keep adding them on. We have a workshop set for fiber optic, but do we have one for the month. Councilmembers noted we have had a workshop at least once a month. They may not always fall on the third Wednesday of the month. Acting City Administrator Roland suggested Councilmember Pritzlaff give staff a list of what he wants to be discussed at a workshop, then a workshop could be scheduled to discuss those items. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated we have dealt with the Perkins issue long enough in two public meetings. We could have had some workshops on that. Councilmember Pritzlaff then brought up the meeting that was to be rescheduled. Acting City Administrator Roland recalled Councilmember McKnight was going to speak with him about that topic. Councilmember Pritzlaff received a lot of phone calls on the article in the Start Tribune regarding the superintendent. Councilmember Pritzlaff offered his comments on the article. He understood what residents were saying when they come to Council and mention the taxes, unfortunately he did not see a lot ofthem going to the School Board and asking why their taxes are going up. The article also mentioned the superintendent's contract. Councilmember Pritzlaff noted extending his contract gave the taxpayers an indication as to where their money is really going. Tonight he made decisions to save taxpayer dollars and he did that with the City Administrator. More than just the City has to be asked about where tax dollars are going. Councilmember Pritzlaff said it was presented to him last week after the Farmington- Castle Rock meeting that a City staff member had stated to the group that issues were to be worked on over the winter on 225th Street by the developer, as it was not approved last fall because of unresolved issues. Last fall, Council approved Executive Estates with conditions and he believed the developer has met those except for flushing the system by the City which was recently done. Parkview Ponds was done about the same time as far as the flushing portion. The question brought to him was why one development could be flushed at the end of the year, or was it the temperatures? As for what needs to be done per Acting City Administrator Roland's e-mail before building permits are issued seems to have changed the requirements for streets, water, sewer, sidewalkslbike paths. Hometown Development has one house built, no curb, no streets, storm and sewer- cannot see the water in the sewer system, sidewalks are not done and a house is built. Two houses were under construction in Parkview Ponds without streets completed. What is our policy? From the e-mail he saw we had to have streets and a lot ofthings in. He drove out to Hometown and they are still putting in storm sewer, there are rough grade streets, no asphalt. City Engineer Mann replied staffwill respond at the next meeting. Finance Director Roland: Reminded Council of the workshop Wednesday at 5:30 p.m. followed by an Executive Session. Council Minutes (Regular) Apri13,2006 Page 25 Police Chief Siebenaler: Saturday staff from the Fire, Police and Planning departments were working at the Home and Garden Show. From their perspective the show was very well attended and they were busy all day. A lot of people were showing interest in what is happening in the City. Attendance is growing every year and other businesses were very enthusiastic about what is happening. Next year the Home and Garden Show will be taken over by the NDC and they are very excited about the potential for this show. It is something we can be very proud of and the participation has been a great benefit for the City. Now that spring has arrived, the Police Department will be initiating a couple clean-up programs. In the spring and fall the new CSO will begin enforcement of the junk vehicle ordinance. People will be reminded that their yards and streets and alleys are not a storage place for junk or disabled vehicles. They will also be reminding people ofthe clean-up of debris in their yards prior to the Solid Waste clean-up day. Mayor Soderberg: He received a letter from Metro Transit and they are inviting the City to be a part ofthe Commuter Challenge. There will be a news conference tomorrow at the Metrodome to kick off the event. The goal is to encourage citizens to try a form of commuting other than driving to work alone during the months of April, May and June. Tuesday afternoon there will be a DCC Board meeting and then a meet and greet for the candidates for the executive position for the DCC. This will be at the Apple Valley City Hall from 3 - 5 p.m. The HPC needs another member, so he was asking the community if someone has an interest in historic preservation to contact City Hall and fill out an application. He attended the Association ofMN Counties program on Wednesday with the Dreamcatcher's 4H Club. They received for the second time in consecutive years the community service award. There was also another 4H Club from Polk County. Both were great proj ects. 14. ADJOURN MOTION by Fogarty, second by McKnight to adjourn at 10:40 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~;;r7~ c Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant