HomeMy WebLinkAbout08.16.04 Council Minutes
COUNCIL MINUTES
REGULAR
August 16, 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;
Ken Kuchera, Fire Chief; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant
David McKnight, Jim Ozmun, Russ Zellmer, Dick Pietsch, Larry
Johnson, John Anderson
4. APPROVE AGENDA
Councilmember Soderberg pulled item 7a) Council Minutes 8/6/04 Special to abstain.
City Administrator Urbia added 10h) Southeast Area Trunk Utility Pond Project Update.
There were also additional handouts from Wold Architects and a cover memo for item
1 Oe) Draft 2005 Budget Document.
MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED.
5. ANNOUNCEMENTS
6. CITIZEN COMMENTS
7. CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION by Fogarty, second by Fitch to approve Council Minutes (8/6/04 Special).
Voting for: Ristow, Fitch, Fogarty. Abstain: Cordes, Soderberg. MOTION
CARRIED.
MOTION by Fogarty, second by Fitch to approve the Consent Agenda as follows:
a) Approved Council Minutes (8/2/04 and 8/4/04 Regular)
b) Approved Temporary On-Sale Liquor License - Administration
c) Adopted ORDINANCE 004-516 Amending 2004 Fee Schedule - Administration
Council Minutes (Regular)
August 16, 2004
Page 2
d) Adopted RESOLUTION R60-04 Supporting Deferred Action on Smoking Ban
Until Statewide Consideration - Administration
e) Adopted RESOLUTION R61-04 2004 Sealcoat Project Assessment Hearing-
Engineering
f) Adopted RESOLUTION R62-04 Accepting Donation Rambling River Center-
Parks and Recreation
g) Adopted RESOLUTION R63-04 Accepting Donation Youth Scholarship
Program - Parks and Recreation
h) Acknowledged Resignation Parks and Recreation - Human Resources
i) Approved Park Master Planning RFP Request - Parks and Recreation
j) Received Information Capital Outlay - Parks
k) Approved RFP Process - Audit Firms - Finance
I) Received Information July 2004 Financial Report - Finance
m) Adopted RESOLUTION R64-04 Riverbend Final Plat - Community
Development
n) Approved Bills
APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a) Approve Conditional Use Permit - Manley Property Grading - Community
Development - CANCELLED
The grading plan has not yet been received. This will be addressed at a later time.
9. AWARD OF CONTRACT
10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a) Receive Fire Hall Needs Assessment Final Report - Wold Architects
(Supplemental)
Mr. Mike Cox, Wold Architects, presented the final report for a new Fire Station.
Due to the City's growth, the existing fire station was reviewed. The current
station houses vehicles and has enough training room for 42 firefighters. The
current station has issues with enough room to hold equipment and room for
additional firefighters. One issue is the site and the second issue is whether ALF
should be housed in the current facility or in the new facility. Wold
recommended the site at the North Municipal Campus. This site provides for the
current complement but also for a future addition and is good access for the heart
ofthe community. Mr. Cox showed a diagram for the new fire station which
includes an apparatus bay, optional vehicle bay, office area, and a
meeting/training area. It is important for the ten additional firefighters to be
trained on the actual equipment they will be using. The diagram also showed a
sleeping area for ALF. ALF's recommendation is to be housed at the new fire
station. As the 195th Street area develops, this would be more of a central
location. The total project cost is $1,685,000. With an additional apparatus bay
and sleeping area the total cost would be $2.1 million. These costs would be for
construction in 2005. It would take approximately 19 months to build. The costs
include mezzanine storage and soil corrections.
Council Minutes (Regular)
August 16, 2004
Page 3
Councilmember Soderberg asked about the proximity ofthe driveway to the stop
sign on the south side of the building and if that is a concern. City Engineer
Mann replied since this is an emergency vehicle type facility there would not be
the same concerns as a shopping center for example. Councilmember Fitch asked
if the City moves forward with the project, bidding would be in six months,
around February. Mr. Cox replied that is a very good assumption and is the
perfect time to bid. Councilmember Fitch asked ifbonds would be sold in 2005
for payment in 2006. City Administrator Urbia stated a solid cost would have to
be obtained first, and then the bonding would be figured. There are several
options. Finance Director Roland stated the City has the option of using G.O.
bonds which are based on tax capacity value instead of market value.
Fire Chief Kuchera thanked everyone involved with this project. He also
recognized Fire Marshal John Powers for all his work on this. The new station
should provide service for another 20 years. However, we cannot lose sight of the
growth in the eastern portion ofthe City.
b) Receive City Hall Needs Assessment Final Report - Wold Architects
(Supplemental)
The preparation of this report involved examining space needs and staff needs at
City Hall. This study is a continuation of the work by the City Hall Task Force.
The site location is 3rd and Spruce Street. The recommended size of a new City
Hall is 35,900 gsf. which will accommodate both present and future needs. The
design provides for complements of staffing, conference rooms for each
department which could be converted to staff spaces and storage. Room for
additional space was also reviewed. This is a 2-story facility. Three functions
key to the public lobby are Parks and Recreation, Community Development,
Engineering, and the Council Chambers. Administration, Finance, and Human
Resources could be on the second floor. The site diagram shows an entry from
the corner of3rd and Spruce and an entry from the parking lot in back. The
diagram also shows a roundabout at the comer of 3rd and Spruce Street. There are
three options for locating departments. One shows Community Development and
Engineering on the first floor with the reception desk handling Parks and
Recreation visitors. The second option shows Community Development and
Parks and Recreation on the first floor, with Engineering on the second floor. A
third option is to place Community Development, Engineering and Parks and
Recreation on the first floor, however, this takes up some of the parking spaces.
The Council Chambers would be off the public lobby. It would provide seating
for 128 people with 7 seats at the Council table. It also provides two large
meeting rooms with windows facing the Council Chambers. The total project
cost is $7.6 million which includes engineering, proper soil conditions, and
construction. Construction would take approximately 21 months. The water table
is being monitored to determine if a basement is possible.
Council Minutes (Regular)
August 16, 2004
Page 4
Councilmember Fogarty asked how many parking spaces would be lost with the
third option. Mr. Cox replied it would be approximately 10 parking spaces. City
Administrator Urbia stated staff will continue working on the CIP and work these
options in and work out a scenario as to the impact on taxes. This will be done
for the three building projects - City Hall, Fire Station, and expansion to the
Maintenance Facility. Also street and utility projects will be in the CIP to be
discussed at a future budget workshop.
c) Change Order for Parking - Main Street Improvement Project - Phase I -
Engineering
City Administrator Urbia stated he has had discussions with Kemps Marigold and
Farmington Lanes. At the last meeting parking was recommended for both sides.
After the curbing was installed, Farmington Lanes and Kemps Marigold both had
concerns about the road width and turning room for trucks. A solution was
developed showing diagonal parking from the existing curb line to the east. This
would involve removing the insurmountable curb for 120.5 feet and install 24"
valley gutter to allow vehicles to drive over. A storm sewer grate would need to
be adjusted. There would be pavement installed behind the curb. Two estimates
were obtained from S&M Hentges and Barbarossa. Hentges had the lower quote
in the amount of$14,250. The City would pay for removing the curb and
replacement ofthe storm sewer grate. Farmington Lanes would pay for the
pavement behind the curb and be responsible for snow removal behind the curb in
the diagonal parking area. Farmington Lanes will need to locate a contractor to
remove the two trees. City Administrator Urbia spoke to Farmington Lanes and
Kemps Marigold and both agreed to having no parking on the west side ofthe
street.
Councilmember Cordes wanted to confirm Farmington Lanes would be willing to
remove the snow in the additional parking area. Staff replied that is the
understanding. Kemps Marigold was concerned that if the snow is not removed
along the curbing the cars would stick out further into the street and the trucks
would not be able to turn. They were told to contact City Administrator Urbia if
there were any problems. There will be 11 parking spaces.
Mr. Dick Pietsch, Farmington Lanes, stated it amazes him that we end up with a
narrower street than we had and it was not perceived by anyone. It will not work
the way it is right now. He is willing to go along with the angle parking and it
will leave the street 30 ft. wide with the longest vehicle sticking out 1 or 2 ft. past
where the curb is now. Parallel parking would not work. He would like to have
as many parking spaces as possible across the front.
Councilmember Soderberg had no concern about doing the angle parking, he did
have a concern with the City picking up a portion of it. In the past there have
been a number of other change orders brought to Council by private entities or
developers. In every case the person making the request paid the entire cost of the
change. For the City to do otherwise would be a departure from past practice and
Council Minutes (Regular)
August 16, 2004
Page 5
policy. Past requests have been Vermillion Grove requesting a turn lane,
Farmington Lutheran Church requested a turn lane, Bible Baptist Church
requested a turn lane and all had to pay the entire cost of the request. Past
practice has been that anyone requesting a change order would pay for that
change.
Councilmember Fogarty agreed it is a diversion from past practice. There is a
$3300 difference in the two estimates. To save the business owner $3300, the
City is picking up an extra $1300. The City's portion is bigger with S&M
Hengtes than with Barbarossa. It seems we should be going with the lowest cost
for the City if the Council decides to pick up these costs. City Engineer Mann
was unsure about the timing for the contractors. S&M Hentges would probably
do it later this fall during their work for the second phase. Barbarossa did the first
phase.
Councilmember Fitch stated he is also concerned about the cost to the City, but
feels the City missed something. He felt this could have been handled before or
during the process as it came forward and the City had ample opportunity to
correct the situation before we got to this point. Therefore, he did not see an
extreme problem with the City working in conjunction with Farmington Lanes to
solve the problem. He did not see any issue with the snow removal. Mr. Pietsch
stated the City has an ordinance that snow has to be removed within 12 hours and
he would remove the snow from their parking areas anyway. He stated ifhe did
not put in a request for this, doesn't Council think Marigold would? They are not
going to be able to back their trucks in with parking on both sides of the street.
Mr. Pietsch does not think he created the problem and neither did Marigold. He
stated maybe he should not be liable for the portion on his side. He did not create
the problem, and it is not going to work the way it is. Council can stick it to him,
but maybe he will retract his request and we will do with parallel parking and see
what you have with Marigold. Common sense says it will not work the way it is.
He does not know ifhe should be paying the whole bill, even his side. Mayor
Ristow stated how many industriaVcommercial areas have a 32 ft. road. Mr.
Pietsch stated there are four businesses within a block of each other with a
residential road.
Councilmember Fitch thanked Mr. Pietsch for working with the Mayor, City
Administrator and staffto get this resolved. He appreciated Mr. Pietsch's input
and cost sharing to get this done.
MOTION by Fitch, second by Cordes to approve the change order. Voting for:
Ristow, Cordes, Fitch. Voting against: Fogarty, Soderberg. MOTION
CARRIED.
d) Vermillion River Watershed Information Meeting - Engineering
A workshop called the Future of the Vermillion River and It's Watershed will be
hosted by the City, Empire Township and the Friends of the Mississippi River.
Council Minutes (Regular)
August 16, 2004
Page 6
The proposed date is August 30, 2004 from 7-9 p.m. at the Dakota County
Extension Office. This meets a requirement in the City's storm water prevention
plan for best management practices.
e) Distribute Draft 2005 Budget Document - Finance
The 2005 preliminary tax levy and budget shows a levy increase of $1.2 million
for a tax capacity rate of 44.5586%. At the workshop the $800,000 option was
discussed which would keep the tax capacity at 41.4039% the same as 2004. To
do that the levy increase would be $855,000. There is a $345,000 difference.
With the preliminary rate of 44.5586% on a home with a market value of
$250,000, it would mean a $79 increase for 2004 for the City portion. The budget
also relies on a certificate of indebtedness to fund capital outlay in the amount of
$575,000. A breakdown of major influences on the budget was discussed. To
reduce all personnel requests except the three Police Officers, IT Specialist and
Building Inspector would cut an additional $148,757 leaving $196,243 to reduce
to maintain the tax capacity rate. There is a concern that the City could be
missing the revenue mark by too much and the City accused of over taxing on
property tax. There is still the issue ofthe 1991 Annexation Fund, the HRA
Special Projects Fund and restoring the General Fund balance to 35%. The City
needs to be careful on the revenue side. The budget does address the negative
cash balances in the Ice Arena, Rambling River Center and the pool. Staff
recommends the Council adopt the levy at $1.2 million. This allows Council
flexibility to consider the options. It is preliminary and the levy can always go
down in December, but once it is set in the truth-in-taxation hearing it cannot go
back up. City Administrator Urbia proposed televising the budget workshops and
meetings or having a special show to present this information to inform residents
of the challenges the City is facing and the decisions that have to be made.
Councilmember Fogarty asked ifit would be just as hard to get a Building
Inspector % time as it would be to get a part-time IT Specialist. Staffwill
research and respond back to Council. Councilmember Fogarty would like to
pursue trying to find a part-time IT person or partnering with another City since
the IT Specialist with Lakeville will become a full-time position.
Councilmember Fitch asked ifthe salary levels include benefits or just wages.
Finance Director Roland replied it includes benefits. Regarding the IT Specialist,
Councilmember Fitch noted there are a lot of service groups that may service the
City on an on-call type basis plus hourly. He asked if the $1.2 million included
any money to go back into reserve. City Administrator Urbia replied no, there is
no money to go back into reserve. If the interest rates go up or the mark to market
works out, the reserve could go up. Councilmember Fitch felt that pushes the
budget to $5.2 or $5.3 million. The City would need somewhere around $600,000
to restore the reserve fund.
Council Minutes (Regular)
August 16, 2004
Page 7
1) MUSA Review Committee Recommendation - Community Development
The City gave property owners an opportunity to apply for MUSA if they were
within the City boundaries. There were 19 applications received. The City was
approached by a number of individuals who own property outside of the City and
they asked if they could apply for MUSA also. Staff informed them that
technically they cannot, as the City Council does not have the right to grant
MUSA ifthe property is not in the City. However, it did not make sense to ignore
the properties. So staff created a separate track for them and if they wanted to
submit a letter of interest they would be involved in the process. A number of
letters of interest were received from property owners in the townships indicating
they would like to develop sooner rather than later and indicated at some point
they would be pursuing annexation petitions. If their property was annexed, they
wanted to have MUSA waiting so they could begin developing. Therefore, there
is a combination of City and township properties involved in the process.
On the MUSA Allocation map developed by staff, any property with a letter on it
is currently within the City boundary. Any property with a number on it is
located in an adjacent township. The properties shown in yellow are the
properties recommended by the MUSA Review Committee to receive MUSA.
Properties H, Ql, and 8 (owned by Manley and Murphy) are along the 195th
Street alignment that would go through the SeedlGenstar property and connect
with Hwy 3. This is an important corridor for the City's transportation plan. A
similar situation exists with 9 (Rother) and D (Murphy), as those properties are
along the future 208th Street alignment. A portion ofB (Peterson) and C
(Adelmann) are zoned for commercial uses. Property A (Allen) is zoned for
residential growth. Property I (Tollefson), 10 (Garvey) and 7 (Empey) are also
being recommended for MUSA. The Garvey property is envisioned for
commercial uses and the Empey property is envisioned for residential.
The properties in red on the map are in a holding pattern. The committee would
like to work out a phasing plan, but there were too many uncertainties and a lot of
it relates to where the school district will build a high school. The Committee has
recessed until Council takes action on their recommendation and until the school
district indicates their proposal for a high school location.
Mayor Ristow asked out of the ten there is only one potential for commercial and
that is outside of the city? Community Development Director Carroll replied
property D (Murphy) is commercial or industrial, the northern portions ofB
(Peterson) and C (Adelmann) are commercial, and 10 (Garvey) is commercial.
Mayor Ristow thought there would be more commercial or industrial than
residential. More residential would add more to the schools. Staff replied the
area all along Hwy 50 already has MUSA which can accommodate a great deal of
commercial growth. The City does not need to add too much commercial because
we already have a lot.
Council Minutes (Regular)
August 16, 2004
Page 8
Councilmember Fitch added during the committee's discussion, they looked at
needing more commercial area, but we also need residential to help support
commercial development and create that growth and help it grow faster. The
committee also wants to look at what type of development so we do not become a
city oftownhouses or high density housing and not have any low density housing
especially in some of the environmentally sensitive areas. This has not been
thoroughly addressed but that is the committee's intention. Mayor Ristow stated
the map looks like 440 acres will come in all at once and be developed and that is
not the case. Staff agreed stating some developers have very preliminary concept
plans. Those with plats prepared to be processed late this year or next year, do
not plan to start construction until late 2005 or 2006. Most talk about a 3-4 year
build out. Staff wants to keep it at 500-600 permits each year. Councilmember
Fitch stated 195th Street and 20Sth Street transportation corridors were major
considerations.
Mayor Ristow clarified once the Met Council approves the 440 acres, the City
does not have to ask for an extension. Staff agreed stating the Met Council has
indicated the City can use the portion left from 2000-2005 and start using the
2005-2010 portion. As the sewer capacity has been increased, ifthe City wants
more MUS A, the Met Council has stated they would probably approve it, but staff
is focusing on what staff can handle.
Councilmember Cordes stated she understood part ofthe criteria was close
proximity to major transportation routes. She asked why consideration was given
to properties outside of current City boundaries when looking at the map there are
areas that would fit in with the smart growth. Staff replied the main reason is the
transportation issue. There are some transportation corridors that cannot be
addressed without looking at properties outside of the City. Councilmember
Cordes stated she was looking at the Garvey/Empey properties which are outside
of the City when there is a Devney parcel to the north and the Peterson and
Adelmann properties which would fill in. Staff replied some factors relate to the
pace property owners want to proceed. As far as the Peterson and Adelmann
properties, staff would like to see residential growth there sooner rather than later.
The problem is access. A portion of 220th Street would have to be paved or
extend Pilot Knob Road, neither ofthese will occur soon. As far as the
Garvey/Empey property the owner or developer say they are ready to go now.
Staff is making no assumption about the annexation issue. If the Council decides
not to approve the annexation petitions received for the Garvey and Empey
properties, then the committee would reconsider. At the time the MUSA Review
Committee made the recommendation, staffhad not received the annexation
petitions yet. The committee was saying if the property owners petition for
annexation and if Council grants annexation, then the committee believes giving
MUSA to those properties would be an appropriate thing to do. If Council
chooses not to annex them the committee will revisit it. Councilmember Fogarty
stated the Garvey property is commercial which was high on the priority list and it
appears the Garvey and Empey properties will have the same owner. He is
Council Minutes (Regular)
August 16, 2004
Page 9
planning a concept plan for large lot houses and it will tie in well together. There
are also some considerations for the Ash Street project. Pond 8 is going to be on
the corner of the Garvey property and it will make the entire Ash Street project
flow much easier if that property is in the City and being developed for
commercial when it is time to do the project in that area. Councilmember Cordes
understood, but the unfortunate thing is we are back to a portion of Castle Rock
township surrounded by City again. We have worked many years to take care of
one area and created another area. Councilmember Fogarty stated the Tollefson
property has to have MUSA as they were given MUSA at one time and it was
taken back. Councilmember Fitch stated there is consideration for the cost of the
land and the pond that would be advantageous to the City should it become part of
the City. Some of the costs the City is currently absorbing in the Ash Street
project would be offset by that development.
Staff stated even though these properties are being recommended for MUSA this
year, it does not mean the committee would not come back at a later time and
recommend MUSA for other properties this year. Properties F (Devney) and G
(Winkler) are good examples. Properties 5 (Peterson) and 11 (Empey) are being
considered for a high school site. There is not currently enough sewer capacity to
serve I (Tollefson), 7 (Empey), 10 (Garvey), a high school, F (Devney), G
(Winkler), 3 (Devney), and 4 (Winkler) at the same time. Once the school makes
a decision and sewer capacity is determined staff will know how much is left over
and closer consideration can be given to other properties.
Mayor Ristow stated the owners for the Garvey and Empey properties petitioned
for annexation and there was no solicitation from the City per the agreement. If
they petition, both sides agree it is up to the property owners, if it can be
developed. Staff confirmed the City is not recruiting people to petition for
annexation. Sometimes things have to be looked at from a regional perspective.
If someone asks for an annexation form, completes and submits it, staff cannot
say no we won't take it. Staffhas received the petitions and they are scheduled
for a hearing at the September 7 Council meeting.
Councilmember Soderberg asked if annexation petitions have been received for
properties 8 (Murphy) and 9 (Rother). Staffhas not received a petition for 9
(Rother), a petition has been received for 8 (Murphy). It might not have come in
on time for it to be considered on September 7, otherwise it will be at a later
meeting. Councilmember Soderberg stated none ofthose outside of the city were
solicited. They submitted petitions on their own initiative. Staff invited the
township representatives to one ofthe meetings. There were two representatives
from Castle Rock and the Empire Township engineer. They were informed the
fact that people are giving the City letters of interest does not mean the city asked
for them. The separate track was created because staff did not know what to do
with them. It did not make sense to exclude them from the process. Staffhas
tried to provide notices to people who came to earlier meetings and staffhas had
ongoing contact with both townships over a variety of other issues and have tried
Council Minutes (Regular)
August 16, 2004
Page 10
to keep them advised as to where this is going. Councilmember Soderberg stated
the actual resolution would be contingent on those properties annexing into the
City. City Attorney Jamnik stated it is noted in the resolution. Staff stated
Council is not giving MUSA to any properties that are not entitled to it tonight.
Mr. Don Peterson, 1850 1 70th Street, stated he is happy to see some rooftops to
the south so there will be a chance for some decent commercial along Hwy 50.
Councilmember Fogarty stated the MUSA Review Committee has discussed the
properties in Empire, and they have voiced no concerns, except for the Rother
property, but they understand and want the connection for 208th Street. This
would be for property east ofthe railroad tracks. Mayor Ristow commended
everyone on the committee and stated it was well planned. Councilmember
Soderberg agreed it was a good mix of uses.
Mayor Ristow then asked about the houses on the north side of 220th Street if
MUSA would be granted to them if the area in B (Peterson) and C (Adelmann) is
developed. Staff replied they have their own septic systems now. They would get
MUSA which means they would have the right to connect to City services. It is
likely a developer would want to acquire those homes. Staff asked if any houses
along there should be included in the MUSA map. Mayor Ristow did not want
them left out. City Attorney J amnik stated it may not matter if they are included
or excluded. The Met Council has an expedited review process for small
modifications to MUSA. They would determine these acreages to be within that
parameter and would allow additions to MUSA. It would have no great impact on
the systems plan.
MOTION by Fogarty, second by Soderberg to approve the addition of properties
to the Metropolitan Urban Service area. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
g) Council-Staff Communications - Council
Councilmember Fitch stated he believes there has been a violation of City policy,
if you look at the City Code, Council Orientation Manual, and Council policy. It
was his understanding that Councilmembers and/or staff and Councilmembers
have been talking about things outside of what would be determined under
Council policy as a service related item. This came about during the review
process ofthe City Administrator. Councilmember Fitch stated Council policy
talks about Council-staff communication protocol. It says all should maintain a
consistent open and mutually productive relationship. It is encouraged that all
Councilmembers communicate with the Administrator or appropriate department
director on all service related issues. He felt Council has overstepped their
bounds when going to staff and asking for their opinions and comments during
the City Administrator's review process. This muddies the waters when we have
the employees doing the evaluation of their boss. Council is the evaluator, City
staffis not the evaluator of the Administrator. He believes that was a violation of
policy in communications with staff. The Administrator has brought to his
Council Minutes (Regular)
August 16, 2004
Page 11
attention that a staff member had said they had gone to a Councilmember and the
Councilmember said no, I approached the staff. Somewhere we have a
miscommunication of what was going on. He felt Council needs to reaffirm that
we are going to follow the City Code under Chapter 7 with Council's relationship
with the Administrator, not only how we communicate with staff and the
Administrator but one of the important statements is that the City Administrator in
an appropriate manner within City Administrator powers will handle this without
external interference. Councilmember Fitch considered Council involvement
outside the normal protocol to be external interference. Coming back to the
review process where some ofthis has happened, some ofthe problems he sees is
Council weakens the City Administrator's position, who is doing the evaluating-
is it Councilor is it the staff? If Council is going to do that the only equitable
process through this would be to give staff the same evaluation form, they put
their name on it and send it to City Attorney Jamnikjust like Council.
Councilmember Fitch stated this has upset him more than a little. Reading from
the August 6, 2004 Council Workshop Minutes he said, "Councilmember
Soderberg stated there is a Council policy in place right now where the City
Administrator deals with staff. Ifthere are any performance issues it is up to the
City Administrator. If Councilmembers get into addressing staff on performance
issues, the City Administrator should step in and tell them to back off. It is not
Council's place. If Council has an issue with staff s performance, they will come
to the City Administrator and let him deal with it. If anyone in Council oversteps
that boundary, they would expect the City Administrator to knock it off in no
uncertain terms. We have a policy in place for that reason." Councilmember
Fitch felt Council has been violating it. As a result, going through the review
process, it has been terribly compromised and tainted. At a future Council
meeting he would like to see a Council reaffirmation of those parts of the City
Code, the City Council Orientation Manual, along with the City Council Policy 02
and City Council Policy 04 that Council is going to abide by and live within the
guidelines of our own policies and not go outside those boundaries.
Councilmember Soderberg stated Councilmember Fitch has beat around the bush
a little saying Councilmember Fitch was talking about him. He admitted that he
went to staff and asked them, he also went to business owners and talked to other
City Administrators and talked to a great number of other people. In every
circumstance he went back to City Administrator Urbia and discussed in private
with him some of the things he found out as well. Councilmember Soderberg
stated he tries to get all sides of information. The policies we have in place
clearly say staff cannot come to Council with personnel issues, and that the City
Administrator deals with staff. Council has to deal with the City Administrator.
Councilmember Soderberg stated he did not have any idea how he would get any
information ifhe did not ask for it on his performance. He is not here five days a
week, 8 hours a day, to see how he is performing. He is here for a couple hours a
couple times a week. He brought a request to Council to sit in on management
team meetings to observe him directly and was denied by Council to do that.
Mayor Ristow stated it is against policy. Councilmember Soderberg stated he did
Council Minutes (Regular)
August 16, 2004
Page 12
not see it anywhere in a policy and he does not see it anywhere in policy that he
has stepped over that line. In fact, he would ask Councilmember Fitch to clarify it
and show it to him, but Councilmember Fitch can't. It is Councilmember Fitch's
opinion that he did. Weare dealing with interpretations of the code. Prior to his
engaging in this activity Councilmember Soderberg asked City Attorney Jamnik
specifically if this was a violation of Council policy or any ordinance. City
Attorney Jamnik stated he could not find any policy that prohibited
Councilmember Soderberg from asking regarding the performance ofthe City
Administrator through City staff or anybody else. If Councilmember Soderberg
was asking about the performance of subordinates, he would have to go through
the City Administrator, but it is not clear that that confines Council when dealing
with the City Administrator position anymore than the City Attorney position.
Councilmember Soderberg stated that is exactly what City Attorney Jamnik told
him over the phone and at no time has he talked to staff or interfered with the
Administrator's duties as far as his conduct with staff and his evaluation of staff
or staff performance.
Councilmember Fitch stated so your evaluation of him is your evaluation of him.
Councilmember Soderberg stated his evaluation of the City Administrator is his
evaluation of him. He is not evaluating staff or interfering with the performance
of their duties. He is not asking them to do anything and perform any function.
Councilmember Fitch stated let's say one of the sergeants was unhappy with the
Police Chiefs performance and went to the City Administrator. Would that be
appropriate? Councilmember Soderberg stated why wouldn't it be?
Councilmember Fitch stated why would it be ifthey did not like the policy the
Police Chief has set. Councilmember Soderberg replied Council has left it to the
City Administrator to deal with personnel issues. Councilmember Fitch stated
there is another process in that loop. Councilmember Soderberg stated ifthere is
a process in place, sure. He is unfamiliar with personnel process in the City other
than he is not to ask staff to do specific functions nor am I supposed to interfere
with the City Administrator's discipline or promotions or interfere with staff and
he said he doesn't. Councilmember Soderberg asked Councilmember Fitch to
prove to him and the viewing public, since he has brought it to the court of public
opinion where he has done that. Councilmember Fitch stated it is not that he
wants to bring it to the court of public opinion, he has asked for Council review
their own policy. Councilmember Soderberg stated you have done it in the form
of an accusation of violating policy and ordinance. Councilmember Fitch stated
that was my feeling. Councilmember Soderberg asked where is the evidence that
he has violated policy and ordinance. Councilmember Fitch replied first of all
Councilmember Soderberg is taking this personally and he did not say it was him.
Councilmember Soderberg then asked who violated the policy. Councilmember
Fitch stated all he is saying is that from things people have said, there has been
inappropriate communication between Council and staff and there is a violation of
policy.
Council Minutes (Regular)
August 16, 2004
Page 13
Councilmember Fitch wanted to bring up that through doing some of this, the
process has been tainted and recommend Council re-evaluate the Administrator,
and if so, give staff the same evaluation forms we go through and comments and
allow them to make their comment. Councilmember Soderberg replied let's do
that to the business community too and neighbor cities, shall we? If you want to
bring it to the ridiculous. Councilmember Fitch stated it is not ridiculous we are
keeping it internally.
Mayor Ristow stated this happened about four or five years ago on an evaluation.
If Council does go to any staff people and get comments, any notes become
public information of the City Administrator. City Attorney Jamnik stated it
would be private personnel data on the City Administrator. Mayor Ristow stated
they do have to be revealed to the City Administrator or kept in a safe place. City
Attorney Jamnik replied that is correct. Mayor Ristow stated so ifthere are any
notes from staff Administrator Urbia has a right to see them. City Attorney
J amnik replied that is correct.
Councilmember Fogarty wanted to bring out, as she was doing her evaluation
something jumped out at her. The first thing that is on the evaluation is
organizational management. One item the Administrator is evaluated on is
whether or not complaints to Council are not common. This is directly speaking
to employees other than the City Administrator. If Councilmember Fitch believes
this is a violation of policy, the evaluation form directly asks, are there common
complaints from employees about the City Administrator. Councilmember Fitch
asked does it say specifically employees? Councilmember Fogarty read from the
evaluation form, "organizational management will be considered effective when a
majority of the conditions have been successfully fulfilled." Then there are five
items under it and letter d) says complaints to the Council are not common. It is
referring to staff. If a violation had occurred then Council needs to redo this page.
Councilmember Fitch felt they should. Councilmember Fogarty felt this would
encourage Council to go out and seek those opinions. Councilmember Fitch
stated he has never had any of his bosses go to people that report to him and ask
about my skills or my performance. He judges me on the performance of myself
as well as the people who work for me. Councilmember Cordes stated she has
never been asked to evaluate her boss. City Administrator Urbia stated there is a
360 degree review. One has been done recently for an employee who elected to
do that. Councilmember Fitch felt those comments should be brought back to
Council in all of their compilation to be fair. Councilmember Soderberg stated at
the FAA, every couple years line staff receives a survey how they perceive their
immediate supervisor, their supervisor's supervisor and so on right up to the
Administrator of the FAA. It is a written form. In this case, it was not anything
written, it was more of a casual conversation. It was casual conversation with
some staff members, business owners in the community, residents, a number of
people. He does not believe he violated any policy and prior to engaging in it he
checked with the City Attorney. Councilmember Fitch felt the process needs to
be changed as to how to go forward. He did not think part of the information
Council Minutes (Regular)
August 16, 2004
Page 14
could be available to part of the Council. Councilmember Soderberg stated
Councilmember Fitch is welcome to take his own initiative and talk to some
people as well. Councilmember Fitch stated he could through an evaluation form.
Let them evaluate the same form we have.
h) Southeast Area Trunk Utility Pond Project Update - Engineering
Bids were received for this project last Friday. As part ofthe Joint Powers
Agreement between the City and the Township, the Township was having a
meeting at the same time to review the bids and concur with the low bidder. Staff
expects to receive that information tomorrow. Staffis in the process of finalizing
negotiations with one of the property owners. Staff would like to schedule a
special meeting for August 23 to award the project. The low bid was submitted
by Barbarossa and Sons in the amount of$1,301,194.55. The bid also includes
additional sewer and water extensions that were not in the feasibility study in
order to serve the Tollefson property which is letter I on the MUSA map. Staff
has been working with the Town Board and property owners in Castle Rock and
all have been very cooperative. Staff appreciates the efforts by the Town Board
and the property owners to help staff facilitate this project. A special meeting
needs to be scheduled as staff needs the official reply from Castle Rock Township
and there is one property owner staff has not reached an agreement with for the
pond. Staff needs to have that in place before the project is awarded. Council
agreed to set a special meeting for August 23, 2004 at 7 p.m. Action will be taken
to approve any easement purchase agreement or deed acquisition for ponding
areas as well as the contract award.
11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a) Adopt Resolution - Vehicle Noise Laws Enforced Signs - Police
The City Engineer obtained a fact sheet from MnDOT regarding these signs.
Those guidelines allow for the installation ofthe signs on two-lane two-way roads
in Minnesota. That would have included the north and south entrances to Hwy 3
and the east entrance on Hwy 50. In previous contacts with Dakota County they
had not authorized any of these signs, but said they would follow the same
guidelines as the state. Today, staff learned there has been a change in philosophy
at the Dakota County Highway Department and they will allow the installation of
these signs on county right-of-way even on four-lane divided roads. Signs were
installed this week on 160th Street in Apple Valley. No resolution is required for
Dakota County, a simple request to the county was all that was needed. These
signs can now be installed at every entrance to the City if Council desires. Cost
of installation will be $100 including the purchase of the sign, post and
installation.
Councilmember Cordes asked if these signs could be installed on the same post as
the snow plowing policy and watering restrictions. Staff stated installation would
occur by Dakota County or state highway standards and did not know if they
could be co-located. Mayor Ristow stated most of the complaints are in the
residential areas such as on Hwy 50 east of Farmington and Hwy 3.
Council Minutes (Regular)
August 16, 2004
Page 15
Councilmember Fogarty asked how this would be enforced. Police Chief
Siebenaler stated it is very difficult. If Council passes this he would look at the
acquisition of a decibel meter. In other cities compliance has been voluntary,
there has been very little if any enforcement. Councilmember Soderberg asked if
it required a dedicated officer to sit out there and measure noise. Staff replied the
previous verbal information from MnDOT indicated the City would have to show
proof of enforcement. The fact sheet obtained does not mention providing proof.
So there is no requirement. Councilmember Soderberg had a problem with
passing an ordinance for show. He was not interested in putting up signs and
request voluntary compliance. Police Chief Siebenaler stated the sign is an
advisory sign. There are other advisory signs such as a recommended speed limit
on a cautionary sign.
Councilmember Cordes asked if a complaint is received with a license number
can it be enforced if they have that information. Police Chief Siebenaler stated it
is his understanding that the use of an engine brake is legal under certain
circumstances. Staff would have to show those circumstances did not exist. So to
take a complaint by phone and take action would not be a viable situation.
Councilmember Fogarty was concerned that without any enforcement behind it, it
will not make a difference. Someone will ask who put up these signs with no
intent of enforcing it. It is costly and time consuming. Councilmember Cordes
stated ifthey hear it during normal patrol duties they can enforce it. City
Attorney Jamnik stated it would give notice of the ordinance that is on the books
and would facilitate any prosecution.
MOTION by Fitch, second by Cordes to adopt RESOLUTION R65-04
instructing installation ofvehic1e noise laws enforced signs. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fogarty instructing installation
on all paved highways entering the City of Farmington, specifically Hwy 50 east
and west, Hwy 3 north and south, and Pilot Knob Road on the north end of the
City. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
12. NEW BUSINESS
13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE
Councilmember Fogarty: Wanted to remind everyone that August 20 is the Ramble
and Amble.
Counci/member Soderberg: Wanted to recognize donations received from Castle Rock
Bank and Aquila. He attended a roundtable discussion with Congressman John Kline on
transportation issues. There was also a lesson on how bills were authorized and passed.
Council Minutes (Regular)
August 16, 2004
Page 16
Councilmember Fitch: Council met with staff and New Century development and
wanted to acknowledge the fine job staff did in coming up with a solution to the problem
of getting the development moving along and in the right direction.
Ms. Michelle Leonard, Farmington Independent, asked for some clarification on the
outcome ofthe earlier discussion on Council-staff communication. There was a lot of
suggestion to discard the evaluations Council had completed for the Administrator's
review. She wanted to know if they intend to discuss it after the meeting is closed.
Councilmember Fitch felt that was part of Executive Session and was off the table for
discussion. She wanted to specifically know if Council was going to use the evaluations
completed. Council replied yes. Ms. Leonard then stated if Council is going to have this
discussion and if they decide to throw out the evaluations because there seems to be some
conflict she wondered if it was still legal to close the meeting. A meeting may be closed
to conduct the review, however it may not be closed to discuss how Council will do the
review. Councilmember Fogarty clarified that it was conceded to proceed but it will be
discussed at a later date whether this procedure will continue. Ms. Leonard stated if there
will be discussions about outside matters, she did not believe that should be done in a
closed session. If there are other discussions that should be public, that they are made
public. Mayor Ristow stated they would be. Ms. Leonard then asked if a summary will
be provided of the review at the next public meeting. City Attorney Jamnik stated it will
be added to the August 23 agenda.
Council recessed at 9:38 p.m. for Executive Session.
14. EXECUTIVE SESSION
a) City Administrator Performance Review
IS. ADJOURN
Respectfully submitted,
r~ >>~<<~
Cynthia Muller
Executive Assistant