Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04.19.10 Council Minutes 70- COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR April 19, 2010 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Larson at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Boy Scout Troop 118 led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Audience: Larson, Fogarty, May, Wilson Donnelly Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; Peter Herlofsky, City Administrator; Teresa Walters, Finance Director; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director; Kevin Schorzman, City Engineer; Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director; Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Beve Preece, Brandon Barth, Jim Merle, Jim Manthey, Spencer Merle, Myles Heetland, Marilyn Suter, Eric Speckan, Tim & Kelly Dougherty, Jim & Kelly Farm, Todd Iliff, Judy Nunn, Tom Jensen, Ian Menoch, John Finney 4. APPROVE AGENDA Councilmember May wanted to comment on item 7f) March 2010 Financial Report. MOTION by Wilson, second by Fogarty to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Minnesota Association of Senior Services Award Parks and Recreation Director Distad presented an award received by Missie Kohlbeck. She was presented with the 2010 Outstanding Senior Services Award from the Minnesota Association of Senior Services. She has dedicated herself for 15 years to providing programs and activities for the older adults in Farmington. b) Proclaim Arbor Day Mayor Larson proclaimed April 30, 2010, as Arbor Day. c) Proclaim Earth Day Mayor Larson proclaimed April 22, 2010 as Earth Day. 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS Mr. Eric Speckan, 708 5th Street, spoke regarding the construction on 5th and Walnut Streets. He was concerned about the trees eliminated on the boulevard. Council has received letters from residents in the area. The residents feel they were not properly 5 Council Minutes (Regular) April 19, 2010 Page 2 notifIed regarding the removal ofthe trees. The trees were marked at 7:00 a.m. on April 7, and by 8:30 a.m. all the trees were removed. The City did not do a good job of communicating which trees would be removed. Farmington is a Tree City USA and there are certain criteria for this designation. A City is supposed to have a Tree Board, a local tree ordinance, a spending per year and also promote Arbor Day. Most of this is in place, but questioned the Tree Board. There is one person in Natural Resources that is responsible and it sounds like there should be a committee. He wanted to know if there is a Tree Board. He found the City ordinance which states "grading and contouring shall take place in such a manner that the root zone and aeration stability of existing trees shall not be affected." It sounds like the City should do all they can to keep the trees. He received an e-mail from City Engineer Schorzman which stated it was reviewed with the Natural Resource Department. Mr. Speckan believed that person was not a Certified Arborist when the decision was made as the plans were made in January and the staff person started classes for certification in January. He questioned if that person understood the scope of it and could provide alternatives to the existing plan. He did not feel that happened. There is a boulevard tree policy that says, "If removal is required, notify property owners on the adjoining lot in advance of this action." This was not done. Mr. Speckan felt the City does not follow their own policy which is disappointing. He was told by the City Engineer it was not a goal of the project to save the trees. Mr. Speckan did not understand why what was not a goal if this is part of the tree ordinance. It seems cost was a big concern. It should have been a goal and he would like it to be in the future. He did not want to drive down 3rd Street, which still has trees, and see them stripped away. Mr. Speckan stated they lost 70 years of trees on 5th Street. He would like to see the City do a better job of tree planning and get someone that is more experienced or bring in a consultant that can think of ways to save the trees. We celebrate Arbor Day and the City ripped out 21 trees within two blocks. He was told by the City that none of the trees would be replaced. He felt the City needed to consider replacing all the trees on 5th Street. The City should replace the trees and modify their plans. The Natural Resource Division should sign off on the process. He spoke with the Natural Resource Specialist who said she reviewed it, but does not have the authority to sign off on it. Mr. Speckan wanted to make sure there is a committee that is more than one person and we have them as advocates for the trees in the City. The City needs to make trees a priority. The City needs to change the way they do projects if they want to be a Tree City USA. Right now, it is an empty promise and it was disappointing. He hoped the City can learn from this mistake, move forward, and not make the same mistake again. The residents should be part of the decision making process. He did not want to be told the morning of when the trees are coming down. The plan was made in January, why weren't the residents notified? They could have been part of the decision. His brother is an Arborist, who says there is known technology and methodology to save trees. Edina and Northfield do this. Why are we a Tree City USA when we don't know how to save a tree because we have to dig a trench that will damage the root mass. He did not consider that a good excuse. We need to get more knowledge in the City to figure out ways to save the trees. Mayor Larson has discussed with staff what we can do better in this process, especially with communication. He appreciated Mr. Speckan's comments and agreed with a lot of 6 Council Minutes (Regular) April 19, 2010 Page 3 what he said. Mr. Speckan asked if there would be any follow-up in changing the process. Mayor Larson stated they will look at that. Mr. Speckan stated the City needs to look at replacing the trees and put in decent 2 inch diameter trees and not sticks. This would be some good out of this mess. Mr. Tom Jensen, 701 5th Street, has lived in this town longer than the Council has been alive. He has never seen any destruction of the beauty of this City like what has happened. He asked if Council knew this would happen. Mayor Larson stated he knew trees would be removed, but did not know which ones or how many. Mr. Jensen asked why? That is your job. You should know this stuff. He put in storm sewer and water services for over 30 years in towns around here. We have never done this. This is pathetic. He was so disappointed in Council it was hard to even talk to them. As far as staff, who is running this place? You have devalued these homes. There is no more beauty on this street. The young people bought these homes for the beauty of the street, for the trees, and you have demolished them. They open their windows in the morning, it hits them right in the face. What do you think these trees are for? This is a Tree City. Evidently not here. We are supposed to be going green. We have gone green - it is all gone. There is nothing that can be done now, but if the City does not start communicating with the people, that is terrible. He did not understand why Council is sitting there and not communicating. Who is running this City? Bonestroo? Staff? or Council? Mr. Jensen was so disappointed in this Council he could cry. Council does not know what is going on in this City. They do not talk to the people. He was so upset he did not know what to say. Mr. Jensen stated this has put the City back 50 years and now you are telling us we are second class people because we do not live on a collector street. So we don't get trees. Why? He was told because the City cannot afford the upkeep. His suggestion was to cut all the trees down in the boulevard, fire the Forester and three or four other workers and then you will save money. Council spent $2 million last week. Do you know how long $2 million would last for trimming trees? It would take you the rest of your life to spend that kind of money. Council may be in a lot more trouble than they already are. Why did staff take those trees down? He was told because of the storm sewer. He asked how big the storm sewer is and was told 18 inches. Mayor Larson stated he was told 54 inches. Mr. Jensen replied not on 5th Street. City Engineer Schorzman stated that is correct. Mr. Jensen stated Council was told information for some other street. When you talk about this project, it is always about Walnut Street. He has lived here for 71 years, and there has been nothing about 5th Street. He has had people call him saying they didn't know work was being done on 5th Street. Mr. Jensen stated they are not told anything. There could be a class action suit against this City. You devalued my home and I will try to do something. Mayor Larson clarifIed Mr. Jensen was not notifIed. Mr. Jensen replied not that all the trees would come down. He asked if there was anything Council could start considering; to talk to people; to let residents know what is going on. Maybe we should change the name of the City to Bonestroo instead of Farmington. Seems like they are running it; sitting in the office marking trees. As far as he knew, Bonestroo has not been down here. Mr. Jensen asked if the temporary water line will have disinfectant put in it. City Engineer Schorzman stated they have been disinfected and tested and the results came 7 Council Minutes (Regular) April 19, 2010 Page 4 back clean. Mr. Jensen noted it is all used pipe. There are things you have to start thinking about. Ask people that know something. Councilmember Fogarty asked if the construction notice given to Council was sent to the residents. City Engineer Schorzman confirmed it was. Mr. Tim Dougherty, 704 5th Street, stated he and City Engineer Schorzman have been corresponding. Last fall there was a meeting regarding the construction. A neighbor was here and they were told some trees would be removed, but once they figured out which ones, the residents would know. He came to the next meeting regarding the assessment and nothing was said about the tree removal. In a letter from City Engineer Schorzman it states in January the fmal plan was constructed and he knew 21 trees needed to be removed from 5th Street. Mr. Dougherty asked if Council was informed. Staff replied yes, he remembered informing them of something, but wasn't sure. Councilmembers Fogarty, May, and Wilson replied to Mr. Dougherty's e-mail that they did not know. He asked Council if they knew about the tree removal in January. Mayor Larson stated he knew there would be tree removal, but did not know how many or which ones. Mr. Dougherty stated the point is in January the City Engineer knew there would be not a couple trees, but all the trees would be removed. He said he informed Counci~ but nothing was done. There was no indication, no notifIcation. It is frustrating and Mr. Dougherty wondered what is going on. Why wouldn't the City send out notification that all the trees would be removed? Mayor Larson noted the notice says, "Tree removal necessary for construction will begin on the entire project on April 7." Mr. Dougherty stated residents received that on April 2, 2010. In January staffknew every tree was going to be removed. Councilmember Wilson stated based on his experience with other projects, we know that if there will be tree removal as part of a project that there may be an initial inventory or assessment of what the situation looks like. It was his understanding that staff would go out to the site along with the project manager to walk through the site to determine which trees will need to be removed before making a cart blanche determination in the middle ofwinter. Mr. Dougherty stated in his correspondence with the City Engineer, that is exactly what happened. In January they had their preliminary tree remova~ where they mark them on a piece of paper, and then the fmal was in January as stated in his letter. This is April. Councilmember Fogarty stated in her e-mail she took responsibility. When Ash Street and Elm Street were done she asked about trees. In this project, she did not specifIcally ask about the type of destruction we could expect with the trees. She did know there would be tree removal and it is possible we were informed of the number of trees in the scope of the project, not understanding the majority could be on one particular portion of the project. She put the responsibility back on the Council. A lot of their focus in January and a lot of what staffwas hearing from Council was a big concern about cost and none of us focused on tree removal. She will not make that mistake again. It does not help the people on 5th Street and Council can do nothing to change that. We can discuss what to do about tree replacement and she was open to that idea. We need to 8 Council Minutes (Regular) April 19, 2010 Page 5 have several levels of conversation and we focused too much on the cost of the project and not about the other things involved in the project. Mr. Dougherty stated there is common sense out there and it usually prevails. In this circumstance when the City Engineer realized all those trees would be removed, Mr. Dougherty did not know why he did not have a big red flag for Council. That is common sense. You have to realize that ifl am going to come on your block and take every boulevard tree down you would want to know. The City Engineer chose not to tell you that, or Council didn't listen, but either way it is disappointing. Mr. Eric Speckan, 708 5th Street, asked if there was a plan to place the water line going down either boulevard. Will that risk putting trees on the boulevard after and if so, he would highly recommend not putting anything in the boulevard since we have the opportunity. If the water line blows, a tree would have to be tom down again. He realized the City would not want to pay for replacing a section of the road, but felt it was better to tear up a section of road, than tear down a tree. If there is anything that can be done to prevent more tearing up of trees and move the water line onto the street where most every other City has water and sewer lines is a thought. City Engineer Schorzman stated the water line is under the street. The only water lines in the boulevard will be going from the main to the homes. Mr. Speckan asked if that is why the trees were tom out because of the water line from the house to the street. Staff stated there are water and sewer lines from the house to the street. Mr. Speckan asked if they are in one line or spread out through the entire width of the house. The City Engineer stated in general they are fairly close together. Mr. Speckan stated he had two trees tom out in front of his house and did not think there were water lines going all over. It was another opportunity to save a tree. Mr. Tom Jensen, 701 5th Street, wanted to follow-up. He watched the last meeting and wanted to bring up what Councilmember May brought up. He understood with the assessment, residents will be assessed administration fees from Bonestroo and administration fees from the City. He asked why are we being charged administration fees from the City when this is their job. If they don't have a project going, do they go home so we do not have to pay them? Mayor Larson stated that will be discussed in an item later in the meeting. Mr. Jensen stated regarding the water line service going into the homes, it was stated that is one reason trees were removed. There is not one service under a tree that goes into any home. They put the gas line underneath the sidewalk for half the block. That is why they tore up the sidewalk. His gas line comes in from the alley. There was no need to tear them up. You can put in water and sewer service without tearing up sidewalks. He has done it. 7. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Fogarty, second by May to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: a) Approved Council Minutes (4/5/10 Regular) b) Received Information Quarterly Building Permit Report - Building Inspections 9 Council Minutes (Regular) April 19, 2010 Page 6 c) Adopted RESOLUTION R26-10 Accepting Donation Rambling River Center Improvement Project - Parks and Recreation d) Received Information Hydrant Flushing Schedule - Municipal Services Mayor Larson noted hydrant flushing will be done April 19-23 for hydrants north ofhwy 50 and west of the railroad tracks; and April 26-30 hydrants in the remaining areas will be flushed. Councilmember May noted there is a map on the website that tells you specifically what day your area will be done. e) Approved Joint Powers Agreement with Dakota County for Purchase of Aerial Photography - Administration g) Acknowledged Retirement Police - Human Resources h) Acknowledged Resignation Liquor Operations - Human Resources i) Approved Bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. t) March 2010 Financial Report - Finance Councilmember May thanked Finance Director Walters for the summary of the Financial Report. She would like this to continue. Councilmember May had questions on the gaps between the budget and where we are year to date. She noted the police fmes are over stated in the budget. She would like to take a serious look and consider revising the number. Councilmember May also commented on the liquor store revenues and expenditures. It is alarming. Typically we look at the liquor store operations as a revenue generator. In the frrst three months of2010, that fund balance has lost over $66,000. That is very concerning. Perhaps we need to consider we should not be in this business if we continue to lose money. Mayor Larson asked if that number was typical this time of year. City Administrator Herlofsky stated staff will provide a memo to Council explaining the situation. Administrative Services Director Shadick explained this time of year is the slowest time for the liquor store. Summer and over the holidays are the busier months. The liquor store purchases quantity deals to get the best price in order to be price sensitive and in order to have sales promotions. They buy up product and stock it and eventually sell it at a price that is good for the resident and profItable for the store. Mayor Larson stated we won't jump to any conclusions until the end of the year when we see the fInal numbers. Councilmember May noted they showed a loss in January and February, but were not alarming numbers. In March it is $47,000 which sounds like a little more than a stocking issue. We need to keep our eye on it. Councilmember Wilson asked about solid waste and why we have revenues for March so far outpacing expenditures. Finance Director Walters stated the commercial properties were billed at that point so then the revenues are higher. CounciImember Wilson stated in the summary memo, it has been his understanding that expenditures for solid waste would be consistent throughout the year. He was not sure about the variable of$20,000. He also asked if there 10 Council Minutes (Regular) April 19, 2010 Page 7 was a spike in Police activity in March which caused patrol expenditures to be up. Finance Director Walters stated a vehicle was purchased. Councilmember Fogarty noted regarding the Police fInes, this is the second year in a row we have been lagging behind. She was hoping it was because we have compliance with laws in the City. The Police Chiefhas done well with his budget overall and when fmes run short, he has made cuts in other places. She acknowledged the retirement of Office Ted Dau, who will be very missed in the schools. She suggested the Police Chief consider whether that position needs to be filled immediately, or at all. When the budget is a little off, and we have a retirement, perhaps delaying that hire could be helpful in adjusting that budget. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Approve On-Sale Liquor License Celts Pub - Administration Celts Pub has applied for an On-Sale Liquor License and a Sunday Liquor License. They will be located at 200 3rd Street. Mr. Brandon Barth, Owner of Celts Pub, stated they have restaurants in Rosemount, Hastings and Inver Grove Heights. They are very involved in the community. They will continue with breakfast, sandwiches, etc. and plan to open May 3,2010. The Eagle's will continue with the gambling portion. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Wilson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Fogarty, second by May to approve the On-Sale Liquor License and On-Sale Sunday Liquor License for Celts Pub at 200 3rd Street. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Adopt Ordinance - Amending the Floodplain Ordinance - Planning FEMA has revised their floodplain maps, therefore the ordinance needs to be updated. The new maps will become effective on June 18,2010. The zoning needs to be revised to meet FEMA regulations and the national flood insurance program. The DNR has given conditional approval to the ordinance. The Planning Commission approved this on April 13, 2010. Councilmember Fogarty was concerned with a portion of the ordinance stating no structure shall be repaired or maintained. Stafffelt it would not be a problem to paint a structure, as long as nothing is added to the structure. City Attorney Jamnik stated this language is to dovetail with new language regarding non- conformities. There is another section which allows repairs and alterations, but they have to be consistent with the code. It is more restrictive under FEMA and federal rules than the state statute for non-conformities. The state law fully allows repair and maintenance, but not expansion of non-conformities. There was an 11 Council Minutes (Regular) April 19, 2010 Page 8 exception to that in order to qualify for the flood insurance program under FEMA which allows FEMA to trump state statute in the area of non-conformities. These changes are consistent with the requirements for the flood insurance program. The federal government passed the changes, the DNR enforces it, and we have to comply with it. Councilmember Fogarty confirmed ifwe do not pass this, then we risk residents not being able to get flood insurance. Councilmember Wilson asked if there is an amended map. Staff replied they have them, but are not public until June 18,2010. Councilmember Wilson asked if there are any areas that would have an adverse impact as a result of the new boundaries. Assistant Planner Wippler stated there are potential areas that could be added to the floodplain and areas that have been removed from the floodplain. Council asked staff to send them the old and the new maps. Mayor Larson asked how accurate are the flyovers without actually measuring the elevation on the ground. He felt it is not as accurate as it needs to be and yet the language is so restrictive. He asked staff to fmd out which properties are affected by this and notify the residents whether they are now in or out of the floodplain. Councilmember May noted if they have a mortgage and are in a floodplain, they will have to get flood insurance which will be an added expense. If they are out of the floodplain, they can maybe drop their flood insurance. City Engineer Schorzman stated the biggest change occurred along the Vermillion River where the floodplain elevation dropped. The northern part of town appears identical to the 1970's map as their study area did not come down into Farmington, so they left that the same. Where there was more accurate information, they applied that to the maps, but there is not information everywhere. In those cases they left the information alone. Councilmember May asked if someone is now in the floodplain, do they have any recourse as to a further study oftheir area. Staff replied absolutely, and some residents in Dakota Estates have done that. It took a surveyor to show their property was not in the floodplain, they sent it to FEMA, and got the requirement to carry flood insurance lifted. The resident has to pay for the survey. Staffwill research any changes in properties, but the numbers should be small. Residents will be notified. MOTION by May, second by Wilson to adopt ORDINANCE 010-622 amending sections 10-2-1, 10-5-1 and 10-5-25 of the zoning code. Voting for: Larson, May, Wilson. Voting against: Fogarty. MOTION CARRIED. b) Adopt Resolution - Approving East Farmington 10th Addition Preliminary and Final Plat and PUD Amendment - Planning The property is located in the northeast comer of East Farmington. It is bounded by 213tli Street on the north, 12th Street, Oak Street to the south, and 14th Street with Elm Street going through the center. In 2007 a lawsuit was fIled against the East Farmington Homeowners Association on behalf ofthe East Farmington 4th Addition residents. The 4th Addition was allowed to secede from the Association, leaving the center parks within each of the four blocks within the ownership of the 12 Council Minutes (Regular) April 19, 2010 Page 9 Association, however, the residents who surround it no longer being in the Association, did not pay for maintenance. The Association is proposing to subdivide the outlots (the center parks) into additional outlots and sell them to the adjoining property owner. The Association would like to remove their liability of the existing outlots. As the surrounding property owners do not hold any ownership interest in the outlots, it needs to be determined what to do with them. Selling the outlots to the property owners is one option. Staffhas required that blanket drainage and utility easements be created over each of the newly created outlots because at this time, the Association does not want to incur any expense regarding drainage of the areas. Currently the drainage sheets across the outlots. Normally drainage from one lot to another is not allowed, but with a blanket easement that is allowed. The 4th Addition was allowed to secede from the Association because the Restrictive Covenants that were supposed to be recorded with the 4th Addition were not recorded. Therefore, they were allowed to get out of the Association. The outlots would be considered the 10th Addition and staffis looking at another Restrictive Covenant which deals with drainage easements and land use. They are outlots because they do not meet the minimum standards for lot sizes and access is minimal or non-existent. They are not buildable lots. In the proposed Covenants there would be no sheds, fire pits, anything that would impede the drainage that now exists. When the area was approved as a PUD, the pocket parks were for common open space. With this proposa~ the Association would like to sell them. If a resident bought an outlot, it would become part of their lot. There would need to be a PUD Amendment for that. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item on April13, 2010, and approved the preliminary and fmal plats and the PUD amendment. Approval of the plat and PUD Amendment is contingent upon the East Farmington Homeowner's Association filing and recording the Declaration of Covenants and Deed Restrictions for the East Farmington 10th Addition. Councilmember Fogarty confrrmed the parks were private parks. Staff stated there are trails that lead to the parks from the comers. These were not part of parkland dedication. Councilmember May asked why the outlots are not equally divided. The Association determined how they wanted to divide the lots. If the outlots are not sold, the Association will continue to own the property and perform minimal maintenance. Councilmember May asked what happens if one lot is sold and the others aren't. Staff stated at this point, the Association is trying anything to get rid of the liability. This is driven by the Association, not the residents. Mayor Larson stated the residents wanted out ofthe Association and that is what led to this situation. Councilmember Wilson asked how liability would be removed if the Association still owns the property. Staff explained the liability will be there until the outlots are sold. Councilmember Wilson asked if it would be more reasonable to bring this to Council once agreements have been reached with the homeowners to buy 13 Council Minutes (Regular) April 19, 2010 Page 10 the land. City Attorney Jamnik stated it is difficult to market was does not exist yet. They are creating the product to see if there is a market for it. Mr. Todd Iliff, Legal Counsel for the Homeowner's Association, stated this has been going on for quite some time. There was litigation that resulted in a settlement which resulted in the homeowners in the 4th Addition receiving a settlement. There was an error made in the original development. The appropriate covenants for the 4th Addition bringing the 4th Addition under the umbrella of the Association were not properly filed. The members in the 4th Addition were not part of the association, yet were paying for being a member. The outlots were part of the Association and are owned by the Association. There is not an ideal solution. The reason the outlots are divided as they are, is a best guess estimate of what might work for people to purchase them. The Association does not want to be the owner of the property, to have the responsibility of maintenance and liability. As long as the Association is the owner, they will be responsible. If the area is replatted, they can offer it to people and see if it will work. They are trying to keep expenses to a minimum for the Association; that is why grading will not be done. The pocket parks were never public; they were always privately owned by the Association. The original plan was to allow them to be used by the neighbors because the lots are smaller than a typical lot. This was destroyed by the original developer not properly filing the documents. The current situation was driven by the litigation. The homeowners were not subject to the Association covenants, they were not supposed to be paying Association dues and assessments because they were not subject to the covenants. Mr. John Finney, 208 13th Street, stated he was under the impression the homeowners had to take legal advice because the Association was coming to them to make them sign up, so they had to defend themselves. The Association is just one entity. They may have had a bad business decision, and now are scrambling to get out of it. If he had a bad business decision, does anyone bail him out? No. These parks are land locked. There is no way to get people in to change them. According to the rules they will still control them as far as fire pits because of the drainage. How can you get all 60 homeowners to agree? It appears the Association is trying to do everything they can to make this right, but how can that happen when there are 60 homeowners that cannot agree? If he was to buy a piece of land, and it became land locked and coveted, no one will bail him out. There was a house that was not maintained and nothing was done about it. The Association was not working. That is why the homeowners want out of it. They were being charged and nothing was being done. One neighbor found out their house was on the Sheriff s sale through a neighbor because they had fmes that did not get paid. He wouldn't want to lose his house because he left his garbage can sitting by the road. That is a reason so many of the homeowners cannot agree to be part of the Association. Ms. Marilyn Suter, 308 14th Street, stated the Association has had no communication with the homeowners regarding how this would be handled. She 14 Council Minutes (Regular) April 19, 2010 Page 11 came to the Planning Commission meeting last week and was the frrst time she saw the map. Her lot is 120 ft. wide and the division of outlots is broke in the middle of her property. Each outlot is 60 ft wide. How the lots were divided will cause problems. There was no communication with the property management group that has the Association. Ms. Judy Nunn, 308 13th Street, stated she is not sure if the people making the decisions have visited the properties. If decisions are going to be made, she hoped they had seen the properties. She moved to Farmington in September 2007, in the aftermath of what happened. She received a letter from the Zoning Committee advising that the outlot parks would be broken up into outlots to be sold to people connected to the property. If the Association was trying to save money and time, they should have come to the people bordering the outlots and asked if they were interested in purchasing the outlots. The homeowners received no notification from the Association. The area was not well kept, it is not graded appropriately, there is no drainage. In a few weeks it will be a dandelion factory, then the whole square will be full of water. When you are part of the Association, you are able to go into any Association outlot park and enjoy it. She does not see anyone in the outlot parks. It is a waste of land where kids could play, etc. As far as no one getting there, she has a trail that goes from the public sidewalk into the outlot park. There is also access from each ofthe four comers. A homeowner on one block was contacted by the Association because he wanted to purchase the entire area, so the other residents lose out on obtaining additional land if they wanted to. The homeowners did not bring the litigation on the Association, the Association brought the litigation to the homeowners. One person moved in, and within a week found out he was part of the litigation. Many people who were present at the Planning Commission were not here because they did not know Council would be voting on it so quickly and they could not get out of work to be here. Ifthe association sells the property to the homeowners, Ms. Nunn did not understand why they cannot have a fire pit or plant trees or a swing set in the area. Why buy the land if they cannot put anything on it? If she were to purchase the lot, how would she close it off if people need to have access to maintain the other properties? She asked if any Councilmembers live in the affected area, and if so if they would be voting due to a conflict of interest. Ms. Nunn stated when they purchased the property, they were told they are not part of the association and there are no dues and that there is a big lot to enjoy with their family. Then they are told the area is for the association only, so they had to stay in their yards. The value of their home has decreased. If the parks will be considered outlots, what kind of monetary compensation will the association give her for depreciating her view of a park to now be someone's backyard. When she spoke with the City Planner, she was told if no one buys the property the association would maintain it until it goes into tax forfeiture and then it would be turned over to the City. She asked what the City would do to maintain the area. There is access from all four comers where anyone can access the area. Ifthe homeowners wanted to buy the lots, how can the association say what they can and cannot do with the property? She would like to see the drainage fIxed as it was not fixed right the first time. 15 Council Minutes (Regular) April 19, 2010 Page 12 Mr. Jim Farm, 213 12th Street, stated he was one ofthe frrst houses in the area. At that time, there were two houses on the block and grading was being done. The sodder showed up to sod the park, but it had not been graded nor inspected. The manager stopped the sodding on his park. They did sod the other park that was not graded. He felt the City was liable for the drainage problem. Passing a pre- existing drainage condition on to someone else would be wrong. There was a comment about removing the access trails. In his park, there is a trail that goes all the way through the park. Staff stated the entire trail would be removed. Mr. Farm stated that is where the kids play the most. This area would become worthless property. Mr. John Finney, 208 13th Street, stated the association has been talking about the fmancial burden they are having. Mr. Finney stated some of the homeowners are willing to work with them. He and another homeowner take care of their park by mowing and fertilizing. The association has never asked them for a resolution to the problem. He noted the covenants stated weeds and lawns shall be controlled according to municipal ordinance. The association is not doing that now. The homeowners are doing it so they have a nice park. His concern is they may not always live there. After going through this for four years, he is considering moving. He did not have a solution, but he did know there is no communication. Several people have taken the initiative to inform other residents of these meetings. When the association paints this picture of a huge fmancial burden, they would let the grass reach 11 inches before they would mow it. It was mowed three times last summer. The residents have already assumed some of the fmancial burden by taking care of it themselves. Mr. Todd Iliff, Association Attorney, stated there is a misconception. The Association did not create this problem; the Association took control over the property subject to the Association as a result of the original developer. The Association inherited this problem and we are trying to fInd a decent solution. The homeowners want to control this land, they want their kids to play on it, they want it maintained properly; that is what the Association wants also. The Association has been maintaining the lots to the minimum City standards. The Association does not receive any income separately for doing that. It is taking money from homeowners that do not live anywhere near these outlots and using that money to pay insurance and to maintain it to a minimum standard~ We cannot have neighboring homeowners going on that property according to the insurance. The homeowners have indicated that 60 homeowners cannot agree. That is why we are here. We need to do something to break this cycle of rehashing the same problem over and over for four years. No one has come up with a better solution. The Association believes this is the best solution for a difficult problem. If owners are not interested in buying the outlots, the Association will be back to replat the area. He urged Council to approve this as it will result in progress and something happening. Currently homeowners cannot maintain it and children cannot play in the area because of the liability. 16 Council Minutes (Regular) April 19, 2010 Page 13 Councilmember May noted there are a lot of associations in the City and she does not want the City to get in between disputes in Associations. She felt she needed to side with whoever owns the land and pays the dues. She would like to see the homeowners become part of the Association or form their own Association, but it has to be unanimous. We have to let the landowners move forward with something. Councilmember Wilson asked staff to comment on the lack of improvements that could be made on the parcels and the grading on the outlots. Assistant Planner Wippler stated he would have to consult the Engineering Department to determine if inspections occurred. These are outlots and non-buildable. Because of the drainage and utility easement covering the entire area, we do not want to create a situation where there is adverse drainage. Mayor Larson clarified if lot 8 wanted to buy outlot B would it still be an outlot? City Attorney Jamnik stated it would still be an outlot, but it might be a lot split. Staff added a lot combination would then be necessary to combine the Pill numbers. Mayor Larson stated if that happens, can they construct a shed or a rock garden, or frre pit, etc. Staff stated no, it would still be an outlot. Councilmember May asked if all the outlots are sold, they would be the 10th Addition so can they then amend the resolution? City Attorney Jamnik stated if everyone on the individual block agreed, then yes, because drainage would affect all ofthe platted lots. Councilmember Fogarty noted none of the Councilmembers live in the Association or own property there. She understood both sides and while she will vote to approve this, she encouraged the Association to talk to the residents. She will be as flexible as possible if changes to the outlots are desired by the Association and the property owners. Mayor Larson stated ifwe approve this, then maybe things can move forward. Council also needed to respect the Planning Commission's decision. MOTION by Fogarty, second by May to adopt RESOLUTION R27-10 approving the preliminary and fmal plat for East Farmington 10th Addition and RESOLUTION R28-10 amending the East Farmington Schematic PUD. Voting for: Larson, Fogarty, May. Voting against: Wilson. MOTION CARRIED. c) Approve Agreement with Dakota County - Pilot Knot Trail Extension Project - Engineering This is a Joint Powers Agreement between the City and Dakota County for the Pilot Knob Trail Extension Project. This trail is along the west side of Pilot Knob Road between 203rd Street and CSAH 50. The cost split is 45/55. The estimated total cost of the project is $300,000 which would make the City's portion $135,000 and the county will pay the remainder. The City will fund the project through a $10,000 contribution from the park improvement fund with the remainder coming from the road and bridge fund. MOTION by Wilson, second by Fogarty to approve the Joint Powers Agreement with Dakota County for the Pilot Knob Trail Extension Project. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 17 Council Minutes (Regular) April 19, 2010 Page 14 d) 2009 Annual Report - Parks and Recreation Parks and Recreation Director Distad presented the Parks and Recreation Annual Report for 2009. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Set Final Bond Amount Walnut Street Reconstruction Project - Engineering This is to set the fmal bond amount for the Walnut Street reconstruction project. At the last meeting, Council set a not to exceed amount on the bonds of $2.51 million. This discussion is centering around a policy decision on how to move forward on projects of this type. One of the items that happened recently, was the City made the decision to move toward City staff inspecting the projects rather than using consultant inspections. This put an amount of time for City staff into the projects that did not exist there in the past. The question to Council is do we continue to bond for the entire estimated project cost as we have in the past, or do we remove that amount of City staff time from the bonding request. Out of nine other cities, all but one bonded for the entire amount of the project. The other City removes that amount from the bond amount and uses utility funds in a proportion of the construction cost of the project to repay staff time. City Engineer Schorzman felt it was important to look at the whole picture as making a policy decision could carry into the future without creating unforeseen circumstances. Either option is viable as long as there is revenue associated with them. Ifwe take money out of the bonding based on an estimate of staff time, that money has to come from somewhere. For example, if the total budget set for Engineering for the year was $100,000, the way the budget is set it does not include project time. Ifwe inspect the project with City staff and we spend $40,000 worth of time on the project, then we have used $60,000 ofthe original $100,000; so there is still $40,000. It is important to consider that the $40,000 is not just money, it is money associated with work. When you take that money away, you have taken the source of funding for that work as well. The only option is to increase revenues to those funds to make it up. We have to prioritize the work and the project is the top priority, so there are things we do not get done until later. It is important to make sure the funding exists so we can do them when we have time. City Administrator Herlofsky stated the City Engineer's salary is located in four places in the budget; 50% in the general fund, 16% is shared between water, sewer and storm water. We have used consultants less. This year we have had more building permits, so do we use City staff on the projects and use consultants for building permits in the office? Staff felt it was more benefIcial to use a Bonestroo employee three days a week rather than five to help out on the project and bring in the City employee to keep track of the permits. We are trying to determine how to use staff so they have the background for the future. Time spent on the project would be better funded through the bond for the project. We are making sure all projects are equally charged for costs. 18 Council Minutes (Regular) April 19, 2010 Page 15 Councilmember May stated labor does not have a future value. There is a budget and the money is allocated. She did not agree that if we do not have the bond funds, then we will be using money that was meant for something else. The permits are still relatively low. Ifwe have to make adjustments next year, then we have to do that. We did discuss hiring an Assistant Engineer. This is not the only bond and all that money adds up. The taxpayers are already paying for that money through the levy. Ifwe have that number in the bond, there is interest on the bond. She did not agree that it helps pay for the engineering costs, when staff is already on the payroll. It was discussed that we need to look at each individual project that we are bonding for and it has to be allocated to the different funds. Talk about guessing, staff is professional and very good at what they do; it is more than a guess. Staffhas an idea of how long projects will take. Councilmember May would like to watch on paper, the money flow for this project to help her understand how it works. We have funneled that money to engineering for this project, so when the taxpayer makes the payment, does the engineering department make a portion of the payment to pay back the bond, because the taxpayer has levied for the project. She was confused as to where the money goes. She felt the taxpayers are paying for the engineering on the project twice. Mayor Larson stated when the Engineering department does get reimbursed for the time spent on the job, where does the money go? Engineering bills that project a cost for $40,000 when we receive payment for the job, where does the money go? City Engineer Schorzman stated on a weekly basis on staffs timesheets we have a project number. Staff that works on that project charges their time to that project. When they are paid every two weeks, the money to make the payment to them comes out of where Council funds the project. It is not done at the end of the project, it is done as the expenses are incurred. City Administrator Herlofsky stated for City employees if it is charged to the bonds the general fund, water, sewer and storm water will not be charged. Councilmember May stated the bonds should be for the cost we have to pay outside help to complete the project; not to fund City staff salaries. Councilmember Fogarty noted staff mentioned time constraints. Ifwe don't bond for staff time and we have to utilize a great deal of overtime, can we still charge that excess time to the assessment roles ifwe have not charged that to the project. City Attorney Jamnik stated the assessment would be for paying for the cost of the project. If the project cost was paid for from multiple sources whether it be MSA, general fund, bond funds, sewer and water funds, as long as your assessment cost was project cost you could assess for it. You could not add in work from another project. Councilmember Wilson stated their goal was to remove consultant work. He would like to carve out the City stafItime on this project. Mayor Larson agreed, but ifwe take staff time out of the project, and in the middle of the project we have a problem somewhere else in town, do we use consulting engineers or pull 19 Council Minutes (Regular) April 19, 2010 Page 16 our City staff for that problem. City Engineer Schorzman stated it would not have a huge effect on this decision. Those situations are handled on a case by case basis. Mayor Larson would like to pull the $40,000 out of the bond. Councilmember May felt the cost should come from the departments that benefIt as the project will save that fund money down the road. She felt they were working towards having more experienced internal staff so this is a good project to gain that experience. If there is a shortfal~ we may need to make a budget adjustment. Councilmember Wilson stated on road projects we do have situations where there are policy changes that we make. When given the opportunity to explore a way to do things differently or more efficiently, it is worth looking at. Councilmember Fogarty felt it has the potential to create a hole somewhere else. This is only 1 % of the project budget. It is a change in policy. MOTION by Wilson, second by May to approve $2.510 million less $40,000 for staff engineering time for a final bond amount of $2.470 million. Voting for: Larson, May, Wilson. Voting against: Fogarty. MOTION CARRIED. 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Councilmember Wilson: He urged residents to watch for kids on bikes. Councilmember Fogarty: She and Councilmember Wilson will both be gone next Monday for the EDA meeting. Ifthere is nothing pressing on the agenda, she suggested waiting until next month. She asked staff to advise when the EDA Strategic Planning meeting can be rescheduled. Councilmember May: She would like to have an update on the properties that have been listed for sale. There was an item in the Weekly Update that townhome residents can now request any size garbage container. Finance Director Walters explained how this will work with billing. City Engineer Schorzman: Regarding the tree issue on 5th Street, he wanted residents to know staffwill do everything they can to improve communication. He has learned of options from other cities on communication and they will be implementing that. He noted the issues with communication on that project are his issues alone. Mayor Larson: Regarding the trees, we blew it as a City with communication. He did not know how many trees needed to be removed. Although we cannot put the trees back, we will do a better job of communicating. He apologized to 20 Council Minutes (Regular) April 19, 2010 Page 17 the residents on those streets. Staff did look at every tree and determined they did need to come down. There will be a wine tasting at the Legion sponsored by the Liquor Store tomorrow. He asked residents to support local businesses. 14. ADJOURN MOTION by Fogarty, second by Wilson to adjourn at 9:59 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~dL h-7~ C/. CynthIa Muller Executive Assistant 21