Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.17.03 Council Minutes COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR November 17,2003 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Ristow at 7 :00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Ristow led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Audience: Ristow, Cordes, Fitch, Fogarty, Soderberg None Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; Dan Siebenaler, Interim City Administrator/Police Chief; Robin Roland, Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director; Lee Mann, Director of Public W orkslCity Engineer; Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director; Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director; Jim Atkinson, Assistant City Planner; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Tom Jansen, Randy Oswald, Julie Simonson, Cy Hennek, Jim Schmitz, Jeanne and Dave Stanek, Chester and Darlene Grabowski, Roger Cook, Troy Raddatz, Tim Burke, Michelle Schmidt, Michelle and Shawn Meschke, Tim and Susan Edmonson, Jacquie Conklin, Shane Haugen, Robin Hanson, Paul Paige 4. APPROVE AGENDA To accommodate the audience item lla) was moved ahead following the consent agenda, and item 8c) was moved to the beginning of the public hearings. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fogarty to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. S. ANNOUNCEMENTS 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS Mr. Randy Oswald, 19282 Evenston Drive, as Chair of the Park Facilities Task Force he wanted to invite everyone to the Open House on November 18, from 5:00 - 8:00 p.m. at the Farmington Middle School East. Attendees will be able to view the findings of the Task Force. There will also be formal presentations. Council Minutes (Regular) November 17, 2003 Page 2 7. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Fogarty, second by Soderberg to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: a) Approved Council Minutes (11/3/03 Regular) b) Approved Various License and Permit Renewals - Administration c) Approved Temporary On-Sale Liquor License - Administration d) Accepted Resignation Heritage Preservation Commission - Administration e) Received Information Capital Outlay - Parks and Recreation f) Received Information Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes - Parks and Recreation g) Approved Bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Tanker Truck Specifications - Fire Department The Fire Department has revisited the specifications for the new tanker truck. A number of changes have been made. The basics of the truck have remained the same. It has a vacuum tank, 3,000 gallon capacity, there are some changes to engine and transmission and some of the trim. One of the most significant changes is that the Fire Department will be considering demonstrator or floor models. The committee has done a substantial amount of work on the specifications and are confident that additional bids will be forthcoming and they will be under budget. In the event this returns over budget, they will make additional changes. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS c) Approve Therapeutic Massage License - Administration Ms. Jacqueline Conklin has submitted an application for a Therapeutic Massage License. The business will be located at 308 Oak Street. MOTION by Cordes, second by Fitch to close the Public Hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Cordes approving a Therapeutic Massage License for Jacqueline Conklin, 308 Oak Street. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. a) Adopt Resolution - Ash Street Project Hearing - Engineering The project consists ofthe street construction from STH 3 westerly to the railroad tracks, trunk storm sewer that will convey the drainage from Ash Street across STH 3 south of Ash Street/STH 50 to the proposed ponding area, trunk sanitary sewer extended from 11 th Street and STH 50 westerly to the Dakota County Fairgrounds, and upgrade to the existing trunk water main in Ash Street. A neighborhood meeting was held on November 6,2003. The most discussed issue was the proposed area wide assessment and the benefit that conveys. The total project cost is $6,605,000. According to the city's assessment policy and the agreement with the county, 70% ofthe street reconstruct cost would be paid by the county. Of the remaining costs the city would fund 65% and 35% would be assessed on an area wide basis. The county has agreed to pay for 25% of the storm sewer, 35% of the lateral storm sewer would be assessed on an area wide basis with the city funding the remaining storm sewer costs which include the Council Minutes (Regular) November 17, 2003 Page 3 lateral system, the trunk system and the ponding improvements east ofTH3. Water main lateral and sanitary sewer costs would be assessed to those properties that hook up to those services capped by the amount identified in the appraisal for 2005. The city would fund the remainder of the non-assessed lateral costs, water main costs, and trunk sanitary sewer costs. The benefit appraisal indicated the maximum benefit to levy would be $800/residential equivalent unit. The land area of the commercial properties would be converted to residential equivalent units and the commercial properties will be assessed for that amount. The proposed estimated area wide assessment per residential equivalent unit is $550. The appraisal identified the benefit for sewer and water service to be combined for $7,650 for the properties along Ash Street and $9,750 for those properties in Highland Circle. Mayor Ristow asked City Engineer Mann explain the situation when the ~ mile assessment was established by Council in 1997 for CSAH 31 and Akin Road. City Engineer Mann stated the first project done with the area wide assessment policy was the Pilot Knob Road project. Properties within ~ mile of the road were assessed. The Akin Road project and the 195th Street project were also assessed in this way. At that time, it was discussed that Ash Street would be handled in this manner and in the future Flagstaff Avenue. Councilmember Fitch asked why the difference for Highland Circle, if it was because oftearing up the road to install the sewer. City Engineer Mann replied the appraiser felt the value to the homes was greater, because those properties have a higher value to begin with. Councilmember Soderberg noted the County has agreed to pay 25% of the storm sewer cost for Ash Street and that portion of the storm sewer is $2.2 million, with the County's portion being $210,000 that is 10%. City Engineer Mann stated the 25% the County is paying for is just the portion in Ash Street, not the pond area or everything beyond Ash Street, not the trunk portion, just the Ash Street system. Mayor Ristow asked about MnDOT and if they will be paying a portion. Staff has contacted MnDOT and their portion will be factored in. Their portion would be in the STH3 area, not the Ash Street area. It would not have an effect on the assessment, as the STH3 improvements are not included in the assessment amount, just the Ash Street storm sewer is. The pipes going across STH 3 are trunk storm sewer pipes and that is what the trunk funds are for. If the state is willing to pay for part of that, then they will decide how much they can participate in based on their cost sharing policy. The only part that is assessed is the lateral part in Ash Street. Mayor Ristow asked if they contribute to the pond in the east, as there will have to be a certain size for the pond to hold the water. Staff replied that has been figured into the size of the pond. The pond has been designed to hold all the drainage in the area. Whether the state participates or not, will not affect the assessment. Council Minutes (Regular) November 17,2003 Page 4 Councilmember Fogarty had asked staff for some numbers. Finance Director Roland stated the bonds for the project would not be issued until 2005 when we actually do the project. Possibly the earliest we would have the assessment hearing would be at the end of2005, possibly early 2006. Over that 24 months, if residents in the $550 area were to put aside $22.91 a month they would have the $550 at the time ofthe project. The same thing was suggested during the Pilot Knob meetings, and a lot of people put the money aside and had the money when the project was done. If, however, in 2005 the city ends up assessing $550 in the area wide assessment, which would be the upper number, over a 10 year period at 6% interest it would cost residents $74/year on their taxes. Those residents on Ash Street or Highland Circle who have the additional lateral costs of sewer and water at $7,650 for the Ash Street Residents, at 6% for 10 years would be $1,030/year and the Highland Circle residents would be $1,31O/year for 10 years on their taxes. The 6% rate is a guess, the city usually assesses at 1.5% greater interest rate than the interest rate on the bonds that are issued. Mayor Ristow asked if it was not done on an area wide assessment and done ad valorum, if that would increase the bond. Finance Director Roland replied it would increase the bond and the amount of tax dollars that would be required over the entire city would increase as well because the full $1,900,000 that is in assessments and deferred assessments would have to be covered by additional tax levies rather than by the assessments. The bonds would still be $6.6 million, the city would have to cover $2.5 million in tax levies instead oftax levies and assessments. Interim City Administrator Siebenaler stated one additional cost associated with doing this as a general tax levy is a large portion of the property in Farmington is tax exempt. What happens with the area wide assessments all properties in the area are assessed, including those that are tax exempt. With a tax levy it would increase the cost of each parcel by about 40%. Mayor Ristow asked how the assessment was divided. City Engineer Mann stated the northerly limit of the Ash Street assessment boundary is the alley just south of Walnut Street, which is halfway between Ash Street and Elm Street. When the Elm Street project happens, then the boundary line to the north will incorporate the people who will be assessed for Elm Street. The boundary goes all the way to the southern boundary of Farmington. Mayor Ristow asked ifthis is approved, does it lock in the houses for proposed assessments if they sell between now and the assessment hearing. City Engineer Mann replied after tonight, if the project is ordered, it becomes a pending assessment. Any title search that is done will include that information. Mr. Tom Jensen, 701 5th Street, stated he understood how the city did the ~ mile area, but he wanted to know how Ash Street benefits him that he should have to pay the assessment. Mayor Ristow stated when the city was looking at the new alignment for CSAH 31, everyone uses the roads throughout the city. These are trunk arterial roads and everyone would contribute. The policy was set to assess within a ~ mile of the road. An appraisal was obtained for every property in the area and what it would benefit them. The policy was set during the Pilot Knob Council Minutes (Regular) November 17, 2003 Page 5 project and was done the same for 195th Street and Akin Road. Mr. Jensen stated in other words, just that street going in is going to benefit my property $550. He still did not understand how that benefits him. He uses TH3 and the other streets, but how does that make it better for him to put the street in, the street is already there. He has to pay for part of the storm sewer also. The storm water does not run that way. The plan shows they stop at Beech Street and he lives on 5th and Locust. All the water on Beech Street goes north and so does his. Storm water is not affecting his property. He asked how does the street and storm water benefit his property. City Engineer Mann replied the storm sewer is part of the street reconstruction. The addition of curb and gutter and catch basins will alleviate the flooding along Ash Street and that is part of the whole package of the Ash Street project. The appraiser has stated that the street project itself conveys that benefit. Whether storm water goes from one property or not directly to Ash Street, this is an area wide assessment and that storm sewer is part of the street improvement. Mayor Ristow stated 65% of that comes out of the city fees for the area wide trunk and 35% comes from the homeowner. City Engineer Mann stated regarding the street and storm sewer part of the Ash Street reconstruction the part that the county is not paying for, the remainder of the cost is split 35% to the residents and 65% to the city. Councilmember Fitch stated when the policy was established in 1997 it was a sustainable policy based on other communities that used area wide assessments for major trunk type transportation routes. Weare looking at how other cities have paid for major trunk roads. Mr. Jensen stated it is still supposed to benefit my property. How does it benefit my property? Councilmember Fogarty stated Ash Street is one of the roads you would use frequently and Ash Street will function better. Mr. Jensen stated he does not need to use Ash Street. Councilmember Fogarty replied the majority of the people living in this assessable area do. Mr. Jensen replied no, they don't. That is your own opinion. You call it a corridor from Hwy 3 to the railroad tracks. Where does it go? That is a corridor street? Councilmember Fogarty stated ask the people that live on Ash Street if they don't feel it is a corridor. People use that as an access to get across town. Mr. Jensen stated you cannot get on it during fair time, so he could understand their feelings. Mayor Ristow stated the fire truck and ambulance use it. That is one of the main roads, that and Elm Street. Mr. Jensen stated they already have a street there. I still feel it does not benefit my property. You have not convinced me that it does and I have to pay for storm sewer that is five blocks away. Councilmember Fogarty stated when talking about the assessment for Elm Street, he uses Elm Street, but will not be assessed. It is a give and take. Mr. Jensen felt it should come from the general fund. Mr. Jensen stated he is on 5th and Locust and asked if they are going to call Spruce Street a corridor street. Mayor Ristow replied from 3rd Street to the west. Mr. Jensen asked ifhe would have to pay for that one when it becomes a corridor across Denmark. Mayor Ristow stated we are not doing anything to reconstruct Council Minutes (Regular) November 17,2003 Page 6 that street. City Engineer Mann stated when the Pilot Knob Road project was done and identified all the roads that would be done in this fashion, we did not identify Spruce Street between Denmark and TH3 as one of those streets. When Spruce Street goes to the west to the new development, the development will help pay for the westerly extension of Spruce Street. Interim City Administrator Siebenaler stated when the policy was established, Council had a great concern that no one be double assessed. These corridors were identified and a ~ mile in each direction. This came into play in the area of Akin Road at the north end. A small portion could have been assessed either direction. It was assessed only in one. According to Council's past practice and policy no one would be assessed twice for any of these road improvements. The only other one identified at this time is the Elm Street corridor. The cut off line is not exactly a ~ mile as in other cases. It is halfway between Elm Street and Ash Street so that would be the cutoff point for the other project that is left. Mayor Ristow stated Mr. Jensen talks about not benefiting his property but he can challenge it. City Attorney Jamnik stated this is an improvement hearing. The actual assessments are likely to occur 2 ~ years out. At that time an individual parcel by parcel analysis can be requested and an assessment can be reviewed. Councilmember Soderberg stated he looks at it as a general transportation improvement. The street is in need of repair. Any time you improve transportation access into and out of an area, the area benefits. Mr. Jensen stated he does not think it does. As far as he was concerned they are being taxed three times already. He is paying the $550, he is paying the 34% ofthe whole city and he is paying County taxes. Ms. Harriet Groth, 512 Ash Street, asked ifthe $7,650 is the total amount she will be assessed or if there will be additional cost. She lives in the township. City Engineer Mann replied she will be assessed $7,650 for sewer and water hookup and approximately $250 for the storm sewer portion as well. This was outlined in the letter from the township sent to township residents. Mr. Shane Haugen, 1021 6th Street, stated it is a busy road already. What will be done to eliminate the truck traffic? They do not stop at the stop sign now. Mayor Ristow stated once the project is done, there will be studies by the traffic engineer especially at 6th Street. It is hard to limit trucks. Mr. Haugen asked if there was a law against the jake-brakes. It has been non-stop for two years. He has called the police numerous times for people that do not stop at the stop sign. Mayor Ristow stated the Police Chief is looking into it. There are certain state regulations as to what you can do. Interim City Administrator Siebenaler stated it will be brought back before the end of the year. Councilmember Fogarty stated she drives down Ash Street everyday and knows that speed and the stop sign are an issue. Improving the road may increase traffic levels. But you do not want to stop the progression of replacing your infrastructure. It is an enforcement issue. We continue to work on that. It has to be two separate issues. We cannot let the road fall apart because people drive on it improperly. Mr. Haugen then asked what he Council Minutes (Regular) November 17,2003 Page 7 will lose offhis yard. Mayor Ristow stated the right of way is 33 feet from the center of the road. Mr. Haugen then asked ifhe will have a walking path or sidewalk, because he does not want to shovel 175 feet of sidewalk. City Engineer Mann stated there is a trail proposed, and as far as what will happen with each individual property, when the plans are authorized, preliminary plans will be completed. Another neighborhood meeting will be held for those residents who are adjacent to the construction. If there is a trail built along the County roadway, the city staff will take care of the County road trails. It depends on how much space there is and how it can all fit together. Mayor Ristow stated at one time there was a path and he thought with the short distance of right-of-way there would not be a path as it would not connect to another trail. City Engineer Mann stated at this time it is still in the plan. Through the design process, they will have to see how that will work. Mr. Haugen stated he has a hard time going along with something when he cannot get an answer as to what they will be doing by his house. He could not obtain an answer at the open house. He understood the road and the sewer, he wanted to know what they will be doing on his side of the road. Will there be curb and gutter and they will be done? Mayor Ristow replied the pipe that runs under his property will not be there any longer. On the corner, the water ponding should not happen. City Engineer Mann stated there is a trail proposed on the north side of the roadway. Depending on the right-of-way and how it all fits together will determine whether it is a sidewalk or a trail. They try to keep hydrants on the right-of-way, not on personal property. Councilmember Cordes asked when we say 33 feet from the center of the road, within that 33 feet is where the sidewalk and everything goes. City Engineer Mann replied there are areas along Ash Street that have more than 33 feet on either side. Those are on the two ends. We have to work within the right-of-way we have or acquire more right-of-way or it will not fit. That will be worked out as the plans are put together. Mr. Haugen stated 33 feet will put it not far from his house or garage. Mayor Ristow stated some of the intersections will have a middle turn lane. City Engineer Mann stated the plan is to have a three-lane section all the way through with a middle left turn lane. Mr. Haugen asked if that can be done in 66 feet. City Engineer Mann replied possibly. Mr. Haugen stated that is what he wants to know. If it will come on his property or not and does he have a choice whether it does. City Engineer Mann stated if we decide we need to take more right-of-way that will have to come back to Council and the residents would be informed. The city would acquire it on behalf of the County. Councilmember Fitch stated he would assume once preliminary designs are in, there would be more public meetings where the public has input like on Pilot Knob. They showed how the road would fit in between houses already on Pilot Knob. This is not the end of everything. This is the beginning of the process. Those detail issues will come and the public will be invited to come in and comment on the design. City Engineer Mann stated before it goes out to bid, the plans would come back to Council, there would be a report of the final design and Council Minutes (Regular) November 17,2003 Page 8 the Council would approve that. Mr. Haugen stated he does not want to lose a bunch of his yard. That is why he bought the property, because of the big yard. Mr. Chester Grabowski, 608 Ash Street, stated his main topic was speed control and what kind of traffic devices will be on the road. He felt the city should work with the County to make sure something happens as far as traffic control devices. He has seen semi's lock their brakes and go through the stop sign at 6th Street, ~ hour before the school busses come. He has seen no jake-braking signs on the interstate. If we can have them on interstate highways, it would seem they could be on a true residential street. Another concern was he noticed they combined the sewer and water assessment. They already have water, so how does it break down? City Engineer Mann replied along Ash Street the amount of sewer only is $4,200. He would not pay for water. Mr. Roger Cook, 716 5th Street, asked Council to clarify the appeal period. City Attorney Jamnik stated the night of the assessment hearing, residents who want to preserve their right to appeal the assessment amount would file an objection at the assessment hearing and file within 30 days of that date with the Dakota County District Court. Then a lawsuit would be started for the challenge of that assessment amount. It is an objection that has to be made at the time ofthe assessment hearing. This would be held after the project is completed, in approximately two years. Ms. Darlene Grabowski, 608 Ash Street, asked if they are actually talking about making three lanes down Ash Street. City Engineer Mann replied that is correct. Ms. Grabowski stated I cannot tell you how horrific the traffic is. She replaced her windows to reduce noise. By adding three lanes, it will encourage people to go faster. Big deal if it is two lanes and they have to wait to make a left hand turn. She would really like this taken into consideration. Adding the extra lane will increase traffic tremendously and the noise. She cannot believe the city does not have a sign for jake-braking. What does it take? Joe Harris at the County would probably do it faster than the city would. Councilmember Fogarty stated we have the Police Chief looking into that. There are lawsuits pending from the company who makes the brakes because of those signs. While you have seen them, they are not necessarily a good thing to have up. People are taking task because it is a name brand and cities and counties are being sued over that. It is a misconcept that the city can just throw up signs and enforce it. We have to have a noise ordinance and we are looking into it. Ms. Grabowski stated it is encouraging to know that as a Councilmember you are looking into this matter and that you are trying to adjust it and avoid an expense for the city. Then that means that enforcement needs to be increased. She pays for that enforcement and she expects it on her block and it is very minimal. She has beautiful trees on her front yard that serve many purposes. One of them is it reduces noise. If you make this a three-lane, this road will be at my front door. Mayor Ristow stated it is only 33 feet. Ms. Grabowski stated she is real close to 6th Street and that right- hand turn lane will be right there. It will have huge implications on our lives Council Minutes (Regular) November 17, 2003 Page 9 because of the increase in traffic. Make the road smaller. Discourage people from driving down the road. Let them go a different direction. Do what you can when you take this into consideration. Mayor Ristow stated overall the road width will not be any wider than what it is. The pipes will take more room and the shoulder. Ms. Grabowski stated if she loses those trees there goes more value on her house. Not only does she lose the trees, but now she has a road in front of her front door. She stated the Council needs to reassure her that she will benefit from this, that the value of everyone's house on Ash Street will go up. Mayor Ristow stated after the plans and specs are approved tonight then the plans can be reviewed and see what will be there. Ms. Grabowski stated it is not that she is not in favor of improvements. She has a failing septic tank in her backyard. She is waiting for this project to go through so she does not have the expense of replacing the tank and then the city tells her she can hook up to sewer. She also has water in her front yard and some of it has been measured with fecal. Is there a need for this? Yes. Does it need to make our lives worse by increasing traffic? No. There are ways to discourage people from driving fast. Everyday she drives down Ash Street she does not drive over 30 mph. People pass her between 6th and 3rd. Councilmember Fogarty agreed. She has the same thing happen to her. Mayor Ristow stated similar complaints were received from Akin Road. Since the new alignment and turn lanes, there have not been a lot of complaints. Ms. Grabowski hoped she would have the opportunity to talk about the improvements, because she thinks sidewalks are a waste of money. It is not enjoyable to walk down Ash Street at any time of the day. Mayor Ristow stated he recalled Ms. Grabowski was on the committee when this was discussed a few years ago. This is a concept. The plans will be reviewed. At one time the project was taken out of the County's CIP. The city had to fight to get it put back on the CIP. Ms. Grabowski stated she understood this project has been going on for 20 years. She needs reassurance from the Council that when it comes time to implement the project, that Council will try to improve the quality of her life in Farmington. She lives on a bad road, don't make it worse. Mayor Ristow stated that is the thought of everyone. We will do it in the best interest of the community. Councilmember Soderberg stated speed control has been mentioned a couple of times. We have always heard in discussions of speed issues on other streets that it can be affected in two ways - engineering and enforcement. We have asked the Police department to step up enforcement in other areas of the city. They have done that and had some degree of success while an officer is present. The other aspect is engineering. He will be looking at it and was sure the Engineering department will take into consideration the engineering of the road to try and address some of those concerns. This will be an excellent opportunity to try and incorporate some of the engineering designs. Regarding the braking issue, we have spent a considerable amount of time on the issue. Because of state laws, it would cost the city a considerable amount to put up a sign. It is not the cost of stamping out a sign and putting it up. It is everything that goes with it. It would require a dedicated officer for verification, establishing criteria, and enforcement. Council Minutes (Regular) November 17,2003 Page 10 Ms. Grabowski's comment regarding making her life better would be his intent to see if the city can make that happen. Mr. Lloyd Wagner, 1104 Sunnyside Drive, asked if they would be getting rid of the lift station when the street goes through. Mayor Ristow stated that will be removed. Councilmember Cordes stated if this project is ordered, open houses will be held with the city, County, and residents. City Engineer Mann stated his initial intent would be to have a neighborhood meeting to receive input, bring those comments to Council and have them incorporated into the plans. There would be another follow-up meeting with the residents. After Council approves the plans, they are put out to bid. After bids are received and the project is about ready to start, there would be another neighborhood meeting and another open house to invite the whole area wide group so people would understand how to get around the detours. There will be at least three more meetings with the residents. If more are needed, we will do that. Mr. Tom Jensen, 701 5th Street, asked if Dakota County has mentioned they would turn this street over to the city like Akin Road. Council has not heard anything. MOTION by Cordes, second by Fitch to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Cordes adopting RESOLUTION R83-03 ordering the Ash Street Improvement Project and authorizing the preparation of plans and specifications for the project. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Adopt Resolution - Certification of Delinquent Municipal Services - Finance This hearing was held for certification of delinquent municipal service bills. Residents with overdue or delinquent bills, being 90 days overdue, were mailed a letter indicating they had until November 26 at the close of business to pay their overdue portion of their water, sewer, garbage and storm water bill or it would be certified to the 2004 property taxes. At the time of the mailing and the advertisement there were 514 accounts that were delinquent in payment amounting to $198,420.70. Since that day the city has collected a number of accounts. As of today there are 386 accounts outstanding totaling $161,308. This is a one-year assessment. Residents have until December 1 to pay their delinquent bill before it is certified. The city is closed November 27 and 28 so anything postmarked before December 1 will be accepted. Councilmember Fitch asked what the impact is on the budget. Finance Director Roland replied once these are certified we book the revenue to our enterprise funds. The revenue is acknowledged at the time it is billed. When we certify the delinquent bills to the tax rolls it winds up as a receivable on the books and has no budget impact, because we have already accounted for the revenue. When we Council Minutes (Regular) November 17, 2003 Page 11 collect the special assessments, they are receipted against the receivable and there is a negligible effect on our revenues. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Soderberg adopting RESOLUTION R84-03 certifying the delinquent accounts as special assessments to the 2004 taxes of the appropriate properties and adding the date of December 1, 2003 to the resolution. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Engagement Letter 2003 Audit - Finance This was presented to Council for the reason of identifying the significant cost that will be incurred by the city for 2004 for the conversion of the city's financial reports to GASB 34. Normally the audit costs go up 3%-5% a year. The city is proposing Kern, DeWenter, Viere do the audit for a seventh year. The cost of the audit itself is approximately $18,200. This is a 5% increase over the 2002 fee and that is due to a new fraud accounting standard they do extra work on. The unusual part is they are proposing an additional fee for the implementation of GASB 34 for a cost of between $7500 and $10,000. GASB 34 is the Government Accounting Standards Board. They are attempting to make government financial accounting records look like corporate accounting financial records. If the city wants to maintain their bond rating and good financial standing we have to follow GASB 34 at an additional cost. This has been budgeted in the 2004 budget. Technically this could be considered an unfunded mandate by a government accounting standards board so that cities conform to any other corporation. The implementation fee is a one time fee. It does not include any percentage increase for future years for maintaining records, etc. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg authorizing engagement of Kern, DeWenter, Viere Ltd. For the December 31, 2003 audit. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) October 2003 Financial Report - Finance General fund revenues as of October 31, 2003 are at 72% of annual revenues. General fund expenses are a little over the 83.33% year complete. c) Adopt Resolution - Authorize Bond Sale - Refunding Bonds - Finance Staff requested Council authorize a bond sale for December 15,2003. Bonds to be sold are refunding bonds. The city has the opportunity to refinance four bond issues at a lower interest rate for savings of$175,000 over the next 6 to 11 years. One resolution is calling for the sale of $2.2 million G.O. Refunding bonds, which would refund the improvement bonds of 1994, the tax increment bonds of 1995, and the G.O. tax increment refunding bonds of 1995. The second resolution calls for the sale of taxable G.O. refunding bonds in the amount of $605,000. This would refund the taxable G.O. tax increment bonds of 1993. MOTION by Council Minutes (Regular) November 17, 2003 Page 12 Soderberg, second by Fogarty adopting RESOLUTION RS5-03 calling for the sale of $2,205,000 G.O. Refunding Bonds, Series 2003B on December 15, 2003. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Cordes adopting RESOLUTION RS6-03 calling for the sale of $605,000 G.O. Refunding Bonds, Series 2003C on December 15, 2003. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. d) Accept Bus Donation - St. Francis Healthcare Services - Parks and Recreation St. Francis Health Services has donated a bus to the city used by the Trinity Health Care Campus. It has a replacement value of$70,000. The bus will be used for field trips, recreation programs, swim bus, and in conjunction with the Darts bus. Council appreciated this generous donation. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fogarty adopting RESOLUTION RS7-03 accepting the donation of a 16-passenger bus from St. Francis Health Services of Morris. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. e) Adopt Resolution and Ordinance - Consider Comprehensive Plan Amendment 1000, 1012, 1020 Sth Street and Consider Zoning Map Amendment 1020 Sth Street - Community Development Three adjacent property owners have requested comprehensive plan amendments and rezoning. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is from low- medium density designation to a business designation. The proposed rezoning is from R-2 to Bl. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 9, 2003 and unanimously recommended denial of the request. The reasons were they were not clear what the use of the property would be and drainage was a concern. The applicants modified their request and provided more details. The use would be an expansion of K&K Auto Ranch for the parking of additional cars. They provided a screening plan to screen the business from adjacent residents. They requested a rezoning only on the southern most property. The Planning Commission still felt the details were not sufficient enough and recommended denial for both requests. They still wanted to amend the Comprehensive Plan for the northern two properties. Staff did not recommend this. Mr. Cy Hennek, 1011 7th Street, lives in the house directly behind the lot. The business wants to put in a 4 foot retaining wall and slope the lot to the east, but they do not know where they can drain it to. The owner needs to meet with the engineers regarding Ash Street as to where the sewer will run. Mr. Hennek stated the plan does not seem that bad, but he is concerned with the drainage. It is not the greatest situation to have a business in your backyard. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to deny the requested Comprehensive Plan amendments and Zoning amendments for the properties located at 1020 8th Street, 1012 8th Street, and 1000 8th Street. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Council Minutes (Regular) November 17, 2003 Page 13 Councilmember Soderberg asked if the owner has been informed that it can be done, we just need to see a specific project. The owner has contacted the City Planner to set up a meeting to see what is needed. Mayor Ristow stated there are a lot of neighbors in that area that are concerned about a business expanding in a residential area. He did not want to give anyone the impression that this would be supported. Councilmember Soderberg asked if the Ash Street project would be able to take care of the drainage problem, especially at Hickory Street. City Engineer Mann replied staffwill be looking at that as part of the design of Ash Street. The constraint will be the ponding area to the east ofTH3. There is a limitation as to how much land can be used to build the pond. Depending on how much additional drainage this adds to the system will determine whether or not the pond will be able to handle it. 1) Adopt Ordinance - Keeping of Animals Within the City - Community Development Staff is proposing changes to include a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres and to lower the minimum distance between animal enclosures and neighboring homes to 100 feet rather than 500 feet. Minor changes include a definition of house pets versus farm animals and chickens have been added to the regulations. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes adopting ORDINANCE 003-503 amending section 6-4-2 of the City Code regarding the keeping of farming animals within the City. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. g) Approve Meadowview Park Master Plan - Parks and Recreation Staff presented a Park Master Plan for Meadowview Park in the Charleswood development. A public input process was initiated to receive ideas and opinions on the park plan. Mr. Paul Paige of Hoisington Koegler was hired to assist with development of the plan. There were a number of issues that came up. All but one have been resolved. The main issue remaining is the boardwalk. Mr. Paige outlined the process. 19Sth Street is on the north, 200th Street on the south, Pilot Knob Road to the east and Charleswood development to the west. There is currently a paved trail that winds along behind the homes and connects to Evensong Avenue into an open field area. It stubs out to a wooded island area in the middle of a wetland. The proposed plan includes a playground, a pavilion, _ basketball court, and open play field with a backstop. The plan shows the trail connecting to a trail along 200th Street. A suspended or possibly floating boardwalk is proposed across the wetland connecting to a trail. There are small and broader loops proposed for the trails. On the east side, there is no public frontage to the park. That is a bad design. Parking needs to be provided for cars on a neighborhood scale to get to the park without going on long trail circuits to get there. A meeting was held with the owner of Newland Communities. They are open to the idea of connecting in this direction and are aware of the Pilot Knob Road trail improvements. They want to be connected to the park. Council Minutes (Regular) November 17,2003 Page 14 Currently, the access for the Charleswood development to the park is through an opening between two houses. Everything on the plan with the exception of the boardwalk, was an outcome of the public process. A workshop was held that was minimally attended. A lot of negative feedback has been received regarding the proximity of the boardwalk to the homes along Evensong Avenue. At the Park and Recreation Commission meeting, the boardwalk was moved out into the wetland, eliminating the piece behind the homes, using the island as an extension point to the tip and using the boardwalk to cross the wetland. From a park planning perspective, the connection to 200th Street is really important. It will connect more people in the future to this resource and to the trail at 195th Street and beyond. Trails are about connectivity it is not about limiting access it is about promoting access. A petition was received from 58 residents saying they support the petition against installation of a trail and/or boardwalk from the previously promised playground and open field to a point on 200th Street to the south through a protected wetland area for all or some of the reasons noted above. Ms. Robin Hanson, 18880 Elgin Avenue, thought the wetland is an important community access and thought it should be accessible to all, young and old. The addition of the trails, both the boardwalk and paved trail and the observation deck will provide the opportunity for all Farmington residents to enjoy this area yet direct and control the public access. The addition of the observation deck will provide for additional learning opportunities. She applauded both the Charleswood residents for raising their concerns and the Parks and Recreation staff and advisory commission working with them to sort through the issues involved, listening, exploring alternatives and revising the plan. The revised plan, moving the sidewalk from the residents backyards and utilizing a boardwalk and observation deck seemed like an excellent way to respond to concerns raised and yet leverage this community asset for all Farmington residents. Providing access with a boardwalk is similar to the public access provided near Minnehaha Falls and along Minnehaha Creek in Minneapolis. In their case the boardwalk was installed by volunteers of AmeriCorp which is similar to the proposed Minnesota Corp solution here. The path and observation deck are similar to public access Inver Grove Heights has recently provided to one of their natural areas near the intersection of Concord Boulevard and 80th Street. She felt both of these are very aesthetically pleasing and make it available and accessible to the public at large. She encouraged Council to approve the proposed Meadowview Park plan including the boardwalk. Ms. Michelle Meschke, 19984 Evensong Avenue, she is an avid supporter of the park except for one thing. She is vehemently opposed to the boardwalk. She is not an opponent of people seeing this wetland. On the contrary she wants people to have access to the wetland, but thinks it can be done much less intrusively than what is planned. By having an observation deck, you will allow all Farmington residents to view the wetland and the nature it contains with less intrusion. By Council Minutes (Regular) November 17, 2003 Page 15 adding the boardwalk it is redundant to an existing trail and it is extremely costly. A lot of her neighbors feel the same way. They were not at the meeting, because they think the city has already made up it's mind, that they will do what they want to do. She does not believe that. Any reasonable person listening to the compelling reasons she has would not want to put the boardwalk in the wetland. She had three compelling reasons, 1) it disturbs the wetland and the wildlife it contains; 2) it's not fiscally responsible to put the boardwalk in because it is way too costly, it is redundant, and the Charleswood residents overwhelming do not want this; 3) over the last 3 weeks they went to as many houses as they could, not just along the wetlands, but to the inner streets of Charleswood who have no property interest and asked them their opinions. They were given two choices - would you prefer a boardwalk through this wetland or would you prefer the money to be reallocated to additional park equipment and facilities. 94% said they would prefer additional park equipment and facilities because the boardwalk is costly, it is redundant and they didn't want it. This park has been labeled as a community park. She wants all Farmington residents to be able to enjoy this. When she looked at the cost estimate, she noticed 1 pavilion, 3 picnic tables, and 1 grill have been allocated for a community park, but we will have an $80,000 boardwalk that will disturb the wetlands, is redundant to a trail that is already there, and is something the residents don't want. As far as disruption to the wetlands and the wildlife it sustains, it makes sense that if you are bringing in huge vehicles and putting in anchors in the wetland how can there be no disruption to the wetland. Any common sense person will know there is going to be some impact. They went to the DNR and asked them do you recommend boardwalks and trails in wetlands. They said no, we try to avoid them at all cost if possible. She asked will it have an impact on hydrology. They said yes it will. She asked will it have an impact on the wildlife. They said yes it will, in fact they were told the boardwalk will not allow large mammals to cross the boardwalk. One morning there were 8 deer running across the boardwalk. If the boardwalk goes in the deer cannot do that. That means less wildlife they will see. It will have an impact on wildlife, especially large wildlife. Their migration patterns will change. It will have an impact on the wetland. Assistant City Engineer Tim Gross stated in an e-mail that placing a boardwalk in the wetland was not consistent with how the city has dealt with wetland management. He also recommended that if residents were opposed to the boardwalk and there was another alternative, which there is as there is already a trail which does the same thing, granted it is not as easy and convenient for some of the residents, but he recommended that if the majority of the residents were against it and there was an alternative plan, it should not be built. It was an e-mail that he e-mailed to Park and Recreation Director Distad on September 29, 2003. Mayor Ristow stated they do not have that in their packets. Ms. Meschke continued saying she wanted all people to be able to observe the wetland and the nature it contains. At the Park and Recreation Commission meeting, a member brought up the idea of an observation deck. This would allow the whole community to come in to view the wetland, have learning opportunities, see the nature it provides, and have minimal disruption to the wetland. You do not have the large trucks coming in to build the Council Minutes (Regular) November 17, 2003 Page 16 boardwalk, you don't have the maintenance of the boardwalk, and are not affecting wildlife patterns. Ms. Meschke believed building the boardwalk was not a fiscally responsible thing to do. There is $200,000 allocated towards the park, and 40% will be spent on one boardwalk. This is redundant, people do not want it, and it will disturb the wetland and wildlife. Some people want it because it gives them ease and convenience. If ease and convenience takes precedence over preservation of the wildlife and the wetlands, shame on us. If ease and convenience takes precedence over fiscal responsibility, shame on us. And if ease and convenience for a few people takes precedence over the voices of the many who have said they don't want the boardwalk, they prefer it to go into additional park equipment and facilities, shame on us. We have the opportunity to make this a great park and not have to come back in two years and ask taxpayers for additional park equipment. We have the money now. She strongly urged Council to hold off on approving the Meadowview Park plan. Councilmember Cordes noted Ms. Meschke said the boardwalk is redundant and asked Ms. Meschke to explain what she meant. Ms. Meschke responded she agreed it was nice to have as many points of access as possible, the majority of the people will be coming off of Pilot Knob Road. One of the biggest supporter of their position lives along 200th Street. She stated over half the people along 200th Street said they did not want the boardwalk. They would prefer to go around or come through the development. By redundant she meant why do you need two trails that end up at the same place? Ms. Michelle Schmidt, 19969 Evensong Avenue, stated a few residents walked around the Charleswood development surveying residents along Export Trail, Executive Path, Excelsior Lane, Everest Path, Evensong Court, Evensong Avenue, 200th Street, four of which are not adjacent to the wetlands. They went along Evensong Avenue up to the northern end. They showed residents the plan and asked them their opinion given this information which contained the plan for the park, what will be in the park, here is what the trail system will do, information from a DNR hydrologist stating this could be a detriment to the wetlands, and a budget for the boardwalk of $77,000. $106,000 of our $200,000 budget is going into trails and boardwalks, over half. 94% of the people that replied did not want this. They want it to go back into the park. One pavilion, 3 picnic tables, and one grill are budgeted for the park. Residents also asked where is our hockey rink, our skating rink and warming house. There is no place to walk your kids to for skating. There is a lot of frustration in the city. A lot of residents are not feeling heard. We are giving you the information. 94% of the people asked did not want this. They stopped at 129 homes, 84 responded. She stated we do not need the boardwalk. It will affect the wetlands and nature and we do not want it. Ms. Schmidt had also e-mailed the survey results to Council. Ms. Sue Edmondson, 19961 Langford Lane, stated she is for this plan, it is a great plan. She stated Parks and Recreation took everyone into account and access for everyone. She felt the boardwalk is needed for the whole community. Otherwise Council Minutes (Regular) November 17, 2003 Page 17 you are alienating a whole section of the community. She would have to go up to 200th Street and down Pilot Knob to access the park. She does not want to see any children on Pilot Knob accessing Ute trail. Pilot Knob is a very busy road. She would rather have the community have the access. This is a future trail connection, so it is not redundant. It needs to be there for other houses that will be built. It is a great education tool for children to be able to access the wetland. She did not receive the poll, or anyone in the townhomes. She felt the survey was biased, because all those people are against it. No matter how you poll people, if you are one way or the other, you will taint it. The boardwalk needs to go in. Park and Recreation has a good plan for everyone. Mr. Paul Paige, Hoisington Koegler, stated he was conservative in the initial estimate of the cost. Park and Recreation Director Distad has done some research with the Minnesota Conservation Corp, eliminating the labor, which was 2/3 of the cost. A more realistic cost today is $42/linear foot, which equals $27,090. The difference between the previous estimate and this cost would be used for playground equipment. Mr. Tim Burke, 20087 Heathrow Way, stated he lives in the very last townhouse at the south end of Charles wood. He spoke with a few of his neighbors about the access to the park. They feel it is vital they have the opportunity to get to the park from an access that is a little closer to where they live. The survey never came south of the single-family homes. He was not surveyed, or anyone on Heathrow. None of the townhomes were surveyed. Most probably would not know what to answer as they are new residents. To ask a question like this is ludicrous. He has worked in politics and has done poll work. If you see the question they asked, they give you a choice. Do you want the boardwalk or do you want additional park equipment? That is an unrealistic choice. When Ms. Meschke spoke about the information they provided, in the polling business that is called a push question. You give the information you want to get the answer that you want. He was surprised they did not get 100% against the boardwalk in the polling they did. From his end of the Charleswood development, it is an access issue. That is not an unreasonable thing to consider about the park. He felt the Parks and Recreation staff, the consultant, and the Parks and Recreation Commission considered it, and they all thought it was important enough to leave it in the plan despite the fact that the overwhelming response they got was that the people did not want it. He commended the people who are against the boardwalk for their persistent in their fight and also their flexibility in the arguments they used against the trail. When they started this, for them the trail was an issue of safety and crime prevention. They thought having the trail behind their homes would increase crime. Then the Parks and Police Departments looked at other similar trails in the area and concluded that was not a legitimate concern. The next concern from the people who oppose the boardwalk was that it was environmentally unsound. At the Parks and Recreation Commission in September we heard things similar to tonight about what they thought might be done. The consultant said that is not the case. The animals are very adaptive. Council Minutes (Regular) November 17,2003 Page 18 The intrusion of the boardwalk which would be over the wetlands and not tearing up the wetlands would be minimal and the only animals that would be affected would be large animals that could not cross the boardwalk. Have you ever tried to keep a deer from someplace it wanted to be? It is almost impossible. Now they have turned to this economic argument as their last gasp to keep the boardwalk from being built. They have exaggerated the numbers and used the highest numbers to put the worst case scenario in front of you in terms of the cost of the boardwalk. Now we find the cost may be 1/3 of that in terms of installing the boardwalk which provides access to a large number of people in the community. The access that is being proposed in the Master Plan to connect to 200th Street is vital. It will be at least a couple of years before any other access is done. An access onto Pilot Knob is second class at best in terms of youngsters using it. He will keep his children off that arterial and keep them on 200th where it is a neighborhood street. He asked Council to pay attention to the recommendations of it's own staff, the consultant, and the Parks and Recreation Commission which has spent a lot of time and heard all of these arguments and consider what they put before you has taken all this into consideration. He asked Council to approve the Master Plan. Mr. Randy Oswald, stated he is the Chair on the Parks and Recreation Commission, but he was speaking as a resident who not too many years ago heard about an athletic complex that wanted to be built. He saw the vision of what the city will be needed to keep up with the growth. He has learned a lot in the last five years, how things take place and why. Most of the neighborhood parks are a playground and ballfield. They are activity parks. The city is lacking in certain amenities. We have an opportunity to take a neighborhood park and turn this into a small city park. To the north is the ponding area, to the south is the wetland area with the trails. These are not activity parts of the park. He sees these as relaxation areas. With benches people will watch the birds in the pond. The Parks and Recreation Commission took a long time in making a decision. They heard arguments one month and tabled it, because it was too big of an issue to jump into. During that time each member of the Parks and Recreation Commission was at the wetland to look at what is going on and what is proposed. Habits will be changing because of development. Development forces the wildlife to adapt or move. Will a trail through the area affect that? At first with the construction it will. As things settle down and have a natural trail, it will return. It depends on what happens with development to the east. At the second meeting, an observation deck was proposed which is fantastic. It creates an educational opportunity. On the peninsula are the biggest and most beautiful oak trees he has seen. That needs to be shared with the entire community. The Parks and Recreation Commission tried to work with the residents, but also saw the natural flow of the park. It is one of those tools that help connect the north and the south. He likes the trail plan as it is. It received a 5-0 vote from the Parks and Recreation Commission to send it to Council for approval. Council Minutes (Regular) November 17, 2003 Page 19 Mayor Ristow stated they have a petition with 58 residents against it. He asked how many were at the public hearing that support the plan the way it is. Mr. Oswald replied about 1/3 were in favor of it. He had to look at it as what is best for the community. They worked with the residents to move the trail from behind the homes. The Parks and Recreation Commission took the residents' concerns into account. Councilmember Cordes asked Parks and Recreation Director Distad, besides the trail connection at Everest Path and Evensong Way do we hold any other easements to that area along Evensong. Parks and Recreation Director Distad replied at one time they tried to put in a trail along there, but it was not part of the plat. We do not have any easements along Evensong. Councilmember Cordes then asked regarding the Newland development to the east, are we still allotted more park dedication in that area. Staff replied yes. There is a Letter of Credit for $145,000 that remains for this park as part ofthe park dedication. The additional land to the east and north, when the final addition comes in for Charleswood there will be additional park dedication required. The ordinance states the developer needs to pay for half the cost of the park. That is in addition to cash in lieu. Not only do we get the cash in lieu, but we get half the cost to develop the park for the requirement in the next addition. If they are required to dedicate 4 acres of park, based on the 4 acres at $30,000/acre we will get $60,000 to help develop the park for those 4 acres. If we take the 4 acres in cash in lieu we still get the $60,000 plus the cash in lieu. Councilmember Cordes stated we are looking at possibly over $200,000 for additional development of the park. Staff replied it depends on the density of the next development. That is what drives the amount of land we get. Mayor Ristow asked if that was additional park? Staff replied we can either take additional land to make the park bigger or we can take a combination of cash and land. Councilmember Cordes then stated it was mentioned to use a group for labor costs. Staff replied it is the Minnesota Conservation Corps. They used to work with the DNR in installing boardwalks, trail work, and park improvements. They are looking at creating educational opportunities for young adults to train and teach them about the natural environment and wetlands. They are willing to provide labor in exchange for educational opportunities. They have put in countless feet of boardwalks and bridges for the DNR and state parks. They could do it at a third ofthe cost. They are very interested in the project. The city would provide staff to do some training with them. Councilmember Cordes then asked about the south trail connection to 200th Street. If the boardwalk and the small part of asphalt does not go in, would we still put a trail in at that point. Staff showed Council the current trail plan that is in the Comprehensive Plan. The plan shows a trail that continues from 200th Street south to the Middle Creek greenway. That connects to the northwest side of the city and over to TH3. The revised plan shows an extensive trail system that looks to a 20 year plan. It is a comprehensive trail system that does not dead end. Council Minutes (Regular) ~oven1berI7,2003 Page 20 Councilmember Soderberg stated when they looked at Charleswood as a development, was the trail identified at that time? Parks and Recreation Director Distad replied on the preliminary plat there was a trail that loops around the island and a trail through the area as an easement. Trails to the south were to be identified as part of the park planning process. That is why the trail was not shown to connect to 200th Street. Councilmember Soderberg stated when the developer made the contribution for the park, the contribution was from the development on the west side of the wetland. When the east side develops, the trail that goes from the ball field along the northeast side of the wetland would be paid for and developed by that development. Staff replied because it is identified on the trail plan as coming the developer will need to pay for the cost to construct it. Councilmember Soderberg then asked if there was any information regarding property values and whether or not a trail near their backyards has an impact on property values. Staff stated there was a study done in Seattle that looked at the value of property and found the values were higher for those that abutted the trail or were in close proximity to the trail. Councilmember Soderberg stated the Comprehensive Plan identifies the trail as something that will continue along the west side of the wetland. It seems the homeowners did not have information that that would happen. The developers talked about the trail system and made a significant contribution to the park. Did the city somehow drop the ball in not letting the residents know or was this not established yet. Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated he does not have the history as to what they were told in 1997 - 1999. In the future, staffwill make the developers aware of what trails need to go in as part of the development. Ms. Michelle Meschke stated residents were very concerned about that issue. Residents at differing times were so concerned, they did ask questions. They asked what is this area? They were told it is state protected and cannot be touched. To her that means nothing will be built back there. There has been some correspondence from Assistant City Engineer Gross that says it was taken out of context, that built meant there would be no houses or structures back there. Ms. Meschke proposed that build means to create it means to erect, and there will be a boardwalk built and erected in this wetland. Citizens were told nothing would be built back there. Her husband asked for a map and was told there wasn't one. The residents did not get the information they needed. Had some residents known that this trail would be back there they would not have purchased their lot. When this is mentioned to developers, they cringe because they are not going to get the money for those lots they otherwise would. Residents were told there would be a park, but nothing in the wetlands. They were told that by the builder. She felt it was a miscommunication between citizens and the city. She felt they were being punished for the growing pains of the city. Councilmember Soderberg stated in the past there have been things that the developer did not fully inform property owners about. He asked how the city can make sure owners are fully informed. Mayor Ristow stated they have asked this Council Minutes (Regular) November 17, 2003 Page 21 information be available at the model homes. Parks and Recreation Director Distad showed another plan from 1997 showing a trail from 195th that lines up with the Middle Creek trail. In 1999 it was placed in the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Soderberg stated he understood the frustration of the homeowners. The original thought was to avoid the wetland and place a trail along the west side, which would place a trail in the backyards. Moving the trail out addresses some of that concern. He applauded both those that researched and argued both for and against it. Two of the arguments are very compelling. One is the disturbance of the wetland. He felt that is minimal. The other argument is fiscal responsibility. To see the initial spreadsheet that identified in excess of 50% for trails and boardwalks did seem excessive. If that can be reduced by 60% on the boardwalk, it makes it very reasonable and it does provide access to the homes along 200th Street. If there were additional funds available is there room for more equipment? Staff replied the park can be expanded with the next development. The existing playground equipment can be put in and expand that in the future. The shelter has not been purchased. There is a budgeted amount of $200,000. Councilmember Soderberg asked given the development to the west, if the boardwalk did not go through, is there room for additional equipment on the existing space? Mr. Paige replied there is room for a 40% - 50% increase. Councilmember Fogarty thanked Ms. Meschke and Ms. Schmidt for investing time and energy in the community. They had three reasons why the boardwalk should not go in. Disturbing the wetland - along the north shore they try to avoid the wetlands when possible. There are a lot of boardwalks there that completes the trail. What is called redundancy is absolutely intentional by design. She hears that the trails do not go anywhere. You need many accesses. As far as fiscal responsibility, with some luck we can greatly reduce that and get more playground equipment. Third, it was mentioned the residents don't want it. 94% of those surveyed said no. Before Mr. Burke mentioned it, she noticed the survey was weighted, you created a push-pull. She did not think it was intentional. To her that is invalid, if residents could see what the city was trying to complete with the trail system, they might have a different opinion. She has spent time with Parks and Recreation in looking at the trails and they are absolutely vital. The residents are looking at it at a micro level. She is looking at a complete system throughout the entire city. She respects the information collected and residents coming to Council. She does not like the idea that Council does not listen to residents. She intends to support this, not because she is not listening to the residents, but because it is the right thing to do for the city overall. It is not that she is not listening, she just disagrees. Mayor Ristow stated at this time he disagrees, but felt they were lacking some information. When he makes a judgment he likes to have all the information. He was partially disturbed that there is information he did not have. This is the first time he has seen this plan. After all the comments, the information needs to be reviewed. Staff will provide the additional information. If the issue is not pressing, he would like to table the decision. Councilmember Cordes stated she is Council Minutes (Regular) November 17,2003 Page 22 willing to hold off on making a decision until everyone is comfortable. The only thing she has not reviewed is the e-mail from Assistant City Engineer Gross. Mayor Ristow stated there are two e-mails he did not receive. Councilmember Soderberg stated it would not hurt to table it to the next meeting. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to table the decision on the Meadowview Park Master Plan to the December 1, 2003 Council Meeting. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS b) City Administrator Search Final Selection Mr. Harry Brull, Personnel Decisions International, stated the task was to make a determination to move the City Administrator Selection process to the next step which would be to take the six semi-finalists they have interacted with, take the information from Council and other staff and determine who should be the finalists. He provided a numbered list of candidates to facilitate any discussion. In looking at the 5 individual Councilmembers and other individuals who have seen the candidates, there are clearly two of the six who each group and most individuals, almost unanimously, feel strongly about. Mr. Brull recommended taking these two candidates as finalists. Council needed to decide if they wanted a third candidate. There are some differences between the groups for a third candidate and quite a gap between the second and third choices. Councilmember Fogarty stated she also came to the same conclusion and did not see a third candidate rising to the same level as the other two. Mr. Brull stated as they pursue these two candidates and the comfort levels lessen, Council still has the option of looking at others in this group. Council agreed to select David Urbia and Jenelle Teppen as finalists. Councilmember Soderberg believed Council could reach a 5-0 vote based on the information they have now. Other Councilmembers agreed. 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Councilmember Fogarty: Thanked the Farmington High School football team for an entertaining game at the dome. Councilmember Soderberg: Went to the awards banquet for the Economic Summit. Community Development Director Carroll was able to get the application in for e- commerce readiness and the city was recognized for that. Councilmember Cordes: Reminded everyone of the Parks and Recreation Facility Open House at the Farmington Middle School East. Council Minutes (Regular) November 17,2003 Page 23 Councilmember Fitch: Thanked the Councilmembers for working through the interview process as a team. The results showed everyone is on the same page. He thanked Councilmember Fogarty for checking references. Staffs indication of the candidates indicates the city is going in a pointed direction together. The process has worked well. Interim City Administrator Siebenaler: On Thursday the Chamber of Commerce will be holding it's second Breakfast with the Council. Councilmembers Fitch and Fogarty will be attending. The topic will be the Spruce Street extension. City Engineer Mann: phase 1 tomorrow. Weather permitting, they should be paving on Main Street Mayor Ristow: Regarding Ash Street, he knows the police have had the speed radar out there and there sheriffhas been patrolling the street. He asked if there was more enforcement the city could do. He has noticed high speeds and cars running the stop sign. The vision of the stop sign is restricted coming from the east at 6th Street and Ash in the summer. Interim City Administrator Siebenaler will request officers to spend some time in that area. 14. ADJOURN MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to adjourn at 10:50 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, // ~/ _~ _ .J77 ~ L:}f;~ ~<---C:~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant