Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04.05.00 Work Session Minutes Farmington City Council Special Council Workshop Meeting Minutes City Hall Council Chambers VVednesday,J\priI5,2000 J\ special Council VVorkshop was convened on VVednesday, J\pril 5, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. in the Farmington City Hall Council Chambers. Present: Mayor Jerry Ristow, Council Members Cordes, Soderberg, Strachan and Verch. County Commissioner Joe Harris. J\bsent: None Also Present: Administrator Erar, Public Works Director Mann, City Attorney Jamnik, County Commissioner Richardso~ County Engineer Theisen, Assistant County J\ttorney Ring, Assistant County Engineer Vermillion. VVorkshop was called to order by Mayor Ristow at 7:00 p.m. Workshop agenda was adopted. Mayor Ristow opened the meeting by stating the purpose of the workshop was to discuss Dakota County's positions, City positions and issues relative to the turnback of Akin Road to the City. Issues brought to the City Council's attention by City staff to date suggest that Dakota County is unwilling to financially participate in the turnback of Akin Road. Key issues cited include differences in how a 1999 Agreement are being interpreted by the City and by Dakota County staff. Mayor Ristow asked administrator Erar to begin the meeting by providing background information on issues of contention between the City and County. Administrator Erar began by presenting issues that City and County staff had discussed. These issues were identified in a written handout attached to the VVorkshop Agenda. Upon review of the issues cited, County staff indicated that on a number of points presented by Administrator Erar that questions remained relative to City and County view points. J\dministrator Erar indicated that the points identified were City staffs recollection of issues discussed with County staff and that their recital was to assist the elected officials in summarizing the issues researched by the County and the City. Erar indicated that the Council has not formally accepted CSJ\H 31 Alignment given that a revocation agreement has not been negotiated with the County. County Engineer Theisen presented a chronological overview of County transportation policy development regarding financial participation in the acquisition of County right-of-way. Assistant County Engineer Vermillion presented historical information alleging that the County bas treated other cities in a similar fashion regarding revocation relative to no County financial participation in turnbacks. Points of issue continued to focus on the changes in the County's 1996 Transportation Policy which states a 55% contribution by the County. This point remained as a point of contention between the City and County. County legal staff indicated that the 1995 Agreement, while inconsistent relative to sections 2 and 5, nevertheless did not state that further financial participation on the part of the County was forthcoming regarding the revocation of Akin Road. Assistant County Attorney Ring indicated that "two words" were missing in Section 2 which would have clarified the intent of the agreement in 1995. In fact, County staff indicated the 1995 Agreement, was in itself, the revocation agreement for Akin Road. Disagreement on this point continued to be expressed by the City staff citing specific language requiring a separate revocation agreement. Commissioner Harris cited County financial participation on Akin Road in 1989 and his belief that the City had not contributed anything to the improvements made on Akin Road at that time. In addition, Commissioner Harris stated that if anything, the City of Farmington has been treated as well or better than other cities in Dakota County. Commissioner Harris indicated that he stood behind County staff in believing that no further County financial participation was due the City regarding Akin Ro~ but that the City was free to approach the County Board for additional assistance. Commissioner Harris further stated his regrets (apologies) for not contacting the Mayor directly on the County Board's recent action revoking Akin Road to the City. Mayor Ristow stated it was his belief that agreements presented in 1995 and his recollection of County staff at that time stating that Akin Road would be addressed once the new alignment was completed. Mayor Ristow further indicated that the 1995 agreement presented to him never indicated that the City would accept Akin Road in "as is" condition. If it had been identified, the Mayor indicated he never would have voted for it in its original form. Furthermore, it was pointed out that the contract never included language such as "as is" or some other language similarly inserted by the County to reflect that the City would be accepting Akin Road in its current condition and that the County would not be financially participating in its revocation. Councilmember Strachan expressed his views regarding Akin Road relative to what a reasonable person would understand after reading this agreement. Councilmember Soderberg also expressed his views that the 1995 Agreement language specifically required a separate revocation agreement. Councilmember Cordes indicated that her recollection from meetings with county officials is that the county would participate in the financing of improvements to Akin Ro~ but that the details were to be worked out after the realignment project was approved and nearing completion. Council as a whole indicated their appreciation of County participation in the workshop. City and County administrators commented that while these issues remained unresolved and difficult, that staff on both sides of the issue remained very cooperative and cordial in attempting to sort these issues out. It was decided by the Council that the Feasibility Study for Akin Road currently being prepared needed to be reviewed before further decisions could be made by the Council. Council was in agreement that options should be discussed at that time regarding the County's position on the revocation of Akin Road. No consensus was articulated by Council as to final determination on the issues discussed and/or presented by the County in defending its position of no financial participation in the revocation of Akin Road. Administrator Erar commented that based on the documentation reviewed alone, the City Council in 1995 would have believed that the County's intention at that time would have been to negotiate a separate revocation agreement on Akin Road upon completion of the new alignment. Furthermore, Erar added, that it was his belief that former staff would not have advanced the agreement as a final revocation agreement without knowing what the costs for improving Akin Road would have been upon City acceptance. In simple terms, the County would have been asking the City to accept a County road with unknown future cost and liability implications for City taxpayers. Meeting adjourned at 8:41 p.rn.