Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.21.04 Council Minutes COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR June 21, 2004 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; David Urbia, City Administrator; Robin Roland, 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; Lee Smick, City Planner; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Terry Flower, David McKnight, Dale Aukee, Justin Elvestad, Tim Vanderlinde, Dick Pietsch 4. APPROVE AGENDA Councilmember Cordes pulled the June 7, 2004 Regular Council Minutes to abstain. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Soderberg to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS a) Mr. Mike Heinzerling - Engineering Staff sent a response to Mr. Heinzerling to his comments at the June 7 Council Meeting. Councilmember Fogarty disagrees with Mr. Heinzerling as far as it not being a benefit, however she does not feel good about the last minute fee. Any fees should be charged at the appropriate time. Councilmember Fitch thought a checklist should eliminate the problem. Community Development Director Carroll was not aware of a check list for lot splits. When lots are split it is not always known what the owner intends to do with the lot. Owners are advised that once they begin to develop the lot, there are a variety of fees to be paid. This is kind of an Engineering fee and a Building fee. There needs to be better communication between the two departments. Procedures will be fine tuned to keep this from happening in the future. Councilmember Soderberg stated part of Mr. Heinzerling's argument was part of the benefit is not being realized because of the reconstruction on Main Street. If it were new development, how much would his share be? City Engineer Mann replied the fee would be somewhat more going under the 100% route. Staff would have to review the bids and do the Council Minutes (Regular) June 21, 2004 Page 2 calculation. Finance Director Roland replied with new development the developer pays the City and it would be included in the cost of the lot. This is part of the Development Contract that can either be paid in cash by the developer up front, or it can be assessed over time. Councilmembers Fogarty and Soderberg agree there is a benefit. Councilmember Soderberg was not in favor of waiving the charge. City Attorney Jamnik stated the staff recommendation is not to bring it before the Council for any action. If the Council wants to put it on for action, it could be placed on a future agenda. Otherwise the decision stands and the policy would be implemented as currently drafted. Mayor Ristow asked if Mr. Heinzerling was placing this on the agenda as an appeal. City Attorney Jamnik will review if formal action is needed. If so, he will place it on the next agenda, if not, the staff recommendation stands. b) Farmington Lanes - Engineering Mr. Dick Pietsch, 605 Fairview Circle, stated he was turned down again on the angle parking in front of Farmington Lanes. He stated there is less visibility backing out of an angle parking space than a parallel parking space. The whole downtown is full of angle parking and the reason for it is there is a need for it in order to give people access to businesses. He disagrees with staff s statement that it is safer getting out of a vehicle parallel parked than angle parked. They have lost four parking spaces in the parking lot and will be designating two spaces for handicap parking. That makes a total of six parking spaces they are losing. The spaces across the street will be lost because the City approved no parking in front of Marigold Foods so they could get their trucks in and out. There would be more room to get through in the street by banning parking on one side and have angle parking on the other. They would gain some spaces they are losing. Regarding the curb bumb outs, Mr. Pietsch noticed there are no bump outs at the end of 3rd Street and the end of Oak Street. Councilmember Fitch asked why they are losing six spaces. Mr. Pietsch replied they were on the boulevard and they will be gone due to the entrance to the parking lot. The sidewalk will be ramped so they decided to make two spots for handicap parking. Councilmember Soderberg noted in front of Marigold five spaces were eliminated due to the no parking. Putting in angle parking would replace those five spaces. There is 14 ft. of boulevard from the edge of the sidewalk to the face of the curb. In order to allow for overhang and keep 5 ft. of clear sidewalk, 1 ft. would be used and that would leave 13 ft. from the edge ofthe new curb for angle parking to the face of the old curb. He parked his truck on Oak Street and measured from the curb out to the farthest point on the truck which was 15 ft. The standard is a 22-25 ft. space on a diagonal. If there were parallel parking he would protrude into the lane 2 or 3 ft. Whereas, a parallel car would be 7 -S ft. It is not up to an engineering standard, but we do not have that same standard in the downtown. Councilmember Soderberg would like to see if there is some way to make the angle parking work to provide the parking for Farmington Lanes provided the turning radius is maintained for Marigold's trucks. There is increased cost and some delays to the project. They were prepared to lay curb this week. To re-engineer the curb would delay the project. Councilmember Soderberg stated if the delays are acceptable and he suspected the cost would have to be paid by Farmington Lanes for re-engineering the street to accommodate them, and the turning radius can be Council Minutes (Regular) June 21, 2004 Page 3 maintained, he would accommodate Mr. Pietsch's request. Mayor Ristow asked about the process for designating no parking for Marigold. City Engineer Mann replied the request was reviewed by staff and placed on the Consent Agenda for Council approval. Staff recalled some discussions with Farmington Lanes at the time. Marigold is a 24-hour operation, so deliveries can come at any time. Councilmember Soderberg stated the bump outs downtown are 12 ft. which would fit in the existing boulevard, although that is not the standard length for a bump out. Mayor Ristow suggested moving the curb to the west. Staff replied it would have to be drawn up. They planned on doing curb this week, but staff can stop it if Council wants. Once it is designed, staff will provide an estimate of the cost. Staffwill check with the contractor ifthere is any cost for the delay. Mr. Pietsch felt a delay would not hurt. Staff will provide a design of the angle parking to determine what the ramifications are to the geometry of the area, and the additional cost based on that parking. Staff s recommendation as far as the safety will not change. Mayor Ristow asked if it was possible to accommodate the angle parking. City Engineer Mann replied staff would have a better idea once they obtain exact dimensions. It would be substandard compared to most of the downtown streets. This is the design in the downtown, but it was staff s recommendation to not have it go any further without a standard design. Councilmember Fogarty was concerned about waiting until the next Council Meeting to make a decision. Staff hoped to have a drawing this week. City Attorney J amnik stated it would have to be approved at a Council Meeting because it is a change order to an assessment project. Council is also evaluating what the property owners want and what they are willing to pay. It is up to Council to decide if the cost would be 65%, 35%, as the assessment or ifit would be assessed 100%. Councilmember Soderberg stated in the past, if it has been a specific request, that entity has paid for it. City Attorney Jamnik stated ifthe cost came back at an amount Mr. Pietsch would not want to pay, and there would not be any change order, that would end deliberations. By the time staff completes the drawing, and meets with the property owner, it would be next week. With the holiday weekend, it could take until the July 6 meeting. 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fogarty to approve the July 7, 2004 Regular Council Minutes. Voting for: Ristow, Fitch, Fogarty, Soderberg. Abstain: Cordes. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: a) Approved Council Minutes (6/9/04 Special) b) Received Information Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes - Parks and Recreation c) Received Information School and Conference - Arena - Parks and Recreation d) Received Information 2004 Curbside Cleanup Summary - Parks and Recreation e) Adopted RESOLUTION R43-04 - Gambling Premises Permit -Administration f) Accepted Resignation Housing and Redevelopment Authority - Administration g) Approved 2005 ALF Budget - Administration h) Approved Renewal of Uniform Contract with Cintas - Parks and Public Works i) Approved Joint Powers Agreement Dakota County Wetland Health Evaluation Program - Engineering Council Minutes (Regular) June 21, 2004 Page 4 j) Approved Staffing Request - Engineering Technician - Human Resources k) Approved Fire Relief Association Fundraiser - Administration I) Approved Bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Adopt Resolution - Vacate Drainage and Utility Easement East Farmington 8th Addition - Community Development Mr. Giles has requested the vacation of the existing drainage and utility easement in Outlot B of the East Farmington sth Addition. The developer would like to develop six lots along lth Street in the 9th Addition. These lots did not come through in the sth Addition due to the wetland. The wetland mitigation is being worked out with the DNR. Mayor Ristow asked about vacating the easement without the mitigation being finalized. Staffwas also concerned as the wetland mitigation will be coming to the Planning Commission for the fourth time on July 13,2004. City Attorney Jamnik stated Outlot B will be subject to a plat application for East Farmington 9th Addition. Ifthe mitigation requires additional ponding be placed on the outlot again, the City has the opportunity to require dedication ofthe easement and take out one or two ofthe buildings. The main issue is the determination if whether under the current East Farmington sth Addition and the current needs of the City, we need to keep any part of Outlot B ofthe current design for the outlot drainage system. If East Farmington 9th is not developed, does the City still need the drainage area as currently shown? If there is, then there is no basis for the vacation. If the water can currently be accommodated that is draining to that area, then the City can release the easement on that area. City Engineer Mann replied once the sth Addition is completed, the ponding is adequate with the easement vacation. If the 9th Addition does not go forward does the City want a wetland without an easement around it? MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fogarty to continue the Public Hearing to July 19, 2004. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Approve Hiring of Consultant for Community Center Feasibility Study - Parks and Recreation In early 2004 the Council received a report from the Recreational Facilities Task Force. The three recommendations included land acquisition and preparing a park and recreation system plan; prepare a feasibility study for a Community Center; look at comprehensive funding and partnership strategies. Staff sent out nine Requests for Proposals and received five. After staff scored the proposals, Ballard King was chosen to do the feasibility study for a Community Center. The Parks and Recreation Commission voted unanimously to recommend them to Council. The cost for the study would be $32,000 plus reimbursables. Councilmember Cordes asked if Council was notified that staff was sending out RFP's for this project. Parks and Recreation Director Distad replied it was part of the approval ofthe three recommendations. Councilmember Cordes stated a Council Minutes (Regular) June 21,2004 Page 5 Community Center was not identified on the CIP, and asked if doing a feasibility study was jumping the gun. Staff replied they are trying to get the information together to see if it is feasible to have a Community Center. A feasibility study is good for 2-5 years. If it is feasible, it would be included in the CIP. Councilmember Cordes stated the cost is $32,000 plus reimbursables and after going through the budget workshop last week, even though this is coming out of the park improvement fund, there were also a lot of other projects identified to come out of that fund. She was concerned with spending $32,000 on something that may not be done. Staff stated they are hoping to develop partnerships to reduce the costs. The benefit to going through the study would be to get the information to see who would be a possible partner. Finance Director Roland replied at the end of 2003 the balance in the park improvement fund was $500,000. Through the end of May 2004 the balance is $566,727. Councilmember Fitch was concerned that there is a financial problem and wanted to wait 30-60 days for approval to see where the finances are at. Councilmember Fogarty stated this recommendation comes from a task force made up of residents who felt the City is behind on recreational facilities. Unless Council anticipates pulling money out of the fund to help with the budget, she did not see the harm in going through with it. Mayor Ristow felt the $32,000 could be used in other park areas. If the community center is not done, it is a waste of money. There are park projects listed in the CIP to be upgraded. Councilmember Fogarty stated Council gave staff the direction to go out for RFP's. Councilmember Fitch stated Council was not aware of the financial situation at that time. He would like to get further through the CIP process. Doing a feasibility study is a smart use of money, but he would like to be able to explain it to residents why they are doing it. Councilmember Soderberg stated a voter referendum would not be a CIP issue if a referendum was identified in the feasibility study. He would like to go ahead with the study. The proposal is good for 30 or 60 days. Staffwill review the terms ofthe proposal. Councilmember Cordes stated we have major projects coming, a City Hall and a Fire Station. With these two substantial buildings within the next five years, she does not think a community center would be feasible within five years. To do a feasibility study for something that will not be possible within five years is throwing money out the window. Councilmember Fogarty disagreed. There are a lot of residents who think we are ready for a community center and felt Council owed it to them to take a look. Councilmember Cordes replied it is a huge and expensive undertaking. Mayor Ristow stated if we have 60 days we should know more. We can either vote now or see what options staff comes back with at the next Council meeting. We will know more after the budget and CIP workshop. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Ristow, to table the community center feasibility study until the July 6, 2004 Council Meeting. Voting for: Ristow, Fitch, Fogarty, Soderberg. Voting against: Cordes. MOTION CARRIED. Council Minutes (Regular) June 21, 2004 Page 6 b) May 2004 Financial Report - Finance As of the end of May 2004 the percent of revenues are comparable with 2003. Regarding liquor operations, transfers out to the park improvement fund and the arena fund last year happened at year-end. This year it happened quarterly. Expenditures are consistent with 2003. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Review/Approve Responses to Comments and Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan - Farmington Spruce Street AUAR - Community Development The Spruce Street area is surrounded by CSAH 50, Denmark Avenue, and a proposed extension of Pilot Knob Road and contains 450 acres. The Council approved the AUAR in September 2003. Council approved the AUAR and a draft of the mitigation in January 2004. There was a 30 day comment period which commenced in March 2004. There were comments by several agencies. Bonestroo has responded to the comments. The final AUAR and mitigation plan will also go out to agencies. There will be a 10 day review period for those agencies to respond. Ms. Sherri Buss, of Bonestroo, presented the final AUAR to Council and answered their questions. If there are no comments received after the 10 day review period, the AUAR is approved, no further action is necessary. The City is responsible for ensuring the mitigation plan is followed. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Soderberg adopting RESOLUTION R44-04 approving the Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan for the Farmington Spruce Street Area and directing staff to mail the response to the agencies for their 10-day review. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Akin and 20Sth Street Traffic Signals - Engineering At the June 7, 2004 Council Meeting, Council directed staff to delay the installation of permanent stop signs on Akin and 20Sth Street to discuss other options. The money is available in the road and bridge fund for signal lights. Previous costs for permanent signal lights was $126,000. The City split the cost with the County paying $63,000. Staff has spoken with the school district, but they would not be able to assist with the cost. There would be two options for signal lights, either temporary or permanent. The major difference between the two is the pole material. The temporary lights are hung from wires attached to telephone poles. Staff recommended a temporary signal which costs $60,000 - $SO,OOO. The permanent parts of the signal would be in place. The data received in the past has not been looked at for signal lights, only for a 4-way stop. Staff will have to review ifthere is enough information available now or if more needs to be obtained once school is in session. Councilmember Soderberg suggested staff work with the Traffic Engineer to see if the intersection warrants a signal. Councilmembers Cordes and Fogarty felt it was a waste of time to do a study and the signal should be installed if the money is available. Mayor Ristow was concerned with setting a precedent. MOTION by FOgarty, second by Soderberg to install temporary signal lights on Akin Road at 20St Street. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Staffwill advise the timeframe at the July 6,2004 Council Meeting. Council Minutes (Regular) June 21, 2004 Page 7 c) Adopt Ordinance - Amending Senior Center Advisory Board Ordinance - Parks and Recreation At the June 7, 2004 Council Meeting, Council requested the Senior Center Advisory Board and Park and Recreation Commission review the amended ordinance to consider suggestions from Council. The Advisory Board would still like to have the words "or work" in the ordinance. They were neutral on term limits. The Parks and Recreation Commission felt the words "or work" should be struck from the ordinance and felt anyone who serves on a commission should live in Farmington. They were also neutral on the term limits. Staff requested to delete the words "or work" and delete the language regarding term limits. There was a third issue regarding who applicants would apply to and changed the ordinance to make it consistent with the practice where Council appoints applicants. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes to adopt ORDINANCE 004-509 amending the Senior Center Advisory Board ordinance. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. d) Great River Energy and Xcel Energy Transmission Line and Substation - Community Development Staff encouraged any interested residents to attend a meeting June 24, 2004 at the Dakota County Extension Office. The purpose of the meeting which is being sponsored by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board is to take public input and comment on a proposed plan by Great River Energy and Dakota Electric and Xcel Energy to put in a new substation in Farmington just east of the Industrial Park. That substation would be connected with an existing substation in Vermillion Township. The project would put in approximately 10 miles of upgraded power lines. The proposed route by the utility companies is along 21 oth Street through Empire Township. The companies rejected an alternate route to go north along CR66. The second issue is the intersection of 21 oth Street and Cambodia Avenue to Hwy 3. The companies proposed to go from the intersection of Cambodia and 210th Street and proceed north then west to Hwy 3. This would put the line along the north line ofthe Marschall line bus garage, along some parcels being considered for MUSA and along the side ofthe American Legion. This is the shortest route, but it would make more sense to follow the railroad right-of-way that runs along a future extension of Willow Street. Staff asked permission from Council to advocate this position at the public hearing. Council agreed for staffto propose the alternate route at the public hearing. Empire Township also agreed with the alternate route. The third issue was the Hwy 3 portion of the route. The companies intend to have the line on the east side ofthe road. Someone asked about the west side where the houses are set back. To place it along the west side, a lot of trees would need to be taken out. The east side already contains a line of poles for telephone and cable. Staffhas suggested they use the same poles. Issue four is the intersection of CR66 going to Akin Road. The issue is to make sure the power line is located in a way that it has a good relationship with the future 20Sth Street alignment as it goes from Hwy 3 west past the Middle Schools and the Riverside development. There is a need to complete 20Sth Street over to Hwy 3. The EQB will not specify which side of the road it will go on. Staff wants to alert them to the possibility that connection will Council Minutes (Regular) June 21, 2004 Page 8 be made and feels they would place the poles in a location that would be consistent with that. 12. NEW BUSINESS a) Adopt Resolution - Approving Metropolitan Council Grant Application - Community Development Every year the Met Council has a variety of grant programs available to communities. There are opportunity grants and development grants. The differences are the opportunity grants are small and the development grants are large, often $30,000-$75,000. The other issue is the phase of the project they intend to address. Development grants are project specific. Opportunity grants are a way to fund something the Met Council sees as having opportunity for future growth and development. Staffhas submitted an application for an opportunity grant for $25,500 to help with consultant costs related to topics that are important to the concept of downtown redevelopment. Staff sought money to pay for a marketing study to determine if there is a demand for senior housing in or near the downtown. Staff also requested funds to pay a consulting firm to obtain information on how to finance a project like that especially if someone should request TIP financing. Included in the grant application were numerous references to a project proposed to the HRA. Staff felt it might help the grant application to associate it with a specific project. Ifthe proposed project does not go forward, the information could still be used for other projects. If the City is offered grant money and Council is not comfortable taking it, they can turn it down. Councilmember Cordes stated she is uncomfortable with staff submitting grant applications without formal approval of the Council. The application was submitted on June 2, 2004. It is being based on a proposal she does not agree with, and if staff wanted to really consider the grant they would have had opportunity to come to the Council before it was submitted. Within the application there were some items that bothered her. She found it interesting the City has been measuring groundwater levels for a few months long before any consideration was given to any other proposals at the McVicker lot. No other proposals came in with underground parking. The meter was put in before the decision was made. The other issue is Dunbar being referred to in the application several times. Another issue is the application states although a few new businesses have opened in the downtown area in the last few years, some long established downtown businesses have recently ceased operations or indicated an inclination to do so, or have reported a downward trend in sales. Councilmember Cordes stated within the last few years the only downtown business she recalled closing was Heart and Home. In the cover letter it says the application was submitted on June 2 and that it was based upon a redevelopment concept approved by the HRA on March 24. She assumed this was a mistake in date. The date should read May 24. Councilmember Fitch did not have a problem with the City trying to get grant applications, but the application did mention a lot about consulting with local businesses and owners regarding developing the downtown. One ofthe problems Council Minutes (Regular) June 21, 2004 Page 9 with the Dunbar proposal is a lot ofthe downtown businesses, especially the ones being affected, where not in the loop on this process. Two of those businesses are owned by a long-time business person. We need to watch in the future how we deal with existing businesses. He did not see mixing two adult beverage establishments with residential housing above. Regarding the information to be obtained from the consultant, he asked how long the information is good for. Staff replied as time goes by it has less and less validity. No details have been finalized with any company. Staff stated testing the groundwater level was not related to any project. Staff knew the McVicker lot would get developed in some fashion. There has been a lot of talk about groundwater levels in the downtown area. Any building built on the McVicker lot will need a foundation. Someone who submitted a proposal might want to know where the groundwater level is for crawl spaces, footings, a basement, etc. It would be useful information for staff to have to give people who submitted proposals, regardless of the proposal. It was discussed at a staff level and at an HRA meeting. Councilmember Soderberg confirmed it was discussed at an HRA meeting and determined it was a good idea for the City Hall site and the McVicker lot. Staff stated it was long before any applications were received or any application deadlines. It was not related to any particular project. Councilmember Fogarty stated it was a very well written grant. She did not have a problem with staff submitting grant applications without Council approval. The grants can always be turned down. Better that than to miss a deadline. With the HRA approving this on May 24 and the application deadline on June 2, this was a lot of information to get together for a grant application. Councilmember Soderberg stated it was approved by the HRA and they were very well aware of it. There was no objection to moving forward with the grant application. Staff stated it would have been handled differently if the application deadline had been September 1 instead of June 2. There would have been opportunities to have meetings and workshops. The timing was very tight and you either submit a grant application and hope for the best, or pass it up for a year. Many aspects of this project matched what the Met Council was looking for. If Council does not want to have the research done and if the grant is awarded, the Council can turn it down. The research done would not be specific to that particular location. The broader issue is, is there a market in the downtown area for some type of structure that would include senior housing. If there is, what can the developer charge in rent, if it included commercial space, what can be charged for rent? Many surrounding communities are doing this, or looking at projects like this. Mayor Ristow was concerned with the perception that it seemed to focus on one area for one particular project. The other projects were shut out. Staffmade recommendations to the applicant as to how some of the issues should be addressed. The applicant chose to do it a different way. His position was that it was premature to talk with property owners until you know your plan has been approved by the agencies applied to; if you are going to approach people about Council Minutes (Regular) June 21, 2004 Page 10 acquiring their property you have to do some appraisals and get some background information. His choice was to not approach the property owners until he had those two things addressed. Mayor Ristow stated in his opinion it did not stack up very fair. If it is for the whole downtown, he would have a different opinion, but it seems like it is for one area. He stated it was not publicized very well and we do have an HRA member on the Council. He thought purposes of people being on the boards was to relay information to Council, not keep us in the blind. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fogarty to adopt RESOLUTION R 45-04 authorizing application for an Opportunity Grant through the Livable Communities Demonstration Program. Voting for: Fitch, Fogarty, Soderberg. Voting Against: Ristow, Cordes. MOTION CARRIED. 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Councilmember Soderberg: At the last meeting, Council received notification of firefights that were called to active duty and would like to get mailing addresses for them. He wants to let them know he appreciates their service to the City and to the country. He would like to see a more proactive approach to economic development. He hosted a meeting with some business owners and it was an excellent meeting. There was a great deal of enthusiasm discussing what can be done to bring economic development to Farmington and the downtown. He would like to see Council embrace that idea and continue with holding roundtable discussions with business owners to discuss their concerns and obtain their ideas to incorporate them into economic development plans. The President of the Chamber was in attendance and there was a lot of discussion about partnerships between the City, the Chamber, and the business community to come up with ideas as to what types of businesses to attract. Ifwe focus more on economic development, it will develop the tax base without putting a strain on services. Mayor Ristow thought this would have been done with the Coffee with the Council, but if that is not being brought up maybe other meetings are needed. He asked if this meeting was something Council should have been involved in. Councilmember Soderberg stated he did not want to violate any open meeting laws with having more Councilmembers there. He was bringing it up to suggest Council take this on as something we could all benefit from. It is not just Chamber members, it is all business entities. Mayor Ristow thought it was a good idea as long as the Chamber is ok with it. He would not want to leave any businesses out. If Council chooses not to participate, Councilmember Soderberg intends to continue meeting with business owners. Councilmember Fogarty felt it was a great idea. A topic is set with Coffee with the Council. This let's them talk about whatever is on their mind. She liked that it was specific to economic issues. Mayor Ristow stated if we are going to do this, let's get the whole business community involved. He stated he is in business and knew nothing about it. We have a lot of businesses in Farmington, not just downtown. Councilmember Fitch would also like to include all businesses and stop the Chamber's Coffee with the Council. Do it as a business community, instead of just the Chamber. Councilmember Soderberg stated there were five businesses at the meeting by invitation. There was also an announcement in the paper. Councilmember Fitch would be willing to change the Chamber breakfasts immediately. Councilmember Council Minutes (Regular) June 21, 2004 Page 11 Soderberg felt the Chamber breakfast serves a useful function in that it is the Chamber specifically and could focus on issues other than economic development. Mayor Ristow stated they were considering discontinuing the breakfasts at the last meeting. Councilmember Fitch would like to expand the Chamber breakfasts to breakfast with the business community. It could be considered an informal Council meeting, have all Councilmembers come, at the Eagles, early in the morning. Councilmember Soderberg then stated there has been discussion regarding pedestrian crosswalks. He was aware putting them at uncontrolled crossings is contrary to recommendations from the Police Chief and Traffic Engineer. If a pedestrian is hit, for example on Akin Road, and there is no crosswalk, the legal standing changes for the pedestrian. If there is a crosswalk, and the pedestrian is hit, it changes their standing in court and puts the burden on the driver to stop. If someone should get hit and there is no crosswalk, and they go to court we have left them weak. He would like to visit the idea and explore the ramifications of placing a crosswalk on Akin Road at 203rd Street. He is not advocating one be installed. He is aware it would not be a recommendation from staff. If someone should get hit, he wants the parents to have all the tools available at their disposal. He also received a proposal from a resident to place a tunnel from the bike trail at 198th Street just south of the Baptist Church to the bike trail on the east side of Akin Road. He would like Council to consider this. 14. ADJOURN MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to adjourn at 9:43 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ?7,/~el;?~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant