The URL can be used to link to this page

2005 - Agenda's & Minutes a- CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 3, 2005 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL Oath of Office—Rockvam, Reinhardt &Hughes 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—December 20, 2004 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS a) Service Recognition— Stone, Hoffman b) Bruce Kimmel, Springsted Re: Possible Decertification of Presby. Hms TIF— 12/20/04 c) Planning Commission Candidates 1. Michael Mason, 3950 Del Otero 2. Carrie Johnson, 3890 Sunset Drive 3. Sera Maloney, 4710 West Arm Road d) Appointments For 2005 1. Laker &Pioneer Re: Rates— 12/10/04 2. Lakeshore Weekly News Re: Rates— 12/7/04 3. LMCD Re: Appointment of 2005 Bd Members— 10/28/05 e) Fee Schedule For 2005 f) Henn. Co. Assessor Dept. Re: Bd of Appeal &Equalization Training— 12/17/04 g) Miscellaneous 6. ORDINANCES &RESOLUTIONS a) Resolution 05-01 —Naming Official Depositories b) Resolution 05-02—Establishing Order of Business c) Resolution 05-03 —Meetings &Appointments d) Resolution 05-04—Dates of Meeting, Holidays & Office Hours e) Resolution 05-05 —Public Utilities Rate Schedule 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES a) Mayor 1. Police Commission Minutes &Reports— 12/21/04 b) Council—Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer c) Engineer Council 1/3/05 1 yr� • 1. Schoell &Madson Re: Pay Request#5 Recommendation for Water Tower— ♦., 12/27/04 2. MCWD Rule Changes a) Schoell &Madson— 12/29/04 b) MCWD Public Hearing 1/13/05 Re: District Rule Revisions d) Utility Superintendent e) Administrator 1. Building & Sign Report—December 2. Board of Review Date—4/11/05 3. Miscellaneous 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS a) Setting Municipal Fees (MN Cities April 2004) b) Henn. Co. Human Services Dept. Re: Smoke Free Ordinance— 12/20/04 c) City Council &Planning Commission List 2005 d) Letter to Mike Lindahl (Tonka Grill) Re: 3.2 Beer On Sale License— 12/20/04 e) Newsletter Winter 2004/2005 11. MISCELLANEOUS DJOURNMENT Council 1/3/05 2 ..I CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 3, 2005 7:00 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Rockvam called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam were present. Staff present: Administrator Weeks, Utility Superintendent Goman, and Deputy Clerk Corl. Others present: Ken Adolf, City Engineer. Oath of Office—Rockvam, Reinhardt &Hughes Administrator Weeks gave the oath of office to Mayor Rockvam, and to Council Persons Reinhardt and Hughes. 3. ADOPT AGENDA • Motion by Williamson seconded by Widmer to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —December 20, 2004 Motion by Widmer seconded by Williamson to approve the minutes for the Council Meeting December 20, 2004. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. Mayor Rockvam introduced the Council and Staff to the viewing public. 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS a) Service Recognition—Stone &Hoffman Rockvam recognized Stone's years of service to the City on the Planning Commission and the Council. Hoffinan was absent and will be presented his award at the next Council Meeting. b) Bruce Kimmel, Springsted Re: Possible Decertification of Presby. Hms TIF— 12/20/04 Rockvam stated the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) was different when Presbyterian Homes was constructed. He pointed out the "pay as you go" option • was not available with Presbyterian Homes. He said one of the requirements was Council—1/3/05 1 a � to determine the area to be blighted. Rockvam added there were some bumps in •,� the road but the project proceeded and it has been good for the community. He said the City now wants to review closing that TIF district. Kimmel referred to his memo and his comparison of(2) TIF options, keep the TIF open or decertify the TIF. He said the City has a TIF bond payment coming up 2/l/05 that would remain the same. He stated option #1 points out if we keep the district open we would make the remaining bond payments but if we defease the remaining bonds, the bank institution (as a trustee) will continue to make payments and the City would be clear of bonds. Option #1 we can build on the current balance through 2007 or option #2 decertify the district and remit the surplus to the county to redistribute to the taxing entities. Kimmel said there is a stiff requirement as to how we can use the surplus funds in a TIF account and if the City chooses to decertify we will receive approximately 38% of the surplus. He pointed out option #2 shows what the City will receive until decertification or if we decertify and turn the entire value to the tax rolls. Rockvam verified it would be this year we get the first real estate tax payment if we defease. Kimmel said it would be in the June payment. Rockvam asked if it would be retroactive from whenever the decision was made instead of prorated. Kimmel said it would be for the entire year. Williamson clarified we would not be losing money as each week goes by without closing that TIF district. He asked Kimmel if he were on the Council what he would do in this situation. Kimmel • said he would recommend to decertify. Weeks asked if it was possible to use the remaining authority that exists and does it have to remain in the district it is in. Kimmel said we could use some of the funds in another district but most would have to remain in the district. Williamson explained the City has the potential for sewer upgrades because of Presbyterian Homes and asked if some of these monies could be used for that expense. Kimmel said he would have to look into that. Williamson referred to the 2nd option to decertify and asked if it was worth exploring or was it a minor element in our financial structure. Kimmel said the stronger choice is to decertify. Hughes asked the impact. Kimmel said we would not keep building on the surplus and that amount would be lowered because we would be sending less to the county. Rockvam referred back to the problem with Lift Station #6 clarified it is not the City's intent to assess Presbyterian Homes with the updating of Lift Station #6. Goman said charging them for cleaning out lines is an option. Williamson asked for some particulars that are creating a problem. Goman said towels and rubber gloves are passing through the lift station and once it gets to the pump if just collects debris until the pump quits. Williamson clarified this action will continue unless a maceration system installed. Rockvam asked the cost of a macerator. Adolf said one would be in the $10,000 to $20,000 range. Rockvam stated that • type of equipment should be part of the new construction of Lift Station #6. He Council— 1/3/05 2 x x added if those particular problems continue, and we can demonstrate they are • . coming from Presbyterian Homes we would have to tell them they would have to pay for it. Goman said Presbyterian Homes is not in favor of any upgrade on their property because of possible back up at their facility. Williamson pointed out the cost would be no greater and no less than the $40,000 difference in the choices and it makes good sense to decertify the TIF district. Hughes asked what other possibilities would enter into this. Kimmel said a plan to purchase land in the immediate area. Rockvam pointed out there are cash demands on the City right now that are on the unusual side and that created his interest in this TIF matter. He pointed out there was not City bond obligation with the TIF for Lakeview Lofts; The taxes the City will receive on that property will not be any different; Here we get approximately $456,000 immediately and an increase on the real estate taxes before the first property tax payment. Reinhardt said it makes sense to decertify if we are unable to use the money at will. Motion by Williamson seconded by Hoffman to approve the necessary action to decertify the TIF for Presbyterian Homes. Upon roll call Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam voted aye. Motion declared carried. The necessary resolution will be brought back to the Council. • c) Planning Commission Candidates 1. Michael Mason, 3950 Del Otero Mason stated he likes to follow the process and education that goes with being on the Planning Commission. Rockvam asked what Mason's feelings were on the amount of high-density residential units in Spring Park. Mason said the trend is going in that direction but there should be a certain percentage allocated in that regard and solely developed in the area where is would be exclusive. When asked what he thought of the City's beautification, Mason said we should have the best combination to draw people to the City and more could be done with the new projects coming on line. When asked what one thing would make the City a better place to live, Mason said a beach would be good. In answer to the question what one skill or attribute that he feels good about himself is he is able to communicate with people and knows the history of the City. His attitude about applying the ordinances to variance requests is he would listen to what the situation is and what future prospects it would bring to the City. 2. Carrie Johnson, 3890 Sunset Drive Johnson said she is interested in City government. She said it is easy to live somewhere and have an opinion but one should also have an intdrtst. When asked what she thought of the mix of high density development and • redevelopment she said we have to co exist geographically and the City has a Council— 1/3/05 3 lot to offer in the line of business and there is a lot of potential for the City • with the mixed uses. When asked what one thing that she can bring to the Planning Commission she responded the ability to listen to all sides and ability to reason well with an open mind but keep the objectives in mind. What she thought could make the City better was sidewalks cleared and cleaned and beautification maintained on a day-to-day basis. Her view on variances is to stay within the guidelines of the City and look at individual circumstance. It was noted she purchased a unit in one of the new condo projects. When asked if she could be objective if that project requested a change in their conditions, she said she could because she is not the developer, just a tenant. 3. Sera Maloney, 4710 West Arm Drive Maloney said her interest on the Planning Commission stemmed from her current position as a civil engineer. When asked what she thinks of how the City has evolved she said she likes a small family town, likes what has been done, and wants to make sure the residential area stays. She added it is hard to raise a family in a high-density area. When asked what she can contribute she responded it is her engineering background and working with small cities. When asked her view on variance requests she said you have to careful a precedent is not set and have to view each request individually. She said the trail developed and a small neighborhood park would better the City. • 4. Wendy Lewin, 3880 Sunset Drive Lewin said she now has the time to serve on the Planning Commission and has always been interested in City government. She stated the mixed use is a nice tax base but feels issues are coming with the redevelopment i.e. traffic. She added the City has done a great job so far and by keeping a goal in place it will work nicely. When asked what skill she would bring to the Planning Commission she stated she has a clear picture of issues at hand, does not make a passionate decision, would research the issue and requirements and the fore thought in planning is important. She responded to what the City could improve on is her concern for coming traffic on Shoreline Drive as the developments are in place for Spring Park and Mound. She stated the City offers residents a quiet secure safe community and clean up days are an outstanding service. In response to her viewpoint on variance requests she would have to be objective, have all the facts, and look at the impact of a decision. The one thing she thinks would make the City a better place is the need to get people to stop in the City and she is interested in the trail system. When asked what she thought of improvements for Sunset Drive she said the property owners should have a voice in the system and the dollars should be spent wisely. Rockvam said the Council would make a decision on the Planning Commission opening later in the meeting. Council— 1/3/05 4 d) Appointments For 2005 • 1. Laker &Pioneer Re: Rates— 12/10/04 2. Lakeshore Weekly New Re: Rates— 12/7/05 Motion by Williamson seconded by Widmer to approve the Laker as the City's official newspaper. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Reinhardt pointed out the Laker does home delivery. 3. LMCD Re: Appointment of 2005 Board Members Motion by Widmer seconded by Williamson to re-appoint Scanlon as the City's rep to the LMCD Board. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. In discussion Reinhardt verified the Council has been satisfied with Scanlon. Williamson pointed out Scanlon was instrumental and a key player in getting the LMCD Board meetings televised. e) Fee Schedule For 2005 Williamson confirmed the recommended increases are on page 3 and bolded. Weeks pointed out there was not a charge for a demo permit in the past. Hughes asked when the last increases were and how the increases were determined. • Weeks said it has been several years since an increase and it has become more time consuming for the City staff. Williamson said it should be noted there is some logic to adjusting the fees. Motion by Hughes seconded by Widmer to approve the Fee Schedule for 2005. Upon roll call Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam voted aye. Motion declared carried. f) Henn. Co. Assessor Dept. Re: Bd of Appeal &Equalization Training— 12/17/04 Rockvam verified someone on the Council has to do the training. Weeks requested interested Council Persons to let him know by January 18th. 6. ORDINANCES &RESOLUTIONS 1. Resolution 05-01 —Naming Official Depositories Motion by Williamson seconded by Widmer to approve Resolution 05-01, naming official depositories. Upon roll call Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam voted aye. Motion declared carried. 2. Resolution 05-02—Establishing Order of Business Reinhardt stated she thought the claims for payment should be relocated to the beginning of the meeting after the minutes or at the very end. • Council—1/3/05 5 5 � Motion by Reinhardt to relocate the "claims for payment" after the • "approval of the minutes". Motion died for lack of a second. Motion by Reinhardt to relocate the "claims for payment" to just before the "adjournment". Motion died for lack of a second. Williamson observed Reinhardt does make a good point and the Council can discuss this in the future. Motion by Williamson seconded by Widmer to approve Resolution 05-02, establishing the order of business. Upon roll call Hughes, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam voted aye and Reinhardt voted no. Motion declared carried. c) Resolution 05-03 —Meetings & Appointments Motion by Hughes seconded by Widmer to approve Resolution 05-03, meetings and appointments. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. d) Resolution 05-04 -Dates of Meetings, Holidays & Office Hours • Motion by Widmer seconded by Hughes to approve Resolution 05-04, dates of meetings,holidays and office hours. Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt (for discussion purposes) to change Council meetings to Tuesday. In discussion Williamson pointed out several meetings are changed to Tuesday and one more day would allow more time to review the packet. Hughes said he prefers Monday and asked if the packets could come out on Thursday. Rockvam pointed out some items are sometimes put on the agenda on Friday and it is inevitable items will appear on the Council table on meeting day. It was pointed out when that happens and more time is needed to review an item, it can be tabled. Upon roll call Hughes, Reinhardt, Widmer and Rockvam voted no and Williamson voted aye. Motion declared failed. The Council then voted on the first motion. Upon roll call Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam voted aye. Motion declared carried. • e) Resolution 05-05 —Public Utilities Rate Schedule Council— 1/3/05 6 t Reinhardt asked what the increases were over last year. Weeks said the SAC • charge is assigned an increase annually and the engineer calculates the equalization connection fee. It was noted the corrections on the top items did not get transferred from the fee schedule. Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to lay over Resolution 05-05 to the next meeting to allow the corrections to be made to the top items. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES a) Mayor 1. Police Commission Minutes &Reports— 12/21/04 Williamson asked if there was an update on the liquor application for Tonka Grill. Weeks referred to the letter in the packet regarding the public hearing on January 18th and added the applicant has scheduled the fingerprinting. Widmer asked if the police department plans to police the trails. Weeks said he forwarded a copy of the letter from HCRRA asking for our assistance in the matter. Williamson said the OPD would respond to a complaint, the HCRRA is keeping clear of liability, and the parks will be operating the trail system. Rockvam requested a lunch meeting be scheduled after the January 18th • Council Meeting with the accountant to: review the year end to see how the budget balances out for the year: see a proposal on fund balances; set up payment process on the water tower. He also requested the accountant do an analysis on the water and sewer accounts and make a recommendation. Rockvam said the Council could review the rates in March and make a decision. b) Council—Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer Reinhardt said she is looking forward to serving on the Council. c) Engineer 1. Schoell &Madson Re: Pay Request#5 Recommendation for Water Tower Rockvam asked when the water tower will be going up and was told the end of January. 2. MCWD Rule Changes—The following memos were noted. a) Schoell &Madson— 12/29/04 b) MCWD Public Hearing 1/13/05 Re: District Rule Revisions d) Utility Superintendent Rockvam asked when the completion of Spring Street would take place. Goman said it would remain a single lane for a couple of weeks longer and the north side will stay open for the southern side of the development. Rockvam expressed his • concern because Tonka Ventures was told it would be only a week and he has Council— 1/3/05 7 concern for the lack of communication with this. He verified the railroad lane • would stay open. Goman said there should not be a traffic problem. 5. d) Appointments At this time the Council completed the list of Appointments for 2005. Rockvam recommended the following: #11 Weed Inspector Alternate — Hughes; #14 Planning Commission Ex-Officio & Alternate — Hughes and Reinhardt; #15 Beautification Chairperson & Alternate - same people as #14; #20 change to Investment & Finance Committee — add Williamson, Groen; #21 Fire Commission- Add Hughes. Discussion noted: Rockvam pointed out the Planning Commission is the Park and Beautification Board; Williamson pointed out the Planning Commission is a recommending board and there is a distinction between being an advisory board; Change #20 to Investment & Finance Committee and give Personnel to the Administrative Committee; Weeks will give Hughes a copy of the Fire Budget. Motion by Hughes seconded by Widmer to approve the appointments for 2005 per the discussion. Upon roll call Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam voted aye. Motion declared carried. e) Administrator 1. Building & Sign Report -Noted • 2. Board of Review Date—4/11/05 Motion by Widmer seconded by Williamson to approve April 11, 2005 as the date for the Board of Review. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. 3. Miscellaneous -None 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT Motion by Williamson seconded by Widmer to approve the claims for payment for January 3, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -None 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Setting Municipal Fees (MN Cities April 2004) b) Henn. Co. Human Services Dept. Re: Smoke Free Ordinance— 12/2/04 c) City Council &Planning Commission List 2005 d) Letter to Mike Lindahl (Tonka Grill)Re: 3.2 Beer On-Sale License— 12/29/04 Weeks said he asked the police for a memo. The license matter was briefly • discussed. Council— 1/3/05 8 e) Newsletter Winter 2004/2005 • 11. MISCELLANEOUS Rockvam requested the vote for the Planning Commission vacancy be done by secret ballot. Three votes were for Mason, Maloney and Lewin each received one vote. Motion by Hughes seconded by Williamson to approve Michael Mason, 3950 Del Otero, to fill the Planning Commission vacancy. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Rockvam noted the other names would remain on file for consideration for other positions and/or another Planning Commission vacancy. Williamson noted this was a good list of candidates. 12. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Widmer to adjourn the meeting at 9:53 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK W LIAM D. WEEKS ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER • Council— 1/3/05 9 CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK,MINNESOTA AGENDA JANUARY 18, 2005 7:30 P.M. —CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —January 3, 2005 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS a) Service Recognition—Hoffman b) Public Hearing—3.2 Beer License for Tonka Grill &BBQ 1. Open Public Hearing 2. Discussion& Comments a) Application b) OPD Approval • 3. Close Public Hearing 4. Decision c) Miscellaneous 6. ORDINANCES &RESOLUTIONS a) Resolution 05-05 —Public Utilities Rate Schedule b) Gas Franchise Ordinance 1. Head, Seifert &Vander Weide Re: CenterPoint Energy Model Gas Franchise Ordinance c) Resolution 05-06 Dakota Rail Conversion 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES a) Mayor 1. Administrative Committee Minutes— 115105 b) Council—Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer c) Engineer 1. West Arm Road Timeline & Cost for Plan d) Utility Superintendent e) Administrator 1. February Calendar 2. Set Date for Joint Meeting 3. Phillip Johnson Arch. (Proposal 1110105) • 4. Misc.. Council agenda— 1/18/05 1 • 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS a) Appointments 2005 b) Mound Fire Dept. Activity Report 2004 Totals 11. MISCELLANEOUS 12. ADJOURNMENT • • Council agenda— 1/18/05 2 CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 18, 2005 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Rockvam called the meeting order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson and Rockvam were present and Widmer was excused. Staff present: Administrator Weeks, Utility Superintendent Goman; Ken Adolf, City Engineer. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Hughes to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —January 3, 2005 • It was noted on the motion on page 3, "Hughes" seconded the motion, not Hoffinan; on page 8, 5. d) Appointments — the names for Beautification Chairperson & Alternate should be reversed. These corrections will be made. Motion by Hughes seconded by Reinhardt to approve the minutes as corrected for the Council Meeting January 3, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Mayor Rockvam introduced the Council and Staff to the viewing public. 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS a) Service Recognition—Hoffman Rockvam recognized Hoffinan's service to the City on the Planning Commission and the Council. b) Public Hearing—3.2 Beer License for Tonka Grill &BBQ In discussion and observation, Reinhardt indicated she would be okay with voting on approval tonight. Rockvam said he knew Mike Lindahl and asked the Council their feelings. Williamson and Hughes would like the applicant to be present. 1. Open Public Hearing Rockvam opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. and the roll remained the same. Council— 1/18/05 1 Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to continue the public hearing to the next available date. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 2. Discussion & Comments a) Application b) OPD Approval 3. Close Public Hearing—Continued 4. Decision—Next Meeting c) Miscellaneous—none 6. ORDINANCES &RESOLUTIONS a) Resolution 05-05 —Public Utilities Rate Schedule It was noted this is a follow-up from the previous Council Meeting. Motion by Hughes seconded by Reinhardt to approve Resolution 05-05, public utilities rate schedule. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. b) Gas Franchise Ordinance 1. Head, Seifert &Vander Weide Re: CenterPoint Energy Model Gas Franchise Ordinance • In discussion it was noted this is a 20-year agreement and includes the option to impose a franchise fee at any time if the City desires. Motion by Widmer seconded by Reinhardt to approve the CenterPoint Energy Model Gas Franchise Ordinance. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. c) Resolution 05-06—Dakota Rail Conversion In discussion Rockvam said this was a resolution supported by neighboring cities to encourage Hennepin County to move forward quickly on the trail. Hughes indicated ties are not removed as stated in the resolution. Rockvam said the wording could be changed to indicate ties "will" be removed. Reinhardt asked what the City's roll will be when the trail development begins. Do we have the ordinance governing it? Are there permits that we will require? Rockvam indicated whoever builds the trail will work closely with the individual cities. He pointed out one important item the City has promoted is a future municipal parking lot at the present depot location. Reinhardt indicated it is appropriate since when spring comes it will start being used as a "trail". Williamson said the county has done a good job in the past to notify the public well in advance of any actual changes to the corridor. • Council—1/18/05 2 • Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to approve Resolution 05-06, Dakota Rail Conversion, with the correction regarding the removal of the ties. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES a) Mayor 1. Administrative Committee Minutes— 1/5/05 Reinhardt asked if we had heard how police would enforce smoking ban. Rockvam indicated they would respond on a complaint basis. Williamson indicated police would be in contact with county and all restaurants and bars on how to respond. Hughes asked about any movement on Gillespie budget. Rockvam gave the history and sent a letter with suggestions. He indicated senior centers are not usually stand alone facilities and most often built next to or in connection with a city hall. He reviewed suggestions in his letter. He noted they have a gap of $7,000/month. A joint powers agreement (not popular with Mound) would be a possible solution. Williamson said maybe a close review of their budget might be appropriate. Council noted upcoming meeting on 1/27/05 with Gary Groen is confirmed. Agenda will include fund discussion, water tower financing, 2004 year-end • review, and schedule for review of utility rates. The mayor gave his "state of the City" review indicating he is pleased to state the City is in great financial shape moving into 2005. We've settled the 2005 levy with a 3.45% increase. Council was able to reduce the 2005 budget from original proposed by $44,000 without reducing services. Currently ongoing are projects to improve Sunset Drive (with the public involved) and beautification emphasis on individual property so all can take pride in their community. 2005 goals. (Stormwater Plan has been completed and approved), Dakota Rail has been purchased; now we look forward to the trail. Rockvam asked staff about OSHA compliance. D.J. indicated Safe Assure keeps us compliant and conducts periodic inspections of all our facilities. This importance has been magnified since the recent accident in Mound that killed a workman. D.J. also indicated a City wide maintenance list is being maintained and is current. We've discussed an Economic Development Authority, and the progress being made now to clean up Spring Street, also our work with Hennepin County to clean up the depot site, recognize Staff for their continuous effort and extra work, the ongoing review of expenses versus the budget, sidewalks, curb and gutter on Sunset from the new projects up to Northern Avenue and also West Arm Drive, Beautification Fund and Committee has had success and should now try to embellish it even more. Continue to work with our neighboring cities on items of mutual concern, • complete the water tower in 2005, (All steel has been delivered), erection to Council—1/18/05 3 • start soon. Remodeling of Lift Station #6, finalize financial fund language, work with condo developers to complete their projects. b) Council—Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer Hughes had two notes one later on payment of bills, and asked the Mayor to also introduce other audience members who serve the City. Mayor agreed. He also indicated he is still fact finding on the fire contract and will report to Council. Rockvam indicated we should be aware that Mound would be looking for a multi- year contract. He asked when the fire formula was changed from assessed value to market value approach. Williamson thought it was a couple of years ago. Reinhardt asked about web-site update. Rockvam indicated with limited staff and staff time we may have to find volunteers to help. She also asked about Kings Road/Warren Avenue intersection. Reinhardt's concerns are it is an eyesore and could become a future beautification project. D.J. indicated it is mostly county property. Rockvam said we at least do keep it mowed and maybe we could plant some grass there. D.J. also said we could maybe add curb there. Williamson mentioned LMCD is now being filmed by LMCC at Wayzata City Hall. This will give them another tool to get their message out to the public. Former Council Person Scanlon was instrumental in bringing this about. The broadcast schedules are made by LMCC. Mediacom is also starting the process, • which will eventually bring phone service over the cable. They are also having problems with their underground cables in this winter weather. Report these problems with Mediacom to the LMCC. c) Engineer Ken Adolf passed out preliminary drawing of West Arm Road Central (Cl 1/18/5) showing existing conditions and possible options with 20-foot minimum width per fire code (no parking) or 26 feet with parking with parking one side. Proposed widening is to the south. D.J. indicated a fire hydrant in this area is leaking and has been turned off. Fire Department is aware of this and it will be repaired early spring. D.J. indicated additional hydrants could be installed with water main improvements. Ken indicated curb and gutter would be included to help direct water, and storm sewers also. Reinhardt asked about costs. Ken said he is looking for direction on what to price. Discussion on parking or not indicated we should estimate both ways. Ken will give us a cost for an estimate at next meeting. In discussion on Lift Station #6 improvements it was noted by D.J. that base elbows there are worn out. These will cost $30,000 to replace if they fail. To date, we have not authorized engineer to proceed beyond feasibility, which was previously presented. Ken said ideally we would have started this project already to complete in the 2005 season. Rockvam indicated this is the first time we have heard this problem. This may make this remodel more urgent. • Council—1/18/05 4 • Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to authorize engineer to proceed to develop specifications in consultation with Utility Superintendent to find the best long-term solution for this station. (Council is not authorizing further work, only specifications.) All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Sunset Drive will be discussed later. d) Utility Superintendent—No Report e) Administrator 1. February Calendar Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to cancel the second meeting in February. In discussion we decided to combine January and February Police Commission to February 1st if police can make it. Weeks to check. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to cancel the February Administrative Meeting. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • 2. Set Date for Joint Meeting The joint meeting will be set in March. 3. Phillip Johnson Arch. (Proposal 1110105) Phil Johnson proposal was discussed. He is proposing an overall look (master plan) at interior of City Hall. It could be done in approximately 6 weeks. Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to authorize the Administrator to contract with Phil Johnson for this work per his proposal. All votes were aye. Motion declared. Reinhardt wondered about proceeding with only one bid. 4. Miscellaneous Cornerstone letter just received. Hughes asked about tandem parking in the letter. Also increase in quantity of units. Weeks will forward to Alan Brixius and Tom Seifert for comment. Rockvam made a point about City agreeing to a project and the developer coming later with changes. 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT Hughes asked if claims could somehow be coded before they are put on agenda. Weeks indicated this would be very difficult because of so many codes. It is easier • and more meaningful to relate costs to the accounting reports generate monthly. Council—1/18/05 5 • Hughes asked about #22 paying for work in advance. As a policy, Rockvam suggested we not make payments in advance or work. Motion by Hughes seconded by Reinhardt to approve the claims for payment for January 18, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS—None 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATION The following communications were noted: a) Appointments—2005 b) Mound Fire Dept. Activity Report 2004 Totals 11. MISCELLANEOUS —None 12. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Hughes seconded by Reinhardt to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • ILLIAM D. WEEKS ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER • Council—1/18/05 6 • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 27, 2005 11:00 A.M. —CITY HALL Present: Mayor Rockvam, Council Persons Widmer, Williamson, and Reinhardt. Staff present: Administrator Weeks, Deputy Clerk Corl and Gary Groen, Accountant. Rockvam stated the purpose of the meeting is to decide which fund to draw the money out of to fund the water tower and to also review 2004 final figures for the general fund and the water and sewer funds to see how accurate the budget projections were. Weeks noted this budget review meeting would become an annual meeting. Groen reviewed the 2004 Budget to date. He said the summarizations of the different categories are not the final numbers but reflect as many of the payables and receivables as he had information for. He said the figures would change slightly when the final tax money is received from the county. Groen noted the Revenue Guideline YTD and explained the first column is the budget; the second column is the actual 2004 revenue; . the third column is the balance of those columns. He noted the City collected more than budgeted in the General Fund; however, the revenue for the water and sewer funds is slightly less than expected. Groen noted the Expenditure Guideline YTD page. He pointed out the second column is what was spent and that is less than expected (levy side). He said the expenditure side of the general fund is less than the revenue and the variances within the departments are related to money that had been put in the budget for future improvements. Groen pointed out the water fund is $630,171.32 and that includes approximately $456,000 paid toward the water tower; the sewer fund expenses are about the same as the revenues. Rockvam said the Council should look at a utility rate adjustment to put in place for the next quarter billing. Groen said that time frame is too tight. Rockvam said he would rather do a small adjustment now and change it later. He added we should make money in both(water and sewer) departments to have funds for maintenance, etc. Groen said the Council would have to decide what action to take. He stated part of the rate structure should include an amount that would put the money for the water tower back in the (water fund) coffers in ten years. Weeks said we should figure the amount we want back in to decide what rate structure should be. Rockvam pointed out that was one reason we started depreciation schedules. Groen said the general fund is ahead $39,000. Rockvam noted the City has lost LGA the • past couple of years and the last utility rate change was a reduction in 1997. Reinhardt Special Council Meeting—1/27/05 1 • asked what determines a rate change. Groen stated rates could be compared to other cities as part of a study when determining rates. Rockvam said the determining factor is what it costs the City to operate the system. Groen added the Council should explain to residents why rates would be increasing. He pointed out new users will be added with the completion of the new developments. Rockvam added each unit will be charged a base rate and this will be included in the Developer's Agreement's. Groen referred to the YTD cash balances and explained the first column is the balance in each fund as of l/1/04 and the far right column is the balance at the end of 2004; the second column is the YTD cash receipts; the third column is the YTD credits. Williamson pointed out the receivables are significant. Groen said all of the accruals in the revenues and expenses are as of yesterday morning and there should not be any other significant receivables. Noted: 201 (Special Investment Fund) will be the new public improvement revolving fund when/if approved by the Council; 202 and 301 is housing and the TIF District. These are the funds that are involved in the decertification. Groen also noted the amounts in the water and sewer funds. He stated $415,000, from 202 and 301 will be used to pay outstanding bonds on the TIF District, the principal being approximately $390,000 plus interest and expenses. Williamson asked if the escrowed money would still be earning interest. Groen said it would earn some interest and the rest of the money goes to the county for redistribution. Williamson asked Groen • if he had experience with the defeasing process and was told only from the accounting point of view. Williamson asked for a time frame the City would get their money and Weeks said no later then the first tax payment approximately July 1" Rockvam verified we would receive a lump sum. He said we could add $450,000 more in our general fund for operational reasons until we get the actual amount. Rockvam expressed concern the money would be deposited back in the TIF district. Groen pointed out the money in funds 202 and 301 will have paid off bonds and $500,000 would be cash back to use as unencumbered City money. He pointed out 601 (water fund) is reduced as a result of using this fund to pay for the water tower expenses ($456,000) as of this date. Groen added the check 1/5/05 to Maguire Iron in the amount of $158,000 is included in the expenses in this fund. He said the City paid about $350,000 of water tower improvements out of 601 as of December. He reiterated the City has to review utility rates to help recoup that expense from user rates to use for maintenance of the system. Groen pointed out 602 (sewer fund) has approximately a $23,000 increase for the year. Rockvam said it is nice to keep the funds separate to make them individually accountable and for when we set up a loan for Lift Station 6 and from the water fund for the water tower. Widmer verified we are going to subtract $250,000 from the fund and the balance would be the amount of the loan. Williamson stated the water fund would be receiving additional cash from the two developments in the form of equalization connection fees. • Rockvam reminded the Council Lakeview Lofts' building permit is divided into two parts Special Council Meeting— 1/27/05 2 • and receipt of the money may be delayed because of problems with contamination. The Council briefly discussed the TIF money and the Lakeview Lofts project and the projection of the pay back. Groen asked the timeline for the defeasance and was told the middle of February. Williamson asked if we have enough money to meet our normal operating expenses. Groen said the City should have approximately $400,000 for City business. Rockvam said the City would be relying on Groen's assistance in the process. Reinhardt stated the City would get backlash from the community for raising the rates when we have the money. Weeks pointed out if we borrow money for the water tower the situation would be the same as far as replacing the funds. Rockvam said some people do feel we do not have to replace funds. Williamson stated the key element is a reasonable time to replace the funds and Rockvam said ten years. Reinhardt asked if it was common for a city to have the funds for an inter-fund loan. Groen said Spring Park is fortunate to be in a position to do this. Reinhardt asked the requirements for changing the rates. Weeks said a resolution has to be passed by a full council and background information leading up to the resolution provided. Reinhardt stated she was concerned residents would not be informed of the meeting, etc. Williamson pointed out it could be brought up for formal discussion and the Council could lay over the vote at another Council meeting. The Council briefly discussed the lack of attendance at public hearings, etc. Rockvam requested Groen to give the Council necessary fund amount recommendations from an accounting standpoint. Groen said the money should be out of the general fund and put in the necessary future funds. Weeks stated the Council gave Springsted suggestions and those should be back by the beginning of March. Rockvam said their review should have been back to us by now to adopt by the middle of March. Groen said the effective date could be made retroactive to the end of 2004. Rockvam referred to the current balance of $800,659 in fund 601 and said we have already spent money in the fund and we are going to replenish the special investment fund. He stated by the middle of March, when we adopt the resolution, we could easily have $100,000 more in the fund. He asked if we have started the process on Lift Station #6 and if we have money coming for the force main on Sunset Drive from Cornerstone. Weeks said yes to both questions and Cornerstone is proposing adding condo units. He noted the City approved parking for their CUP for 106 units and the Planner said they could not make any change unless they come to the Council. He also noted we are waiting for a response from the country regarding egress and ingress to the Cornerstone project from Sunset Drive. In conclusion Rockvam stated Groen would put the plan together. Springsted will be • notified. The information on new fund language and amounts will be brought to the first Special Council Meeting— 1/27/05 3 • Council meeting in March and voted on at the second Council meeting in March. Weeks verified the rate increase would be affective the second quarter usage that is billed the first part of July. The Council discussed noting the rate increases in the Newsletter when appropriate and distributing the Newsletter city wide periodically. The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m. SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK WILLIAM D. WEEKS ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER • • Special Council Meeting— 1/2'7/05 4 CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 7, 2005 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL OATH OF OFFICE FOR HRA—Hughes &Reinhardt 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) Council Minutes—January 18, 2005 b) Special Meeting—January 27, 2005 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS a) Continuation of Public Hearing—Tonka Grill, 3.2 On-Sale Beer License 1. Discussion& Comments 2. Close Public Hearing 3. Decision b) League of MN Cities Insurance Trust Re: Stat. Tort Limits—02/07/05 c) Approval of Multiple Dock Applications c) Miscellaneous 6. ORDINANCES &RESOLUTIONS a) Resolution 05-07—Continuation of Funding WeCan b) Resolution 05-08—Municipal Recycling Grant Application c) Resolution 05-09—Continuation of Funding Sr. Programs d) Resolution 05-10—Approving Defeasance of the Bonds 1. Escrow Agreement e) Resolution 05-11 —HRA Approval of TIF District Decertification 1. Open Public Hearing—HRA Board 2. Discussion& Comments &Approve Resolution 05-11 3. Close Public Hearing f) Resolution 05-12—Council Approval of the TIF District Decertification 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS &COMMITTEES a) Mayor 1. Police Commission Minutes &Reports—2/l/05 • b) Council—Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer Council Agenda—2/7/05 1 c) Engineer • 1. Schoell &Madson Re: Est. for Preparing Est. for West Arm Central - 1/31/05 2. Schoell &Madson Re: Est. for Upgrade of West Arm Central— 8/2/04 (Previously Distributed) 3. Letter to Residents West Arm Road Central Pub. Portion (Written by Reinhardt) 4. Schoell &Madson Re: Approval for Soil Borings for Lift Station's #3 & #6 ($1,800 each)—2/3/05 d) Utility Superintendent e) Administrator 1. March Calendar 2. Channel 8 & Channel 20 Schedules 3. Building & Sign Report—January 2005 4. Miscellaneous 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS a) Concept Landscaping Re: Plowing/Sanding Procedure— 1/28/05 b) AMM News— 1/26/05 c) Letter to City Rest. &Bars Re: Henn. Co. Smoke Free Ord. &Memo from Orono • Police Dept. —2/3/05 d) Invite to Health Care Discussion at Gillespie Center 11. MISCELLANEOUS 12. ADJOURNMENT . s • Council Agenda—2/7/05 2 CITY OF SPRING PARK RECEIVEL SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA W 7 20 MINUTES HEAD,SEIFERT COUNCIL MEETING &VANDER WEIDE FEBRUARY 7, 2005 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Acting Mayor Widmer called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson and Widmer were present and Rockvam was excused. Staff present: Administrator Weeks, and Deputy Clerk Corl. OATH OF OFFICE FOR HRA—Hughes &Reinhardt Administrator Weeks gave the oath of office for the HRA Board to Hughes & Reinhardt. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Williamson to adopt the agenda. All votes • were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) Council Minutes—January 18, 2005 Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to approve the minutes for the Council Meeting on January 18, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. b) Special Meeting—January 27, 2005 Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to approve the minutes for the Special Meeting on January 27, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. Hughes noted corrections called in to the office and Williamson noted a correction on the last page ("affective" should be `effective"). Acting Mayor Widmer introduced the Council, Staff, and a Planning Commissioner to the viewing public. 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS . a) Continuation of Public Hearing—Tonka Grill, 3.2 On-Sale Beer License Council—2/7/05 1 1. Discussion & Comments Owners Mike & Kathy Lindahl were present. Williamson explained the Tonka Grill changed owners in the middle of last year and the new owners have been operating on the previous owner's On-Sale 3.2 Beer License. He said their background check with the police department deemed to be in order and the Council requested the owners present at the public hearing. Hughes inquired about the set-up application with the 3.2 beer application and was told the same application is used for both. K. Lindahl clarified they are applying for just 3.2 beer but hope to apply for a wine license in the future. Reinhardt asked how much of the business is for beer and M. Lindahl said only 5%. Hughes said he had no problem with the license for the beer but in an unrelated matter he asked how often the hoods are cleaned. Lindahl said he has them professionally cleaned every 4 months (3 times a year). Williamson noted the underground parking area, at times, is hazy. Lindahl supposed that was due to a temperature inversion and the direction of the wind also affects that condition. He added he smokes the meat 3 times a week but most of the smoke issue is from the broiler. He stated he has never heard from the condo residents or from owners of the building that there is a problem with smoke. Williamson noted the Police Commission was informed at a meeting-last August the ownership of the restaurant had changed and the City did not see any completed paper work by November. He asked why it took so long to get the application submitted. K. Lindahl said the previous owner sold the previous license to them and they did not know they could not buy the license from the previous owner. She said they started the process when they knew about it. Williamson stated the police were waiting for action from the Lindahl's. The Lindahl's pointed out the paperwork was extensive and they worked on it when they learned about it. Weeks said the letter from the City to the Lindahl's was dated September 16, 2004. Williamson pointed out this issue is important and may flag other problems in the future and it would do them well to respond immediately to correspondence from the City. He cautioned the police will do stings and we are not casual about this and go "by the book"with such issues. 2. Close Public Hearing Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to close the public hearing at 7:49 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 3. Decision Reinhardt said she supports their restaurant. Hughes said is sounds the process of cleaning the hoods is an improvement from the previous owners. Council—2/7/05 2 • Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to approve the license for On-Sale 3.2 Beer for the Tonka Grill. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. b) League of MN Cities Insurance Trust Re: Stat. Tort Limits—02/07/05 Weeks explained this is an annual declaration the Council makes not to waive our limits for liability. Hughes asked what the 2 million dollar figure was and was told that is our liability. Reinhardt asked if there was a reason why some cities choose to waive liability. Williamson explained large cities that have major central service facilities i.e. Mpls. choose not to limit liabilities. He said the state has limited liabilities for smaller cities because of the burden it could become. Motion by Hughes seconded by Williamson to approve not to waive the statutory tort liability limits on any insurance claim. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. c) Approval of Multiple Dock Applications Weeks pointed out this is an annual motion required of the City and the applications are all the same as last year. Reinhardt asked if the docks were subject to LMCD requirements. Weeks said the application goes through the LMCD. Reinhardt asked if there are ever changes and was told yes and drawings have to be provided and the changes have to be per the LMCD requirements and approval. • Motion by Williamson seconded b Reinhardt to approve all of the multiple Y pP hple dock applications with the understanding there is no change in any of the configurations and number. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. d) Miscellaneous -None 6. ORDINANCES &RESOLUTIONS a) Resolution 05-07—Continuation of Funding WeCan Williamson gave a brief background to the funding of WeCan. He said we share revenues with other communities and pool the federal dollars and a designated group decides who gets what amount. He added the City approves a blanket participation in the pool of the dollars. Weeks said the funds are federal HUD money and the amount keeps decreasing every year. He stated the committee uses cities resolution to help decide support of organizations. Reinhardt verified money does not come directly from the City. Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to approve resolution 05-07, continuation of funding WeCan. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. b) Resolution 05-08—Municipal Recycling Grant Application Council—2/7/05 3 Weeks stated this is funded by the state and in order for the grant to be given to the City certain criteria has to be met. Williamson noted the addition of three years versus the usual one-year. Reinhardt asked if the City could get more money from this program. Weeks briefly discussed the criteria and the recycling program for the apartments. Motion by Hughes seconded by Reinhardt to approve Resolution 05-08, municipal recycling grant application. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. c) Resolution 05-09—Continuation of Funding Sr. Programs It was noted this resolution parallels the WeCan resolution. Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to approve Resolution 05-09, continuation of funding senior programs. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. d) Resolution 05-10—Approving Defeasance of the Bonds 1. Escrow Agreement -Noted Widmer stated the Council voted to do this at a previous Council meeting. Weeks said they voted to defease the bonds and decertify the TIF District and the resolutions have to be voted on in that order.. He said this satisfies the bondholders and it is the vehicle to fund the escrow money for the • bondholders. He added Wells Fargo would be the agent used to pay the bonds; they bid the lowest fee amount of (3) bidders. Williamson asked if these securities were purchased and was told they are in limbo until we fund the escrow agreement on or about March lst Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to approve Resolution 05-10, approving defeasance of the bonds. Upon roll call Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer voted aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. e) Resolution 05-11 —HRA Approval of TIF District Decertification 1. Open Public Hearing—HRA Board Weeks explained this resolution is decertifying the TIF District and we will have to pay the excess money to Hennepin County for redistribution. He pointed out when this TIF District was opened in 1986 it was opened by the HRA Board and that is the same membership as the Council. Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to recess the Council and open the public hearing of the HRA Board at 8:10 p.m. and the roll remained the same. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 2. Discussion& Comments &Approve Resolution 05-11 Reinhardt verified this TIF District covers only Presbyterian Homes. • Council—2/7/05 4 • Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to approve Resolution 05- 11, terminating TIF District 1-1 by the HRA and directing decertification thereof by the county auditor. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 3. Close Public Hearing Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to close the public hearing at 8:12 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. fj Resolution 05-12—Council Approval of the TIF District Decertification Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to approve Resolution 05-12, terminating TIF District 1-1 by the City Council and directing decertification thereof by the county auditor. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Weeks noted the TIF District set up on Spring Street was made by the Council only, not the HRA. 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES \ a) Mayor Widmer noted training sessions for the Appeal Board of Equalization is going to be offering later in the year and the assessor will keep us abreast of this. If • someone on the Council is not certified, board of review meetings will be held at the county level. Williamson stated he preferred morning meetings. Hughes commented the seminar for newly elected officials was excellent. 1. Police Commission Minutes &Reports—2/1/05 -Noted b) Council—Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer Hughes stated the Planning Commission had earlier concerns regarding when a new business comes to the City. He said there should be an outline to follow. Widmer asked how would we have a way of knowing of a new business coming to the City. Hughes said we should have a new business required to check with the City for requirements i.e. signage, inspection, etc. He said there needs to be definition of what constitutes a temporary sign and a permanent sign. Weeks suggested the Planning Commission could discuss how to get something to the landlords encouraging them to notify the City of a new tenant. Williamson suggested guiding a new business as to what is needed and required without a lot of government regulations. Reinhardt said it would be nice if the Council would have an informal work session each year and discuss items that would come up in City business. Williamson and Hughes noted workshops should be on cable so residents can see • what the Council is doing before a formal decision is made on particular issues. Council—2/7/05 5 • Reinhardt said some issues need an informal atmosphere and no formal action taken. c) Engineer- Brian Vitek 1. Schoell & Madson Re: Est. for Preparing Est. for West Arm Central — 1/31/05 2. Schoell & Madson Re: Est. for Upgrade of West Arm Central — 8/2/04 — (Previously Distributed) Weeks pointed out the City asked our engineering firm to give us a cost for preparing an estimate for construction costs for the upgrading of West Arm Road Central and that cost is $600. Williamson clarified we received an estimate in August and had the topographical survey done and then set aside the project. Hughes asked what kind of detail would be included in the upgrade. Vitek stated curb and gutter, storm sewer, class 5 bituminous and some utility movements. Reinhardt said we should not spend any more money unless neighbors are invited in to hear what we are doing. She added we should get their feedback first. Hughes said they should be involved in more than one meeting but get their reaction on what we have done so far. Williamson said Mayor Rockvam made a good point when he said to invite the property owners in because they want to know what is going on. He added we should have better information and go one step further. Reinhardt said we do have things to tell them at this . point and they should be involved early in the process. Weeks said we could add another paragraph to the letter saying we do not yet have estimates on costs of alternatives. Widmer agreed and pointed out it was beneficial to know what potential plans were being looked at when the residents on Sunset Drive came in,but it would be better if costs were available for the same size road or a wider road. Reinhardt verified any upgrades to the road would not be assessed to the residents Williamson said some cities have total special assessments. He said the City is trying to resolve an issue presented by the fire department from a pubic safety standpoint and we could not ignore this and felt an obligation to see what we can do to make this area safer. Hughes asked how long it would take to do this if the project was approved. Vitek said he could have costs by the March 7th meeting. Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to approve the engineer's fee to prepare an estimate for construction costs for upgrades to the public portion of West Arm Road (Central). In discussion Hughes asked what the reasoning was for not including this cost when it was first discussed. Widmer said at that time we had the topographical survey done to give us an idea of what we have for property to • work with and issues that needed to be addressed. Council—2/7/05 6 • Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Williamson to approve the Claims for payment including the addendum for February 7, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -None 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Concept Landscaping Re: Plowing/Sanding Procedure— 1/28/05 Williamson noted it was a nice letter from Concept Landscaping. b) AMM News— 1/26/05 c) Letter to City Rest. &Bars Re: Henn. Co. Smoke Free Ord. &Memo from Orono Police Dept. —2/3/05 d) Invite to Health Care Discussion at Gillespie Center 11. MISCELLANEOUS -None 12. ADJOURMNENT Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 P.M. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK ILL �D. WEEKS ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER • Council—2/7/05 8 CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA RECEIVED AGENDA MM — 7 COUNCIL MEETING HEAD, SEiFERT MARCH 7, 2oos 7:30 P.M. —CITY HALL &VANDER WEIDE 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —February 7, 2005 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS a) Planning Commission Minutes—February 9, 2005 1. Recommendation for a Joint Meeting—Set Date b) Rick Gorra, Park Hill/Island Apartments Re: Sewer Credit for Pools—2/28/05 c) Approval Trash Haulers Licenses 2005 d) Cornerstone Request for Special Meeting—2/23/05 • 1. E-mail from Attorney to Cornerstone Re: Special Meeting—3/2/05 2. Cornerstone Attachment Re: Requests—2/25/05 e) Waive Waiting Period for Gambling Permit Re: Leukemia Society—2/15/05 f) Mound Fire Dept Re: Adoption of Int'l Fire Code 2000—2/24/05 g) Miscellaneous 6. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES a) Mayor b) Council—Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer c) Engineer 1. Schoell &Madson Re: Lift#6 Reconstruction Revision—3/05 2. Schoell &Madson Sunset Drive Upgrade Spring St. to Northern—3/4/05 d) Utility Superintendent e) Administrator 1) City Funds Policy 2) Building& Sign Report—February 3) Channel's 8 &20 Schedules 4) Workshop 3/7/05 5) Miscellaneous • 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT Council Meeting—3/7/05 1 • • 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS a) Planning Commission List b) Office of MN State Auditor Re: 2003 Audit—2/9/05 c) LMCD Executive Director Newsletter—2/23/05 d) Head, Seifert &Vander Weide Re: Council Voting Requirements (Redistributed)— 12/2/202 e) Letter from Michael Mason, 3950 Del Otero Re: Cornerstone—3/2/05 f) 2004 Recap Mound Fire for Spring Park g) Mediacom Re: Increased Rates—2/18/05 h) Seminar Information 11. MISCELLANEOUS 12. ADJOURNMENT • • Council Meeting—3/7/05 2 •w RECEIVED CITY OF SPRING PARK MAR 21 • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA 2005 MINUTES $ V HEAD WERT COUNCIL MEETING �� MARCH 7, 2005 7:30 P.M. —CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Rockvam called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson and Rockvam were present and Widmer was excused. Staff present: Administrator Weeks, Utility Superintendent Goman, and Deputy Clerk Corl. Others present: Engineers Ken Adolf and Brian Vitek and three Planning Commissioners. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Hughes to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —February 7, 2005 Motion by Hughes seconded by Reinhardt to approve the minutes for the Council Meeting February 7, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Mayor Rockvam introduced the Council and Staff to the viewing public. 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS a) Planning Commission Minutes—February 9, 2004 1. Recommendation for a Joint Meeting—Set Date Rockvam stated the request from the Planning Commission was to set a date for a joint meeting with the Council. He said it was a great idea but he pointed out the City will have a heavy work load for the next two and half months and would like to set up the joint meeting for August. Hughes requested the Planning Commission be invited to attend any special meeting regarding current projects. Reinhardt noted that August was so far away. Rockvam pointed out the City's current projects include the water tower construction, Lift Station #6, Board of Review, Lakeview Lofts, and The Mist Condos and these projects will be time consuming for everyone. Williamson agreed with Reinhardt that August was too long to wait. He said a joint meeting has been discussed since last November and we ought to make the effort to schedule a joint meeting. Hughes pointed out plans should be coming in for remodeling for City Hall and the Planning • Commission wanted to get in involved with that project. Council Minutes—3/7/05 1 • Rockvam expressed his concern with the added workload the current projects would be having on the Planner, Staff, and Council, etc. Reinhardt said a meeting could be scheduled for May or June and see at the time if it is possible. Rockvam said he would rather have it after July 4th. Williamson pointed out one of the issues is outside storage and that date may be too late to deal with it. Rockvam pointed out the City has been dealing with outside storage at Bayview Parking lot for over a year and that issue is already in the ordinance. He added whatever we decide will take some time before it could be made effective. Rockvam said to set a date and we could review it at the time. Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to direct the Staff to arrange a joint meeting by the end of May with the Planning Commission. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Williamson referred to the attendance problem in the Planning Commission Minutes. He said it is important for the Council to consider this when making appointments. He added a person's virtues are under utilized when they are not attending Planning Commission meetings. Williamson said a percentage of attendance should be met; staff could notify a member that is not attending to see if they are no longer interested or have a particular short term problem. Rockvam said we should ask the Planning Commission for a recommendation on that matter. Hughes said it would be well worth the Council's time to have the • Planning Commission make two or three recommendations the Council might consider. Rockvam said the Council could adopt a policy from their recommendations. Motion by Hughes seconded by Reinhardt to request the Planning Commission to make recommendations to the Council regarding appropriate attendance requirements for the Planning Commission. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Reinhardt stated attendance is vital and should be considered at when appointments are made. b) Rick Gorra, Park Hill/Island Apartments Re: Sewer Credit for Pools—2/28/05 Rockvam said the main concern is draining of their swimming pool. He said the property owner lets the water run on the grass. Rockvam said the Council discussed this and if the property owner chooses not to use a service the City provides, we are not going to issue a credit. Williamson said issuing a credit would create inconsistency. Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt that the Council affirm the current policy regarding issuing no sewer credits on water/sewer bills. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • Council Minutes—3/7/05 2 • c) Approval of Trash Haulers Licenses 2005 Motion by Hughes seconded by Williamson to approval the Trash Hauler's Licenses for 2005 per the submitted list. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. d) Cornerstone Request for Special Meeting—2/23/05 1. E-mail from Attorney to Cornerstone Re: Special Meeting—3/2/05 2. Cornerstone Request for Special Meeting—2/23/05 The following discussion included noting the above communications. Rockvam noted Cornerstone requested the Council to meet immediately following the Planning Commission meeting and the City Attorney answered that with a letter. Williamson said it is in the ordinance that the Council meet at the next scheduled meeting after a public hearing at the Planning Commission meeting. Reinhardt expressed her support hearing Cornerstone at the regular Council meeting on 3/21/05. Rockvam pointed out Cornerstone is looking for one or two workshops to discuss the issues involving their project. Rockvam said a meeting was held today with the planner, attorney, developer, engineer, and staff to discuss issues. Olson said he was satisfied with meeting with the Council on 3/21/05 but he would like to have one workshop before that date. He said the public hearing is for an . amendment to the CUP and final plat approval and separate from those are issues in the Developers Agreement of which he needs City approval by 3/31/05. Williamson stated workshops should be held when the Planning Commission could attend prior to a public hearing so they are informed. He said it takes them out of the picture if a workshop is set up after the public hearing. He pointed out that whatever they recommend would be resolved in the workshop session. Rockvam asked if the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on the final plat approval and was told they are not required to. He said the increased density and parking issues are the public hearing requests. Rockvam said other issues include the sale of approximately 6,000 square feet of Del Otero and the value of the land. Williamson said it has already been agreed upon that they pay for the land in additional to the improvements that have to be done for their proj ect. Hughes noted parking is an issue. Weeks said the City Attorney and City Planner would attend the public hearing to do the findings of fact and an interim meeting before 3/21/05 could be held to discuss other issues. Hughes said he agrees the Planning Commission should be involved in any workshops to obtain background information. Olson reaffirmed he wanted everyone to be informed of the issues and is asking the City's help in resolving the deadline request from Cornerstone's financial backers. • Council Minutes—3/7/05 3 Rockvam stated new information would be unfair to the Planning Commission • but maybe the Council could attend the public hearing and go over the questions at that time. He said there are parking concerns. He pointed out Cornerstone did not provide for a 20% credit for compact cars and they have space for commercial parking and for the 20% provision for compact cars plus they can use green space for parking. Rockvam added the request is for 120 units. He said some smaller units may be combined by new owners and then four spaces would not be needed, only two, etc. Aschinger asked to have the information clarified that would be discussed at a special meeting. Olson said he felt another meeting would keep everyone informed so those concerns could be addressed by the meeting March 21St. Rockvam asked what happens if we do not get it done by the end of March. Olson said the project would be at jeopardy and he is requesting the city's help to satisfy their institutional investor. Rockvam said issues can be addressed at the public hearing, the public hearing can be continued and then the Planning Commission could make a recommendation to the Council for March 21st. He said if a full Council attends the public hearing it would be helpful to have questions and concerns answered. Olson said it was an equitable solution to continue the public hearing if necessary. Hughes expressed dismay with the time lapse that nothing was brought to the City and now there is pressure for decisions. He said he was concerned with parking • if a sandwich shop or restaurant would be located in the commercial space. Olson said he would address that at the public hearing. Rockvam said Cornerstone might be restricted with use for the commercial space. Reinhardt asked if a notification had to be issued if the Council would be at the public hearing. Weeks said no because the Council decision would not be made until March 21st. Williamson said we have to be careful with deliberations and decisions with a quorum present. He recommended checking with the attorney to see if the Council could have a discussion. Aschinger asked if there are notification rules for continuation of a public hearing. Weeks clarified notification versus publication. Rockvam noted at previous public hearings everyone in attendance was notified of a continued hearing. Williamson noted the number of Planning Commissioners attending the Council meeting. Mason asked if a decision from the City did not happen by 3/31. He added it is hard to deal with pressure dates. Olson said the 3/31 deadline is not an artificial date; this project requires an institutional investor and he is asking for the City's help with the matter. Rockvam pointed out when Cornerstone learned of this requirement and deadline they worked with the Planner in December. Williamson stated the City held special meetings and workshops and facilitated a fast track on this project by December except approving the Developers Agreement and the City was told everything was moving forward and soon to be concluded in December and now it is March and there was plenty of time for Cornerstone to deal with this sooner and the current time constraint is Cornerstone's problem, not Council Minutes—3/7/05 4 the City's. Williamson said any continuation of a public hearing or a workshop • should be held in the evening and any Planning Commission recommendation should be considered on 3/21. Rockvam pointed out the sale price of the vacated portion of Del Otero is an issue. The improvements i.e. lift station, paving Del Otero, etc. Cornerstone is making on the property was briefly discussed. Rockvam said the Developer's Agreement and final plat would go before the Council; Cornerstone has a conceptual agreement from Hennepin County and Olson said this has been forwarded to the City's attorney e) Waive Waiting Period for Gambling Permit Re: Leukemia Society—2/15/05 Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to waive the waiting period and fee for the Leukemia Society for their annual special event. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. f) Mound Fire Dept. Re: Adoption of the Int'l Fire Code 2000—2/24/05 Rockvam said he would like to see a draft of the old one with the new wording inserted into it. Hughes said this was an appropriate agenda item for the Fire Commission meeting. Clarification will be obtained and brought back to the Council. g) Miscellaneous—None 6. ORDINANCES &RESOLUTIONS -None 7. REPORT OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES a) Mayor—No Report b) Council—Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer Reinhardt stated she is willing to work with the staff on updating the web site. Rockvam said he would like to see the minutes current. She also said she would like to see the Council's name and phone numbers in the Laker as several neighboring cities have listed their Council and phone numbers. c) Engineer 1. Schoell &Madson Re: Lift#6 Reconstruction Revision—3/05 Brian Vitek reviewed the revision on Lift Station #6. He said the tentative schedule is: receive authorization to advertise for bids April 5, 2005; advertise for bids April 7th and April 14th; bid opening May I Vh; Award bid May 16th. He gave a brief description of the items that included: relocating existing main to make room for the lift station construction; relocate storm sewer; convert existing wet well to a sanitary manhole with bar screen; construction of new wet well; construction of a generator house; relocation of existing MCES metering manhole and gate valve. Vitek pointed out the summary of costs is in the back of the report. Rockvam noted the cost is approximately$300,000. Council Minutes—3/7/05 5 r � t He also noted the generator house is a new item. Goman said it is approximately • 9' x 15' x 8' and would clear up some clutter at that location. He stated this lift station is the last one before sending it down the line. He added the house is for aesthetics and the noise would be less with the equipment located inside. Rockvam asked where the vent would be. Goman said it would be towards the channel. Hughes referred to the last sentence on page four of the report referring to the MN Dept. of Health issues and asked if the reconstruction will correct this issue. Vitek said it would. Hughes also referred to the unattractiveness of the structure. Goman said the illustration was a basic design and it could be improved with color,roof design, landscaping, doors, etc. Reinhardt asked why the grinder is not going to be used. It was explained the bar screen is more cost effective and a grinder would have an odor associated with it and the solids would need to be disposed with. The Council briefly discussed a bar screen versus a grinder and Presbyterian Homes and their part in the costs. Goman stated the pump is currently clogging approximately once a week. He said with the bar screen the frequency of this happening will be hopefully once a month or longer. Reinhardt asked if a grinder could be added later and was told this is possible. Goman said Presbyterian Homes is willing to cooperate in the costs and he has a letter stating this. • 2) Schoell & Madson Re: Sunset Drive Upgrades to Northern Avenue & West Arm Drive—3/4/05 Adolf stated the two development projects brought this to the forefront and the work is included in Lakeview Lofts Developer's Agreement for the west side of Sunset and in the Cornerstone's Agreement on the east side. It was clarified the improvements are up to the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority's (HCRRA)property, not to Northern Avenue or to West Arm Drive. Adolf stated that also proposed for Sunset Drive is the addition of left turn lanes from southbound Sunset into the Mist parking and northbound Sunset into Spring Street as requested by Hennepin County. He said the median would be a painted median versus a raised median with the addition of curb/gutter/sidewalk and overlay. Rockvam said he thought they would propose something that would be a little more substantial than painting to make it look more appealing. Adolf stated the county has had significant problems with cross walks,pavers, etc. and this is a compromise plan and it does incorporate stamped concrete behind the curb. Adolf said the City has to make the choice to commit to have the sidewalk go across the railroad crossing. He said he could talk with the HCRRA to see if the construction done on Sunset Drive would fit into the trail plan. Adolf said the cost is to take the sidewalk, curb and gutter across the HCRRA property to Northern Avenue and West Arm Drive. Hughes asked if emergency vehicles . would be able to make the turn to the condo buildings so they are not going over the curb with vehicles. Adolf said the trail would be 8 feet wide for maintenance Council Minutes—3/7/05 6 vehicles to travel on and a raised concrete median would not hinder an emergency • vehicle. Rockvam said a raised median could be a plowing nightmare. Reinhardt asked if the county opposed raised medians. Adolf said the county's initial thought would be to keep it simple and not to use raised medians. Rockvam said a raised median could be safer for pedestrians. Adolf said he is asking if the City is interested in extending the sidewalk, etc. to Northern Avenue and West Arm Drive with the cost of approximately $42,000. Williamson asked who would bear this cost and was told this would be a discussion with the county. Planters in a raised median were briefly discussed. Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Williamson to direct the staff and engineer to contact the county to extend the sidewalk, curb and gutter to West Arm Drive and Northern Avenue based on the plan submitted by the engineer. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Rockvam referred back to Lift Station#6 and said he thought the timetable would be more aggressive. Adolf stated he wanted to make sure the Council understood what is being proposed, etc. Rockvam said he would like to see it done this construction season. The Council agreed the schedule could be moved ahead a couple of weeks. • Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to authorize the engineer to advertise for bids for the reconstruction of Lift Station #6 per the plan presented. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. d) Utility Superintendent Goman reported weight restrictions went on March 15`. Rockvam requested West Arm Drive be posted for weight restrictions. He added a bill for the rock place on the west end of West Arm Drive has not been sent. He was told the City has not received one yet. e) Administrator 1. City Funds Policy Weeks said the accountant, Gary Groen, per the Council's meeting with him, recommended this. Rockvam said Springsted did the drafting. He referred to the first page and the term "public improvement revolving fund" and said he was looking for simplification of this. He also referred to pages 6 and 7 and "Priority Funds" and "Fiduciary Funds" respectively and would like to see an example listed. Weeks will follow up on this. 2. Building & Sign Report - February-Noted 3. Channel's 8 &20 Schedules—Noted Williamson said Mediacom is now taking customer service calls 24 hours a day. • 4. Workshop 3/7/05 5. Miscellaneous -None Council Minutes—3/7/05 7 f • 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT Motion by Hughes seconded by Rockvam to approve the claims for payment for March 7, 2005. In discussion Hughes questioned #5, banner repairs. Goman said this was not expected and almost half are taken down for repairs and Sign Age has no plans to replace them at this time or to improve the material until the present agreement has expired. He said the cost is for taking them down. The Council briefly discussed this and the fact there is no written contract from Sign Age. Hughes said this should be referred to the Planning Commission and they can make a recommendation to the Council. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS—None 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Planning Commission List b) Office of MN State Auditor Re: 2003 Audit—2/9/05 c) LMCD Executive Director Newsletter—2/23/05 d) Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: Council Voting Requirements (Redistributed) — 12/2/02 • e) Letter from Michael Mason, 3950 Del Otero Re: Cornerstone—3/2/05 f) 2004 Recap Mound Fire for Spring Park g) Mediacom Re: Increased Rates—2/18/05 h) Seminar Information 11. MISCELLANEOUS Hughes was looking for the monthly report on budget percentages. Weeks said January's was just compiled and when he receives it from the accountant he will mail it to the Council. 12. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to adjourn the Council Meeting at 9:25 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 1 1 SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK WILLIAM D. WEEKS • ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER Council Minutes—3/7/05 8 s � 1 RECEIVED CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MAR 2 1 M MINUTES HEAD, SEIFERT COUNCIL WORKSHOP A VANDER WEIDE MARCH 16, 2005 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Rockvam called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam were present. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Widmer seconded by Reinhardt to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Mayor Rockvam introduced the Council and Staff. He noted Planning Commission Chair Anderson, and Commissioners Klein, Mason and Mork Bredeson (who arrived later in the meeting) were present. Staff Present: Administrator Weeks and Deputy • Clerk Corl. Others present: Tom Seifert, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, City Planner, Ken Adolf, City Engineer; Representatives from Cornerstone Group, Cunningham Group, and others on behalf of Cornerstone. Rockvam stated the purpose of the meeting is to have the developer provide an update on the project since or as a result of the Planning Commission Public Hearing. 4. DISCUSSION a) Head, Seifert& Vander Weide 1. Findings of Fact—3/9/05 2. Conditions for Project From Previous Resolutions—3/8/05 3. Valuation of Del Otero Street Vacation—3/9/05 Seifert briefly explained the above: the findings of fact covered the discussion and the motions that occurred at the Planning Commission public hearing; the conditions for the project from previous resolutions explained everything on one list; the valuation of Del Otero was an informational spreadsheet. b) NAC 1. Changes to Cornerstone CUP— 1/25/05 2. Mist Condominiums—3/3/05 c) Schoell &Madson Re: The Mist—3/9/05 • d) Hennepin County Re: (The Mist) County Roads 15 & 51 Update—3/1//05 Council Workshop—3/16/05 1 A e) Planning Commission Minutes—3/9/05 • Colleen Carey, president of Cornerstone, said they are here to address some of the questions that have arisen regarding the proposed project and to discuss issues that may have come from the Planning Commission Meeting. Rockvam pointed out everyone present has the background history. Williamson asked if there were going to be any presentations by the Planner and Attorney and was told there are no specific presentations planned at this time. Noah Bly (architect) pointed out there are two issues at hand, increasing the number of units from 106 to 120 and losing some guest parking s aces. He said the proposal is the same footprint and the same envelope except the 5t floor of the north building now had smaller units added. He said the overall aesthetics of the exterior is the basically the same. Bly pointed out the City's zoning code does not address guest parking and they are asking assistance from the Council as to where the parking stalls can be replaced. He pointed out the first approval was for 19 guest parking spaces and now there are only 5 located inside. He added they currently have the requested retail 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet parking ratio and would like to have a shared parking arrangement between retail and guest parking. Bly stated if this is not acceptable the courtyard could be paved; a third idea was a blend of the other two proposals called proof of parking. He said the requirement is not required by the City's ordinance but they want to have it in their proposal. • Rockvam said if Option 2 were chosen, would all of that green space be gone along with the fountain. Bly said most of it would but some would remain a green area. Rockvam verified if that option were used, the project would still satisfy the ordinance regarding green space. Bly stated it is their belief they do not have a problem with parking and their proposed green space would have more impact on the area. Carey said they are quite amendable to make the project work for the City and they preferred to pursue the proof of parking option. Robin Keyworth, retail-leasing consultant, stated there is interest in the market place and they are focusing on a merchandise mix and an upscale food use. She said interested uses in the area could include: deli/sandwich shop, coffee shop, wine and spirits, salon, jeweler, dry cleaner (drop off facility only), and chiropractor. Williamson asked if they had anyone pursing this location specifically. Keyworth said they have approximately 11. Hughes asked if all on this list were included and Keyworth said all except a cleaners. Bly said there was an issue with traffic and the impact with the proposed additional units. Jim Benshoof was asked to review the traffic. Benshoof said his evaluation was based on available materials/studies. His chart addresses the traffic volumes, existing and after the project, and the basic effects on adjacent roadways. The table reviewed daily trip generation for the previous uses and the proposed uses for daily trips and peak morning and peak afternoon trips. Benshoof stated his findings were is similar to the planner's findings last October. His findings included the following: Council Workshop—3/16/05 2 parking spaces are allowed for the combined units. She added an incentive for this is • the buyer has the option to save money by agreeing to this. Widmer asked if any condos would be rented. Carey said it can be addressed in the by laws to have a restriction on number of units rented at one time. Seifert asked for a clarification of Cornerstone having to sell 120 units and now he is hearing about combining units. Carey said their investor did not want to take the market risk and required the average sales price per unit to be $560,000 to minimize their risk. They did not require a number of units. Rockvam pointed out they have a lending partner not familiar with the market in the lake area. Carey said they have a "rule of thumb" they use, we take the construction risk and they take the market risk. Rockvam pointed out they are investing pension funds and have to make a certain percentage. Klein asked if there is historical data available on the momentum of condo sales. Rockvam used Shoreline Place as a good example. Hughes referred to the red dots on the map in the sales office. He said the red dots meant condos that are spoken for. He asked how many were combined units. Carey said she does not have that information and the marketing thus far says they have interested buyers. She stated this would be more clear when they convert to purchase agreements. kockvam asked at what point is a buyer committed to the project. Wayne Olson, Cornerstone, said they have to put down 10% plus any customization costs. Rockvam verified the maximum down would be 20 to 25% with customization and 120 units would be the • worst-case scenario. Carey said their experience in other cases is that 3 to 6 buyers would buy two units. Hughes verified the red dots represent a name. Weeks asked how and when the parking spaces would be assigned. Carey said they have not decided; other projects some have been assigned in advanced and some of the highest priced units have had first choice. Weeks asked if a space for guest parking became available how would it be assigned. Carey said the parking spaces could be assigned when they close on a unit. Rockvam stated two parking spaces should automatically go to guest parking when there is a combination of units. Carey again stated they would like to offer three parking spaces for combined units. She stated they could have a financial incentive to give that up a space i.e. $10,000. Rockvam pointed out the City views guest parking spaces as valuable and it is a huge issue. Klein inquired about the size of the community room and number of people allowed. Carey said the number of people allowed in the room is dictated by the fire code. Williamson asked the square footage and was told it is 1,400 square feet. Carey said they would be happy to put something in writing regarding parking for combined units. Widmer asked how the handicapped parking would be handled. Carey said there would be some stalls in the underground garage, some stalls are wider next to elevators, and some stalls are taller for handicap vans. She said there would be an understanding if a handicapped parking space is given up, if it is needed, it could be • taken back and another space assigned. Council Workshop—3/16/05 4 • Williamson asked how many separate retail spaces they are likely to have and was told 6 to 10. He pointed out each space will use employee and customer parking. Brixius said 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet is a standard for retail for a multi-tenant center. Carey said the average retail space is 2,000 to 2,500 square feet and five to seven retail spaces may be what they would have. Williamson verified there would be a building maintenance area. He asked if staff would be on site on a daily basis. Carey said they would come and go as needed. Williamson verified they would be parking outside. Brixius stated 44 stalls are provided on the surface and the loading area can be used for maintenance parking if it not in use. Williamson inquired about the restricted retail hours. Carey stated they did not say the hours would be restricted, but said retail use would be less when evening guests are present. Williamson said a lot of walk in retail trade would take place in the evenings after work. Carey said if that occurred we would have to go to our proof of parking option. Williamson pointed out guest stays longer than a retail person. Carey said they are providing enough retail parking and thought it would be better to see if it worked first. Hughes said he has heard many conflicting stories on the retail space and use of parking. He said Bly stated no barbeque place would go in. Hughes said he asked in the sales office what kind of retail is going in and was told possibly a Panera (retail bread store that serves soup and sandwiches). He said Panera is a restaurant. He added he does not want to see retail that is not going to be open in the evening and would not be available for people that work. He added he • sees a conflict with retail parking needs and guest parking needs. Carey stated there is a difference of opinion because we do not know what is going in yet; a coffee shop is a morning business, not an evening business; everything that you hear is conjecture at this point; we think retail will be quieter at night and want retail to provide vitality for the area. Reinhardt asked if we have in our ordinance anything that would require a CUP for certain retail in that space and allow a particular space to be evaluated. Brixius stated that space is all C-1, General Commercial, and we do not review a change in a multi-use building. He pointed out the ordinance states any change in use of the building is an opportunity to evaluate that but it is not an easy mechanism to rely on. Brixius said he is hearing that if the Council has a concern for parking Cornerstone should provide parking. Seifert stated there are special requirements for a restaurant and the number of chairs indicates the parking spaces required. Rockvam said what dictates parking is the success of the business. Williamson said the Council is trying to anticipate as best they can what might happen so the issue does not have to be revisited at a later time. Rockvam said Cornerstone's retail leasing consultant gave us a good idea of what retail might go in the project; looking at what is successful in other cities is important and"niche"markets work out well. Bly explained why he said there would not be a barbeque or any restaurant. He • pointed out the deluxe units would be above that operation and the building is not Council Workshop—3/16/05 5 designed for such an operation and Cornerstone does not want a restaurant on the • first floor. Benshoof said they have not done any parking analysis based on the types of uses discussed but feels there is a high potential for sharing guest and retail parking as long as the City has control of the proof of parking. What comprises a restaurant was briefly discussed. Brixius said the code definition of a restaurant is food is served while seated at tables or booths and he added we have a parking requirement for that particular use. Mason asked if the ramp in the north building is going to be two levels and was told it will be two levels. He said there is never enough parking and more is always needed. Types of coffee shops were briefly discussed. Hughes pointed out all coffee shops have tables. Brixius said the primary element in this situation is to get coffee and go. Rockvam stated any commercial business going in would have to come to the City. Brixius said once the City approves this area we do not review the tenants and we make an assumption that current parking will cover the issue. Rockvam said the business will have to get a sign permit and building permit and the parking could be reviewed at that time. He stated he thinks the city has control as to what kind of business goes in the retail space by evaluating what it is and having the planner review it. Brixius said if the Council's choice is to approve this, they have stated that the businesses meet the parking demand. Carey stated they have a concern of going through a lengthy process for each business and pointed out the building permit process is also a review process. Rockvam said as long as there is an • issue with parking we need to review this. Klein stated several businesses apply for a sign permit after their business is open and/or after the sign is already up. Rockvam said sign permit approvals are solely the Planning Commissions responsibility. He added there is a policy set that with every sign permit application, parking and landscaping have to be addressed. Hughes asked Cornerstone's corporate policy regarding corporate signs. Keyworth said the architect provides signage criteria with strong controls regarding size and style and also the City code for signs would apply. Hughes asked the policy for signs for developments and was told each business has their own sign. Carey again stated the difficulty getting a business to sign a lease if the City would review individual tenants. She said this is a difficult way to run a business. Hughes asked what types of businesses require a specific license from the City. Weeks said the following as examples are: liquor, amusement, pawnshop, cigarettes, and beer. Hughes asked what the changes were on the north building referred to in the Planning Commission Minutes. Bly pointed out the outline is slightly different due to the increase of balconies for the additional smaller units. He said the overall look and aesthetics are slightly different. Rockvam verified the sales office is representing 120 units. Williamson asked the addresses of Cornerstone's projects in Richfield. He asked when they first knew • they needed 120 units. Carey said it was a few days after the City's approval of 106 Council Workshop—3/16/05 6 r units around 11/15/04. She said they spent a few weeks studying to see if they could • accommodate the change; they met with City staff in December. Carey said they did not mislead the City but incorrectly assumed it would not be this big of a concern. She stated it is a common practice in the business for a developer to market something without final approval. Williamson asked when Brixius was informed of the meeting with Cornerstone and was told in January. Weeks said he first heard about it 12/22/04. Carey admitted they did not handle the communication well on this; they informed the City of everything and had no intention of sneaking this through; they worked on this and were told they could not meet in February. Seifert pointed out a memo dated 1/17/05 stated what happened at the meeting 12/22/04. He stated the concern was Cornerstone needed an amendment to their CUP and told them they would have to have a public hearing for their proposed changes. Rockvam said he had concern with credibility the way things happened so he called the City Manager in Richfield and they had nothing but good things to say about Cornerstone. He said he also called the City of Hopkins and they reiterated what Richfield had said. Rockvam stated Cornerstone's project for Spring Park is big for the City and normally these projects work on a crisis basis and larger projects continually change from beginning to end. Williamson asked Cornerstone which of their projects are the same number of units and dollar value as The Mist`condos. Olson said Spring Park is the largest and this is an exceptional situation. Carey stated they appreciate the process they were allowed to go thru and this is really a great thing for the City in spite of the misstep in communication. She said the project • would have a high degree of integrity and value. Rockvam summarized the discussion centered on a parking issue and concentrated more on retail. He said the Council has to reach a consensus to feel comfortable in addressing this issue. He asked Brixius for a suggestion or recommendation. Brixius stated the discussion centered on tenant composition and having a desire to have this a vibrant atmosphere; the Planning Commission recommended a proof of parking option; another option is to build parking at this point and have the full component right away; Cornerstone has demonstrated they can meet the requirements; they have addressed other elements as far as traffic, utility, green space and county issues. He said it is a matter of the City being comfortable with 120 units and there are options to address the parking issues and it is essential to decide on parking options. Reinhardt asked how much discretion the Council has on parking requirements. Brixius said they have to make a determination if this density fits within this area because parking cannot be provided on the streets. He said this site has to be self- contained and the Council has that authority to make that determination. Hughes said he has a big concern the density is too much and the tenants are going to have a lot of guests in the summer. Bly stated this is a big development and has a lot of land for green space and • compared to surrounding condos and units per acre, in terms of density, Lakeview Council Workshop—3/16/05 7 r Lofts has 2%2 times more density than Cornerstone's project. Brixius said guest • parking communities are different and lie did not look at the lake activites but the Planning Commission recommended proof of parking. He said he realizes the Council is not comfortable without tenant composition; development is addressing those parking needs; boater parking is going to happen and this development should not have to provide for that; their composition will be smaller households; they have tried to accommodate this; 14 additional units is significant. He pointed out approval of 106 units in November was an opportunity for an attractive upgrade for the City. Hughes pointed out they gained units by our request to take a level off the south building and put another level on the north building. It was pointed out Brixius recommended, in an earlier memo, not to approve this increase. Brixius stated what he has heard since then has given him reason to re-evaluate; tandem parking has since been eliminated and the applicant has now given options to accommodate guest parking. He said Council, not staff must make the final decision. Rockvam said it is simple to solve the misuses with parking by just calling the police and having cars towed and once a record has been established that will take care of that matter. He pointed out the apartments in the City have 1%z parking spaces per unit and they are able to accommodate guest parking; West Arm Town Homes had a guest parking concern when they were built; their street is narrow and is a private street and there is not much space for guest parking. He said they reached a decision to allow guest to park on one side of the street if the police are notified ahead of • time. Brixius pointed out they exchanged the proposed tandem parking for shared parking and they came up with additional guest parking that was lost of which both commercial and condos would benefit from this guest parking. He said the decision for the Council is proof of parking or install required parking now. Reinhardt asked if there is a risk of too much parking. John Hamilton, Cuningham, pointed out this is a land locked site and retail cannot exist if parking is not available; the market decides what kind of parking is needed and parking solves itself. Mason pointed out the other developments and apartments do not have the retail aspect. Williamson thanked Brixius for his for analysis; he thought it was fair minded; there are some unknowns, etc. He added the developments in the cities of Mound and Minnetrista add to our traffic and we have already dealt with traffic management problems. He pointed out the Planning Commission expressed concern with parking, if the project would be approved for 120 unit and if they think and assume parking is needed, it should be designed into the original idea and an area constructed. Rockvam said he does not totally disagree with the parking issue. He pointed out Presbyterian Homes experienced an issue similar to this with the Court apartments, the developer was adamantly against more parking and they never used the area proposed for more parking. He said this was a similar issue with the Yacht Club parking and the majority of the time we are looking at asphalt. • Council Workshop—3/16/05 8 Bly's final request was to tell the Council to think about the good this project will do • for Spring Park. Carey asked if the Council could take action at this meeting. Seifert stated it would not be legal because notice was not given that Council action would be taken at this meeting. Hughes said he would like decisions like this made before the viewing public and Reinhardt agreed. 5. MISCELLANEOUS a) Accounting Reports January 2005 1. Cash & Investment Summary 2. Expenditure Guideline YTD The above communications were distributed for information only. Hughes recommended the staff prepare a letter of congratulations to the Tonka Grill for their recognition from Mpls. St. Paul Magazine for serving the best beef ribs. Weeks acknowledged the request. 6. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Widmer seconded by Hughes to adjourn the meeting at 9:52 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK L D. WEEKS ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER • Council Workshop—3/16/05 9 CITY OF SPRING PARK• SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA RECEIVIt7un AGENDA NM 21 XM COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 21, 2005 Nw, SEIFERT 7:30 P.M. —CITY HALL $ VANDFP WFIDE 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) Council Meeting March 7, 2005 b) Council Workshop—March 16, 2005 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS a) Tom Scanlon, LMCD b) George Norling, 2005 Landscaping Maintenance Quotes/Costs c) Cornerstone Group • 1. Planning Commission Recommendations a) Amendment to CUP—Increase in Units to 120 b) Parking Option 2. NAC Re: Mist Final Plat—3/15/05 3. Schoell &Madson Re: Mist Final Plat—3/18/05 d) Head, Seifert &Vander Weide Re: Draft Development Agreement—3/18/05 e) Head, Seifert& Vander Weide Resolutions Re: Approval/Denial of Amendment 1. Approval Shared Parking Option 2. Approval Construction of Additional Guest Parking Required 3. Approval Proof of Parking Option 4. Denial of Amendment e) Miscellaneous 6. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES a) Mayor 1. Administrative Committee Minutes—3/16/05 2. Police Commission Minutes &Reports—3/17/05 b) Council—Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer c) Engineer d) Utility Superintendent • 1. MN Dept. of Health Re: Sanitary Survey Findings—2/17/05 Council Agenda—3/21/05 1 e) Administrator • 1. April Calendar 2. Spring Clean Up Date 3. Joint Meeting Date (Suggest 5/23/05) 4. Council Pictures 4/18/05 5. Miscellaneous 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS a) E-mail List of Council, Planning Commission, Staff b) Letter to Tonka Grill Re: Best Beef Ribs—3/17/05 11. MISCELLANEOUS 12. ADJOURNMENT • • Council Agenda—3/21/05 2 APr • 26 . 2006 4: 25PM N o , 3 4 3 2 P - 2 CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA CONTINUATION OF COUNCIL MEETING (3/21/05) MARCH 22, 2005 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL Mayor Rockvam called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The Council roll remained the same (all present). Staff present remained the salve. Others present: Tom Seifert and Nancy Beck, City Attorneys, Ken Adolf, Sehoell & Madson; Wayne Olson, Karen Dubrosky, from the Cornerstone Group; Noah Bly, Cuningham Group; Planning Commissioner Mason. 5. Cornerstone Group—Discussion on final Plat Continued Motion on the table from, previous meeting 3/21/0.5 Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Widmer to approve the Irma) plat subject to the conditions of the Planner's Report dated 3/15/05 and the (Draft) Development Agreement dated 3/18/05. Rockvam stated the Council has reviewed the Development Agreemcnt acid highlighted their concerns for discussion at this meeting. Hughes asked how the changes affect the City's • liability. Rockvam recommended they start reviewing the draft at this time. Hughes referred to page 2, last paragraph and asked if it includes all of the parking spaces. Beck pointed out she filled in the numbers for the new parking stalls. Williamson had a concern with "unavoidable delays" in the definitions and asked the impact. Beck said this was included at the request of the developer's attorney and is not unreasonable. Rockvatn said we do not want to do any more negotiating and there is no reason to put the City in a lesser position. Hughes asked for an example. Beck said it becomes an issue of interpretation; certain things are a result that would be a direct affect; a more indirect affect would have an impact as well. Rock--vasn asked for the (late of completion and Olson said it was 12/31/06. Seifert said this is a "boiler plate" clause. Rockvam asked if we have a completion date with Lakeview Lofts and was told yes. Williamson was concerned with the word "reasonable" in Section 3.3. Beck said. it is not rurusual to have the word "reasonable'. Williamson said it was better to state actual costs or documented costs. Beck said the argument would be enabled i f we did not have the language in the agreement. Olson (hypothetically) asked if it was the Council's intent to act "unreasonable". Williamson stated we should not insert "reasonable" because it asks the question why. Olson said to keep it in, in case, for example, the developer abandons the prgicct. He said the developer agrees with everything the City is asking and this might be a fair exchange for something later down the road; "reasonable" allows the developer to argue • what is reasonable. Rockvam said the word is inserted for a reason. Williamson asked wby it was not added a few months ago. Beck said it was comfortable and fair to the City and the Council Meeting—3/22/05 1 AP 26 2006 4: 25PM No - 3432 P - 3 Developer. Seifert said Frostad Development had changes. Rockvam said the Developers • Agreement is a very legal document and the Council did not question Frostad's Development Agreement like this. He asked if there was a motion to take out the word "reasonable". Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to substitute the word "actual" for "reasonable" that is underlined and used in Section 3.3. Upon roll call Hughes and Williamson voted aye and Reinhardt, Widmer and Rockvam voted no. Motion declared failed. Williamson questioned Section 3.11 "Review By City Engineer". He said approval should be reserved to the Council, attorney or appropriate entity. Rockvam asked if this meant the Council is supposed to question/review an engineering item. Williamson said someone equal to an engineer should do the reviewing. Hughes asked Adolf ifhe has done similar projects and at what point come back to the City Council before approval is given. Seifert. read the text in the Agreement. Adolf said all of the issues regarding public approval discussions with the Administrator and the Utility Superintendent have been copied to the Council and he has maintained objectivity. Ile pointed out, for an example, that early in the project he recommended the City hire a traffic planner. He said he has been working on behalf of the City, the plans for Lift Station #3 and the water and ['orce main that are being installed for the project. Rockvam confirmed with Adolf that his hest interest is for the City and other engineers in the firm are working; for Cornerstone. Rockvam gave a scenario from years ago regarding a credit given to the City by Schoell & Madson because they felt they did not do a project justice. Rockvam felt this displayed integrity on Schoell & Madson and • Adolf s behalf. Rockvam verified the Council accepted this section. Section 3,13, A. Rockvam also verified individual meters would not be installed but the association would be billed for a base charge for each condo unit for water and for sewer. He referred to the same section item C. regarding the parking lot open at all times to allow the traffic flow to go through the project. He asked how the private portion was going to be policed. Williamson asked if it was possible and workable to add a clause indicating that for purposes of public safety the street shall be regarded as a public thoroughfare. Seifert said that would create an issue whether traffic violations can be issued on private property, lie said private parking lots could not be patrolled at public expense. He said the City did not want to be responsible for a City street going through the development. Rockvam asked if the wording cOuld be changed to read the City street ends at Del Otero Avenue. Sei(ort asked if a through street is something; the City or the developer wanted. Rockvam said the developer wanted it. Seifert pointed out it is an advantage to the residents on Del Otero to travel through. lily stated the neighbors came to the public hearing and did want access to travel through the development and the City did not want to own the private portion but needed utility easements. Widmer pointed out the association would want the area to look nice. Rockvam said it was not a good idea for the City to endorse the through traffic and the developer should do the endorsing. The problems on West Arm Drive with police not responding to complaints because it is a private street were discussed. Seifert said a sentence cc}uld he added the City • will not do any policing on the private parking lot or the area in the development. Beck said the provision basically says to keep the entrance open to Del Otero so residents have the Council Meeting_ —3/22/05 2 APr . 26 . 2006 4: 25PM No . 3432 P - 4 option to use the area and the developer would always keep the entrance open. Adolf said • the county was concerned with "cut through" property and they allowed access from Sunset to the parking lot. He said the architect made a commitment to put speed control measures in place. Adolf also mentioned the contractor is anticipating they will want to close the barking lot during construction and this would probably be for about a year. He pointed out there will be some residents on Del Otero that would probably complain. Rockvam said he was under the impression the property will be fenced and locked at night and this was verified. Rockvam stated he did not have a problem with traffic going thru Del Otero but the City will not be responsible for maintaining, policing or for people traveling thru. Hughes stated the Council expressed last fall they wanted to have cut thm capability but it would not be a City street. Rockvam said it should be on the record it is not a City street and it is not intended to be a City street. Widmer pointed out this section (3.13) refers to the entrance of the parking lot. Williamson said to add one sentence that this is not a City street. Seifert suggested adding the City is not responsible for policing or maintaining the parking lot. The Council did not object to this. Rockvam referred to Section 3.16, Satellite Dishes. Beck said this stales everything has to be screened on top of the roof. Motion by Hughes seconded by Reinhardt to change the plurality of dish to singular. In discussion Widmer asked if this would change if there were one on the south building and • one on the north building. Seifert explained if it is on the roof top it cannot be seen from the ground and this is a general provision. Hughes asked what the association's wording would be regarding a dish on a deck. Olson stated they would hollow the Development Agreement. Williamson said the FCC has overruled that no one has the right to enforce regulation of telecommunication equipment at any time. lie said antennae on the buildings might offend us but we cannot ban them only require setbacks and screening. He said this language appears to be effective of what we want to achieve. Reinhardt asked if it was the intent to have a dish on each building. Seifert said the City wants them hidden and that is the intent ol'the section. Upon roll call Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam voted no. Motion declared failed. Beck stated in Section 3.17, H. 1. and 1. are new. She said "H" and 'i" is from the City planner regarding the final plat "J" is in response to the Council's action regarding the limitation of three parking stalls for combinations of units. Rockvam requested in the event of a combination, the one parking space hell should go to guest parking. Beck pointed out that is stated in"J". Rockvam said every newly created parking stall inside could be applied against the 14 guest parking stalls outside the building. Olson said the intent was to maximize the guest parking but they do not object to this arrangement. Hughes clarified if parking spaces are gained from combinations, that guest parking would be on the inside and green space would be gained on the outside. Olson said the intent is to • add green space and maintain a total of 19 stalls and either is not objectionable to them and Council Meeting—3/22/05 3 Apr • 26 - 2006 4: 25PM No •3432 P . 5 up to the Council's discretion. Weeks staled only 14 additional parking spaces are required. • Seifert said that at some point if they have more parking spaces acquired they could come back to the Council and say they have extra parking spaces. Rockvam said it could be an option to get lid of surface parking and create more green space. Hughes again referred to Brixius' comment on 9/16/04 to add .25 parking spaces per unit toy guest parking. Widmer agreed and said it does not hurt to have extra parking spaces. They briefly discussed the Lakeview Lofts development on Spring Street and their use of Spring Street for guest parking versus this development not having access on the street for their guest parking. Rockvam said we are being arbitrary to this developer. Williamson said he did not think requesting more parking availability is making an arbitrary requirement. Seifert stated a motion can be made that the developer can request the City approve newer surface parking spaces in the event that a substantial number of additional guest spaces are obtained as a result of the combination of units. He said the success of the project is the availability of parking and it is up to the developer to come in and ask if they have enough parking. Rockvam asked the Council if they agreed to Seifert's amendment. Motion by Hughes seconded by Williamson that the developer could request the City approve fewer surface parking spaces in the event that a substantial number of additional guest spaces are obtained as a result of the combination of units. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. Rockvam verified there are twelve credits on the property towards the water Equalization Connection Fees. • Page 16, Section 5.2, "Conflicts of interest". Beck stated this is revised slightly. Weeks disclosed he had a conversation with a realtor about potential costs of units and it was nothing more than a phone conversation. Hughes asked the rationale of adding the clause. Beck pointed out there cannot be any indirect interest in the project by City officials, but there is no probleann if this is disclosed.. She said it is a. set Lip for checks and balances. Rockvam asked if this is in the Frostad's agreement and was told it is. Beck said the point of disclosure is awareness of potential problems. Williamson pointed out if a disclosure is made, the clause indicates that person cannot participate in any decision, etc. Williamson referred to the last sentence that is lined out. He said this seems to protect us from being personally liable and questioned it being eliminated. Beck pointed out this provision is not an agreement with the developer and the City, it is between the City and employees and leaving it in gives no protection other than what we have by law_ Williamson asked why it was inserted in the original language. Beck said it was part of the "boiler plate" and a consolidation of other agreements. Joanne Matzson, attorney for Cornerstone, stated they did not want to be making misrepresentation and asked to have it. removed. Rockvam agreed we do not need that line in. Page 18, Section 5.14, Beck said the change was based on continents for clarification. She said the concern was if the developers reduced the number of condo units, they would have to come before; the Council for consent. Seifert said this clarifies they do not have to come • to the Council flor this. Rockvain said the City should have a unit count at the end of construction and verified the limit is not to exceed 120 units. Council Meeting—3/22/05 4 Apr • 26 . 2006 4: 26PM No •3432 P . 6 • Reinhardt refeiYed to page 9, Section 3.13 and the clarification of dock assignments. Rockvam said the LMCD has control of the docks. Seifert stated the developer wants to allow condo owners to use the docks as transient docks. Rockvam recommended the attorney add the additional wording in the Developer's Agreement agreed upon by the Council. Motion by Rockvam seconded by Widmer to approve the attorney to prepare the Development Agreement per Council changes without further Council consideration. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Hughes staled to continue the discussion to another meeting was more efficient. Reinhardt expressed appreciation to Hughes and Williamson for their diligence in examining the Development Agreement and she has full confidence with the attorney acting on the City's behalf. (Additions to original motion in italics) Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Widmer to approve the Final Plat for Mist Loft'v LLC subject to the conditions of the Planner's Report dated 3/15/05 and the (Draft) Development Agreement dated 3/18/05 as amended in the Final Developer's Agreement distributed 3122105 and amendments as a result of the preceding discussion. Changes agreed to by the maker and second of the motion. Upon roll call Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam voted aye. Motion declared curried. • Rockvam asked the developer is there is going to be vinyl screening on the fence around the project. Olson said there would be if it were in the best interest of public safety; the demolition of the buildings should take place within a Bew weeks; they have been coordinating with Frostad's development on Spring Street. Bly stated the fiber optic cable might slow the project down. Olson expressed on Carey's behalf', Cornerstone's thanks and appreciation for all of the City's efforts towards the approval of this project. G. ORDINANCES &RESOLUTIONS -None 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS &COMMITTEES a) Mayor 1. Administrative Committee Minutes-3/16/05 -Noted 2. Police Commission Minutes dr.Reports- 3/17/05 -Noted Reinhardt requested information from a police report and was told she would have to ask the police department. Rockvam asked the status of the plans for remodeling City Hall. Weeks said he is hoping they will be available for the Planning Commission Meeting in April. Another question he had was the status of Rosen's hoop howse that was supposed to taken down December 15`". Weeks said Rosen has not complied with the City's requests to take it down. Widmer requested the Building Inspector check to see if* • they have moved in without an occupancy permit. Rock-vam pointed out this along with the problem with Bayview Apartments parking lot has the ordinance prohibiting Council Meeting-3/22/05 5 APr . 26 2006 4: 26PM No 3432 P 1 what they are doing and the infractions are not getting resolved. Weeks said he has a • call to the IICRRA. regarding Rosen's problem because the item in question is on their property. Rockvam said to put this on the agenda Ibr next meeting. Rockvm, referred to the jacking of the water and sewer force main under Sunset Drive and asked if we owe Frostad money for doing it. Goman said there are still questions with some of the charges that are not the City's responsibility. Adolf said they are waiting for a comprehensive invoice from Frostad. b) Council -- Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer Reinhardt reported a resident on West Arm Road West was wondering if the center pylon can.be removed I'or more turning flexibility. She asked what action to take. Weeks said the bridge belongs to HCRRA. Rockvam said to send a letter of request to them. This will be checked on for the next meeting. Williamson pointed out his e-mail address is incorrect, the first two letters are not supposed to be capitalized. In another matter he reported the FCC look away regulatory power over basic cable rates for service as of March 14tn c) Engineer Adolf reported the county sent a letter indicating the county's preference was for a painted median on Sunset Drive because there would be issues with snow plowing and larger vehicles. The other item was the Council discussion on the closure for Lift Station #6 and the idea of putting it underground. He said the bid documents arc based on a • prelab enclosure; if the Council wants something underground, it will impact the cost; there would be an issue of it's proximity to the lake and the water table, and an underground vault would be an expensive item. Rockvam said he would like to know the cost of burying it. Hughes asked the feasibility of an underground structure and the potential hazard. (3oma.n said he was against an underground structure from a maintenance standpoint; it would take two people for entry into the structure; the control panel has to be protected from moisture, etc. He said the intention for the structure was to enhance it with screening; to hide it almost completely. Rockvam asked if it could be a block and brick building. Goman said this is possible. Reinhardt suggested coming back to the Council with this proposal. Adolf said this will delay the process slightly and he will proceed on that basis. d) Utility Superintendent 1. MN Dept.. of llealth Re: Sanitary Survey Findings— 2/17/05 Noted e) Administrator 1. April Calendar Noted Board of Review 2. Spring Clean Up Date—Saturday 5/14/05 Motion by Hughes seconded by Widmer to approve the Spring Clean Up by BFi for Saturday May 14, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • 3. Joint Meeting Date(Suggest 5/23/05) Council Meeting—3/22/05 6 AP 26 2006 4: 26PM No , 3432 P - 8 • Motion by Hughes seconded by Reinhardt to approve the joint meeting on May 23, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. The meeting will have a two-hour limit. Rockvam also recommend adding to the agenda a discussion for including in the ordinance requirements for a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Weeks said the planner would be attending the joint meeting. Hughes suggested asking him what the pros and cons for a PUD are for city our size. 4. Council Pictures 4/18/05 Weeks said the photographer would be here at 7:15 p.m. to take the Council picture. 5. Miscellaneous a) MCWD Re: Native Plants &BMA Seminar Reinhardt stated she would try to attend this. b) MCWD Re: Watershed Advisory Group Weeks said they arc looking for volunteen; for this group. 8. CLAIM FOR PAYMENT Motion by Hughes seconded by Reinhardt to approve the claims for payment for March 21, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 9. UNFINISHED RUSTNESS - None • 10. EW BUSINESS &COMMUNTCATiONS The following communications were noted: a) E-mail List ol'Council, Planning Commission, Staff b) Letter to Tonka Grill Re: Best Beef Ribs—3/17/05 Hughes pointed out an error in the letter. 11. MTSCELLANEOUS—None 12, ADJOURNMENT Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to adjourn the meeting at 9:31 pm. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK 41T, ,TAM D. WEEKS ADMTNTSTRATOR/CLERK/TREAS URER • Council Meeting—3/22/0.5 7 CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 4, 2005 7:30 P.M. —CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Rockvam called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam were present. Staff present: Administrator Weeks, Utility Superintendent Goman, and Deputy Clerk Corl. Others present: Ken Adolf, City Engineer; Planning Commissioners Anderson and Mason. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Widmer to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) Council Minutes—March 21, 2005 Motion by Hughes seconded by Reinhardt to approve the Council Meeting minutes for March 21, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. b) Council Minutes—March 22, 2005 Motion by Widmer seconded by Reinhardt to approve the Council Meeting minutes for March 22, 2005. In discussion Rockvam referred to page 2, 4th paragraph, "Sect 3.13.A and requested the Development Agreement state each condo unit would have a base charge for water and sewer. Hughes asked if commercial space would have a separate meter and was told yes. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Mayor Rockvam asked if anyone present wished to be on the agenda. MaryAnn Thurk, 2484 Interlachen Road, informed the Council she had a petition to retain the smiley face on the water tower with 208 signatures on it. Rockvam stated this discussion would take place under the Engineer's Report later in the meeting. • Council Meeting—4/4/05 1 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS • a) Brad Ridgeway, J E Dunn (Contractor for Cornerstone) Re: Update on the Mist Lofts, LLC Present with Ridgeway: Wayne Olson, Cornerstone, Bob Lauman, Project Superintendent for J. E. Dunn. Ridgeway reported on the following activities that will be seen at the Mist site in the coming weeks: relocation of power lines to underground; temporary fencing and construction trailer on site; erosion control fencing; demolition of existing buildings; railroad ties removed, fire hydrant on property; shoring and mass excavation and stock piling materials; retaining wall excavation. Ridgeway stated demolition, utilities and building permit applications are being taken care of and a pre-construction meeting is being planned. He said Del Otero, as a through street will be closed during construction except for the properties located on Del Otero and across on Shoreline Drive. Ridgeway pointed out silt fences, hay bales, gravel filters will be in place and dust will be addressed as it affects the community. Dewatering and excavation for the new lift station will be done and materials, controls and the pumps for the lift station will arrive in June. He said a natural gas generator would be installed prior to the start up for the lift station. Rockvam asked the amount of dewatering that had to be done. Ridgeway said the water level is at 928 feet and the elevation needed for the lift station is 921 feet. He added boring reports did not show results of hitting water immediately. Rockvam asked if a concrete plant would be on site and was told no. He asked where the trucks would be • entering the site. Lauman said he is working on that plan. Hughes asked where the parking would be for the employees. Lauman said he has talked to Hennepin County about parking on their lot that has room for about 200 cars. Rockvam asked about the fence across the trail. Lauman said the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA) has given them a 30-foot temporary easement for construction. Rockvam asked the timetable for the trail. Lauman said they will be dealing with the ties and doing some grading this summer and if the fence is in their way, it can be moved. Rockvam asked the length of the lease with the HCRRA and was told it 18 months. Mason said he would like to discuss the best method of flow of construction traffic. Weeks asked when the debris is being moved if the trucks would be going west or east. Lauman said this is going to be done by a broker and does not have an answer. He said the construction flow would probably come in on Bayview Place and go out on Sunset Drive. Williamson referred back to construction employee parking and expressed concern with the possibility of parking on Northern Avenue. Lauman noted City streets are posted no parking and he would put parking instructions in the contracts so they know where to park. He also noted 75% of the cement trucks cannot come in and turn around and go out of the job site on Sunset Drive and the semi trucks will have to come in from Bayview Place. Williamson pointed out there is underground parking for businesses off Bayview Place and that area cannot be blocked. Lauman said he would set up a"nagger" • on that corner if needed. Council Meeting—4/4/05 2 Rockvam asked when the buildings would be demolished. Olson said they would be taken down next week. Williamson asked if the Fire Department would be using the buildings for a rehearsal for an emergency. Lauman said this would possibly be done next week. Olson indicated Cornerstone would be holding neighborhood information sessions. Weeks asked if all government entities were satisfied with the erosion control methods. He warned the MCWD would be watching the site carefully. Lauman said plans have been submitted to the state and the county(PCA and MCWD). Weeks pointed out the elevation on the remaining west end of Del Otero is steep. Lauman said the silt fence would be placed next to the temporary fence. Rockvam inquired about keeping the road maintained. Lauman said it would be taken care of on a daily basis. Rockvam asked if there are two storm drains in that area. Adolf said there is one on Del Otero and one proposed on the east side of the current Mist. Lauman said silt bags would be placed on the drains. Adolf said they are in the process of acquiring a MPDES Permit and one of their requirements is a weekly inspection of erosion control facilities and an inspection is also required after it rains. Rockvam requested periodic reports from the project manager at least once a month and he would also like a meeting with Lakeview Lofts management to resolve erosion control and other issues on their proj ect. Adolf said the biggest operation at the Mist site is hauling excavated soil off the site because all of the soil has to be hauled off site. Lauman confirmed it would be about • 40,000 yards of soil. Hughes asked if a fence would totally enclose the site. Lauman said it would and also be locked (DJ would have a key). Rockvam said a streetlight should be installed on the remaining utility pole to keep the site lit a night. Lauman said around the construction trailer would be lit, an alarm would be on the trailer, and more lights would be periodically installed. Hughes asked the hours of construction. Lauman indicated they would be 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday thru Friday. Mason asked if the storm sewer would be cut before construction. Lauman said that would occur within the same time frame as the new lift station. Mason inquired about the fire hydrant that was removed. Goman said 5 or 6 hydrants are going to be installed on that complex. Rockvam asked if the new lift station will be concrete and was told it would be. He said it was important to keep the line of communication open with the City. Williamson noted a current news article regarding Indian mounds on sites and asked how they would address this issue if it arose. Olson said he would regard protocol on that matter and follow procedure dictated should that situation occur. Mayor Rockvam introduced the Council and Staff to the viewing public. b) CUP Renewal, Frattallone's Ace Hardware—3/31/005 Rockvam verified the conditions in the CUP are the same as previous years. • Council Meeting—4/4/05 3 • Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to approve the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Frattallone's Ace Hardware per the conditions provided in prior years. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. c) Miscellaneous - None 6. ORDINANCES &RESOLUTIONS a) Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: The Mist Lofts Project—3/31/05 1. Resolution 05-13 — Resolution Amending 04-26 (CUP For Mixed Use) & Amending 04-27 (CUP For Height) Reinhardt noted a correction on the last page referring to two spaces for combined units and it should be three spaces. Weeks said that had already been corrected. Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Widmer to approve Resolution 05-13, amending 04-26 (CUP for mixed use) and 04-27 (CUP for height) for the Mists Lofts project. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 2. Resolution 05-14—Resolution Approving Final Plat Request for Mist Lofts, LLC Motion by Hughes seconded by Reinhardt to approve Resolution 05-14, approving final plat request for Mist Lofts, LLC. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES a) Mayor Rockvam suggested the Planning Commission consider reviewing the Hennepin County landing area with a landscape architect for a beautification project. He suggested a ramp scape with benches and shrubbery, and some type of designated walk area along the shoreline. He said the county should be asked to participate financially. Rockvam said another project to consider is where the depot is located. He added it is the desire of the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA) to use that area as a trailhead with public parking. He said a landscape architect could do a sketch of what would work in that area with heavy landscaping near the parking areas. Rockvam said the landscaping should be done when the project is done; the City should check to see if the county would assist financially and if there is state funding available for these two proj ects. He stated the new construction projects will yield 10 to 12 new businesses and the entire area would benefit from this and people would find it attractive. Weeks said the boat ramp will be completely rebuilt this summer and that would be a good time to do that area. Hughes asked if we could get plans from the county for the Planning Commission to get an idea of what they could do. Weeks said they are going to do the ramp and the sea wall. Rockvam pointed out commercial haulers ruined that ramp and it would help if they have a make ready dock in the middle of the ramp. Williamson recommended getting an update on what they are doing. Council Meeting—4/4/05 4 4 1 • Mason asked what the purpose of the pieces of concrete by the sidewalk. He said if they were removed there would be more room to park forward. Adolf stated he would be meeting with the HCRRA to coordinate activity for Sunset Drive improvements within their right-of-way and he could discuss the depot area than. Rockvam said at least we have a starting point with that project. He stated the HCRRA was receptive two years ago to our ideas and this would be our effort to clean up that part of the City. Williamson said the HCRRA wanted to contract with then Hennepin Parks regarding the corridor use as a trail and the parks system refused because of legal and technical issues they wanted the HCRRA to clear up. He asked if anything further has developed. Adolf said there have been no official talks. Rockvam said meetings should be set up with Council, Staff, and Lakeview Lofts for a progress report. He said there should be a streetlight on the west end because it is an unsecured sight and it is dark. He added it looks like a potential disaster area. He asked the status of Spring Street. Goman said he discussed security concerns with the contractor and they are bringing in more rock for one or two more months and will do a sub-cut of the grade with a rock base around mid summer. Rockvam verified the crane would be leaving soon. Rockvam said he is concerned with the tenants in that end of the Tonka Ventures Building and they should be aware of what is going on at this project and be invited to the meeting(s). He said it is a serious matter denying someone access to Spring Street and a . thru traffic flow should be established and the street should be lit. Burying the fiber optic cable in the area was briefly discussed. Rockvam asked when the street sweeping would be done and Goman said the middle of April. Rockvam requested West Arm Drive to be swept at the same time and their association would pay for it. Hughes asked when the sidewalks would be swept and was told next week. Goman said there is still some snow that is not melted. It was confirmed the meeting with Lakeview Lofts would take place at the Council meeting April 18`h Rockvam asked when the debris behind the fence would be removed. Goman said the first part of May when the road restrictions are lifted. b) Council—Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer Hughes reported the adoption of the new fire code is on hold until the City of Mound adopts it. He said it would be reviewed after that. He pointed out our ordinances do need some updating to be consistent with what is being done regarding the matter. He said we have to adopt the International/MN code but not before the City of Mound adopts it first. Rockvam said the City spent a lot of time with variances with the State of MN to make sure we were compliant and was under the impression we have adopted the Fire Code we are using. Weeks pointed out the Fire Department is applying the new code. Hughes also reported the seminar he attended last Saturday was an excellent session addressing lake issues. • Council Meeting—4/4/05 5 Reinhardt stated it would be helpful if the City had a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and it would make sense to have a five-year plan that stated costs and a projected completion time of projects and it should be included in our budget process. She asked the status of West Arm Road central and pointed out the residents were told there would be a meeting in the spring. Weeks said it was up to the Council. Rockvam said there are two different proposals from the engineer, a minimum width of 20 feet or a width of 24 to 26 feet to allow street parking. Reinhardt said we should set a date or send them a letter that we are tabling it. Rockvam asked the reality of doing anything with all of the other projects going on in the City. He said he wants to be comfortable with where the financing is coming from. He added he has not seen anything on paper regarding the water tower funding. Hughes said the concept was to get the residents input and he suggested putting this on the agenda for the Council meeting May 2"d or May 161n Adolf said he would make copies for distribution of the proposals. Rockvam said we could decide if this would be done this year or next year. Motion by Hughes seconded by Reinhardt to approve the Council meeting on May 2nd as the date to discuss proposals for West Arm Road Central (public portion) with the respective residents. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. In another matter Reinhardt inquired about the status of the center railroad piling on West Arm Road West. Goman said he spoke with John Tripp, HCRRA, and he is checking on this. • Williamson asked for the final statement figures for end of the year. Weeks said they should be available the middle of May and the auditor is scheduled to begin the audit process tomorrow. Williamson asked for a draft on fund statements and balances. Rockvam stated we have $420,000 coming in from the decertification. Rockvam said we should set up a meeting with the accountant. Weeks said he is working on a rate schedule and when the audit is done we can set up these funds. Rockvam stated this should be done sooner than in June. Weeks said we should be receiving the decertification check by Wednesday. Rockvam said we should do something with check right away. Weeks said it could be put in prime security or a short-term investment. Williamson said there needs to be a resemblance of order where the funds are to be placed. In another matter Williamson said each month there is a short fall of pumping water compared to billing water. He pointed out the landscaper fills up his truck with water, etc. and likewise it should be accounted for and charged to the appropriate account. Rockvam said he was not aware of that large of discrepancy. Goman said he factors in that water loss; the Health Department wants a zero loss; the state standard is a 5% to 10% loss. Rockvam asked what our loss is and Goman said it was 8%. Williamson said some of the losses are accountable to other functions rather than water funds. Rockvam pointed out if we sell water to Orono, it should be factored in the appropriate place. Weeks said the accountant is doing a thorough research for the rate structure. Rockvam said we are still running a deficit regarding the water amount. Williamson said the deficit is also in the dollar amount. Rockvam stated if the shortfall in the water is beyond • 8%, we are not accounting for it. Williamson said there is an issue with lost water. Council Meeting—4/4/05 6 • Williamson agreed with Reinhardt that we need a CIP and every City should have one. He said it is a planning tool and it allows for adjustments with projects. He added we have always had a pending project list of intentions so we are not operating totally in the dark and also have healthy reserve funds. Williamson said we should begin the process to have a formal CIP in place. Hughes suggested we make a spreadsheet of what is going on now and other projects and document it. Widmer asked if any comments have been made regarding the smoking ban and was told none have been heard. c) Engineer 1. Schoell &Madson Re: Pay Request#6 a) Two E-Mails Re: Smile on Tower Adolf pointed out the pay request is for $15,603.75 is for the water tower and after this payment the amount is 61% completed. Motion by Williamson seconded by Widmer to approve pay request #6 for the water tower to Maguire Iron in the amount of $15,603.75. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. Goman pointed out the color scheme should be chosen for the outside of the water tower. He said the bid was for the "standard" color section on the chart. He added an • offset color should be chosen for the logo. Rockvam verified the logo would be a single color with an offset color, black being recommended. Goman said if a non- standard color was chosen the cost would be $9,800 and the painting contractor recommends a clear coat to prevent fading. Reinhardt asked what the current design trend is for water towers. Goman said it varies along with the use of tans and blues. He recommended using a darker color because it would show the dirt less. Widmer verified if a darker color is used the cost would be an additional $9,800. Adolf said earth tones and shades of blue is the trend and whatever the City's preference is would be acceptable. Rockvam verified the reason for the clear coat was to prevent fading and asked if the Council wanted to spend another $9,800 on paint. Hughes asked how many more years would be added to the paint job with a clear coat. Adolf said the paint can be affective even if it is faded and we would probably not get any more years of service by going with the clear coat. Adolf said the next step after welding the tower together is to sandblast the seams and then start the painting. He said they use a three-coat system and a clear coat would be fourth coat. Reinhardt asked the cost of painting the current tower and was told it would have been $250,000. Adolf said the expected life of the coating system is 15 to 20 years. Hughes pointed out it would cost more to take off the clear coat off than just the standard color when it came time to repaint. Adolf said there is not enough . experience with the clear coat system to provide answers. Council Meeting—4/4/05 7 • Rockvam pointed out the Council has to make two decisions. One is whether to spend $9,800 more for a color and the other is which color. Goman said the bid was for a standard color but a color was not chosen. Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to approve `fountain blue" for the color. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. Adolf said a darker blue could be used for the lettering but black would be more of a contract. Williamson said the lettering should be black. Widmer referred to the petition to keep the smiley face on the tower and maybe some of the Council members have changed their mind. Rockvam said they could have some graphics with the smiley face. Williamson stated the Council wanted the name "Spring Park" on it the tower. He also pointed out the Planning Commission recommended the logo and the Council agreed. Rockvam said we should use black as the contrasting color. Motion by Hughes seconded by Williamson to use black as the contrasting color. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. Goman pointed out the three design options for the tower the Council reviewed last fall. Rockvam said there seems to be a lot of tradition with the smiley face and read a letter submitted by a resident last fall regarding this. Reinhardt asked when the smiley • face was placed on the tower. Rockvam said nothing else has ever been on the tower. Adolf pointed out the existing tower was too small for anything else. Rockvam stated the smiley face is a topic of conversation and a landmark. Hughes asked if the logo would be placed on two or three sides of the sphere. Goman said three sides are currently used. Adolf said the current bid is for the logo with lettering for $6,000 for one side and a 2"a side is $5,500. Hughes asked which side it would be placed if we go with one side. Goman said the decision was to use two sides, east and west to go with the flow of traffic. Rockvam asked the cost for three sides. Adolf said we have to be careful the design does not wrap around too far to interfere with the next side. Rockvam said we should have the design on at least two sides. Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to request the Planning Commission to revisit the subject with the assumption of a two-impression placement. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Rockvam said we should think about three sides. Weeks asked if we want Maguire Iron to quote anything different. Williamson said we should find out the cost if we want a third side. 2. Lift Station#6 Hughes stated he thought this would be a concrete block building not a metal • building. Goman apologized for the misunderstanding and stated the exterior is a Council Meeting—4/4/05 8 • concrete material and not a brick veneer exterior. Rockvam asked what the foundation would be. Goman said it would be a floating slab. Rockvam asked if the generator would go inside and was told it would. Goman said the colors on the conceptual drawing are the same colors as the water plant. Hughes asked how long the products been on the market and was told it has longevity. Goman said there is a similar one with a flat roof on Chateau Lane in Mound; he pointed out we could include roof enhancements and a stoop over the doorway; Plan A is $310,000 and includes an inclusive pre-fab structure; Plan B is $400,000 to $500,000 and includes a wood frame structure with brick exterior. Goman said option A could be enhanced with a brick veneer on the exterior. Adolf said the building would have to have a foundation and frost footings. Reinhardt verified the cost is for just the building not including landscaping. Rockvam asked if the roof could be flat and mansard style used. Goman said this could be done. Hughes said we could do the cheaper one and add brick siding and asked if a decision has to be made now. Adolf said he is trying to get the design finalized to get out the bids. Widmer said she would rather see a basic building and dress it up and Hughes conceptually agreed. The Council discussed options at length. Goman pointed out the all-inclusive structure comes with a 10-year warranty on everything inside and out and there is no warranty if the City builds the structure. He suggested from the bid point of view to approve the all-inclusive structure and have an alternate bid for brick veneer on the • outside. Goman also suggested the block design with a brick ledge at the bottom and add brick veneer on it. Rockvam verified doing an underground station is out of the question. The generator was discussed and the fact the City generator would not be large enough to operate the redesign of this lift station because this lift station will have bigger pumps. Rockvam asked where the control panel would go if we did not have the building. Goman said it would be up off the ground. Rockvam pointed out originally there was not going to be a generator for Lift Station #6 and the project moved forward after changing that decision. Williamson said this project has changed considerably since last fall and he is offended by how everything is "out of hand". Adolf said it was suggested the Council read the design report last fall and the lift station remodeling and generator was one of the optional items and separate costs were listed for the options. The Council then came back with a proposal for an enclosure. Hughes asked what the added dollar amount is to go from outside to inside for the lift station. Adolf said there is not a simple answer to that question because the project was first the complete package and then a generator was added. Reinhardt pointed out Adolf came back to the Council with what was asked for and said this was well done. Rockvam said if we had a mobile unit and put a fence around it with shrubbery it • would look better than either of the proposed buildings. He asked the cost of the Council Meeting—4/4/05 9 generator. Goman said it was part of the package. Rockvam said we could have a • mobile unit or take action so the design can be completed for bids. Hughes asked if there would be deterioration at that location versus a less traveled road. Rockvam said this station has been where it is for 40 years with no trouble in that regard and added it should look good whatever we put there. Motion by Widmer seconded by Hughes to approve an enclosed structure subject to a flat roof with mansard style, and changes in door and window styles and include landscaping. In discussion Reinhardt asked why a flat roof. Rockvam said a mansard style was more appealing. Hughes said there were advantages from a warranty standpoint. Rockvam said he thought the cost would be more than $310,000. Upon roll call Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam voted aye. Motion declared carried. d) Utility Superintendent—No Report e) Administrator 1. Channels 8 &20 Schedules—Noted 2. Reminders: Board of Review 4/11/05; Council Picture 4/18/05 3. Building & Sign Report—Noted • 4. Background &Update on Hoop House, 4340 West Arm Road This will be on the next Council meeting agenda 5. Memo To Council Re: Review of Lease (4332 Shoreline)—4/l/05 Rockvam indicated the City should do whatever we have to do to allow Norling to clean up the building at 4332 Shoreline Drive i.e. paint, etc. He stated the City leased the property for the water tower construction and Maguire Iron now takes over the lease. He verified that Norling does not receive any money and when we are done with the lease Norling has the property. Williamson asked what the question was for the Council. Rockvam said it was whether to recommend Norling being allowed to clean up the building. Williamson said there is a problem with liability if Norling has equipment on the site and the City should find out if Maguire Iron allows this. Weeks stated Maguire Iron had concern with Norling using the back half of the building while they were working on the tower and Norling complied; parking is not a concern; they have solved any thing that has come up. Widmer asked if the City or Maguire Iron is liable and she was told Maguire Iron is as of April 30th and if anything happens Maguire's insurance covers everything. Widmer said she has an issue with Norling doing anything. Reinhardt verified Norling has a building permit. Weeks stated he has a building permit for the roof and has submitted a sign permit. Widmer verified the permit was just the outside and said her issue is allowing someone to make a building ready for occupancy when someone else is leasing it. Reinhardt said she can understand the argument and Norling is • making the space look nicer but she feels he should he be paying for something. Council Meeting—4/4/05 10 • Williamson noted there was a principal concern but he does not want anything that impedes the water tower, makes it costlier or that results in someone getting hurt i.e. claims. Weeks pointed out Maguire Iron has the first priority to the property. Hughes suggested obtaining an opinion from our attorney. Rockvam said a legal opinion would take time. Weeks said he could ask the attorney. Williamson said the real issue is whether Norling pays rent or does not pay rent. Weeks said he is working with Maguire Iron. Williamson said the City should get a signed letter in writing from Maguire Iron that it is okay that Norling is on the property. Widmer would like a definition of "clean up the building". She said her concern is that preferential treatment might be given. Weeks asked if he should get something in writing from Maguire Iron. Motion by Williamson seconded by Widmer instruct the Administrator to get a letter (not an e-mail) from a responsible representative from Maguire Iron regarding the status of Norling allowed to use the property at 4332 Shoreline Drive during the duration of the lease by Maguire Iron. In discussion Rockvam agreed to the motion and requested the Administrator to mail the letter to the Council when it is received. He also requested to check with the City's liability carrier. Widmer asked for a verification of Norling cleaning up of the exterior. • All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 6. Miscellaneous Proposals for City Hall Remodeling Weeks said Phil Johnson, architect, submitted the proposals. Hughes said this should also go to the Planning Commission for review. Rockvam stated we should indicate to the Planning Commission what we have in mind. Hughes said the architect is not here. Weeks pointed out he is scheduled to be at the Planning Commission meeting. Rockvam said if the Council is not in favor of adding on to this building, we should let them know. Weeks said the Planning Commission could sort that out and he could have the presentation made to the Council also. 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to approve the claims for payment for April 4, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. In discussion Widmer verified #16 to Norling's for transplants was for the relocation of bedding material on the east side of City Hall due to the water tower construction and the planters are in front of City Hall and on last years budget. Widmer asked were the tree trimming was done. Goman said it was done on West Arm Road West. • Council Meeting—4/4/05 11 • All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -None 10. COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Letter from J. Grundeen &M. Redwing Re: Remarks—3/26/05 b) Letter to Residential Multiple Dock License Holders—3/31/05 c) Letter to Henn. Co. Taxpayer Services Re: Decertification of TIF— 3/28/05 Weeks said a check is being sent on Wednesday. 11. MISCELLANEOUS Hughes pointed out the Verizon phone directory does not have all of the Council Persons names in it and the viewing public should note this. 12. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Williamson seconded by Widmer to adjourn the meeting at 10:54 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK 4ILL4D2LWEEKS ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER • Council Meeting—4/4/05 12 t � RECEIVEU CITY OF SPRING PARK 2 ZOOS SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MAY - MINUTES HEAD, SEIFER3 BOARD OF REVIEW &VANDER WEIDE APRIL 11, 2005 7:30 P.M. —CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Rockvam called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam were present. Staff present: Administrator Weeks and Deputy Clerk Corl. Others present: Bill Davy, and Nathan Stulc, Hennepin County Assessors. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Widmer seconded by Reinhardt to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • 4. HEAR APPEALS a) Open Public Hearing Mayor Rockvam opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. and read the notice that was posted March 22, 2005 at Wells Fargo Bank, Spring Park Post Office and the Spring Park City Hall. Rockvam read a letter from Gene Shavlik, 4608 West Arm Road PID 18-117-23-33-0047 2004 Estimated Market Valuation (EMV) $731,000 Land $566,000; Building $175,000 2005 Estimated Market Valuation $976,000 Land$788,000; Building $188,000 Rockvam stated he thought the limited market value has been phased out. Davy said it would be phased out in 2007 for 2008 with no limited market value that year. He said it currently stands as in previous years until then. Rockvam noted Shavlik's increased $245,000 and asked why. Davy said it was due to sales on West Arm on the lake. Widmer asked if everyone's taxes in that area was raised the same amount. Reinhardt clarified that area was on West Arm. Davy said the increase for that • area was 33% based on the market value of the previous year. He added there were seven or eight sales on the lake. He stated the sales indicated the valuations were 25% to 35% lower than the 2004 assessments. Davy said this year was a Board of Review—4/11/05 1 • year of significant changes. Rockvam made notice that some sale prices in the book were less than the estimated market value. Davy pointed out there are some slightly older sales in the book. He noted the sales are from October 1, 2003 to September 30, 2004 and this is common to go back a few years for the smaller cities. Rockvam asked, as an example, if there are six sales on West Arm and then sale price is higher that the market value, are all property owners given that percentage increase. Davy said the assessor has to adjust properties that did not sell to the percentage of the sale price. Widmer asked the value of the lakeshore. Davy said West Arm the first 50 feet is $8,000, the next 50 feet is $7,000 and after that every foot is $5,000. He said Sunset Drive is $8,500 for the first 50 feet, the next 50 feet is $7,500 and every foot after that is $5,500. Hughes asked the cost of property on the Black Lake cove. Davy said all of Black Lake is a flat rate of $200,000 for the site plus or minus other factors. Rockvam asked if Shavlik contacted the county. Davy said he talked to Shavlik and his property was physically reviewed last year. He said Shavlik was concerned with the City easement on his lot but the calculation for the easement is factored in his valuation and the recommendation is for no change. Rockvam asked how these valuations compare to the lower lake. Davy pointed out the list is in the book and three communities out of 12 had over 20% increases • and there was a large spread of difference. He added each year there are two or three cities that are higher than the rest and the figures come from available data; some years there are more sales and more adjustments have to be made according to sales. Williamson asked if the table in the book is based on market value. Davy pointed out it is based on the amount of growth that is based on market value. Reinhardt asked if there is a physical assessment in Spring Park. Davy stated one fifth of the City is done every year. Reinhardt asked what Shavlik's next step is to get further review of his property. Davy said he could go to the County and appeal in June. Rockvam verified Roger Swanson, West Arm Drive, contacted the county. Davy said he would be doing a physical inspection of this house and property. Rockvam asked if the land was reviewed and reduced would the neighbor's valuations stay the same on the land. Davy said he would probably reduce the building if anything. Rockvam verified Mike McCarville, West Arm Drive, called the county. Davy said McCarville's reduction is based on the quality of the house, his has one of two story buildings on West Arm Drive and the sales have been in the single stories. He pointed out one level is more appealing and they had more interior quality. Reinhardt asked if adjustments are ever made higher. Davy said no but they cannot ignore anything they happen to see. Rockvam asked if there were any • other requests. Board of Review—4/11/05 2 • Kevin O'Neil, 4560 West Arm Road—PID 18-117-23-34-0059 2003 EMV Land $249,000; Building $153,000 - $402,000 2004 EMV Land $263,000; Building $160,000 - $423,000 2005 EMV Land $367,000; Building$163,000 - $530,000 O'Neil pointed out the increase is up over 25% and only one single family home sold. Rockvam pointed out four homes sold on Sunset Drive. O'Neil said Sunset Drive and West Arm Road have different lakeshores. Davy said the private road and its condition are factored in the evaluation. Tom Geib, 4550 West Arm Road—PID 18-117-23-34-0039 2004 EMV Land 263,000; Building $153,000 = $416,000 2005 EMV Land 367,000; Building$154,000 =$521,000 Geib pointed out his house has not been remodeled and no one would purchase his house without certain improvements, his view is different since his neighbor moved their house forward, and his lakeshore is 59 feet the same as O'Neil's, at 4560 West Arm Road. Rockvam pointed out Spring Park is on top with a 25.3% increase. O'Neil said it is hard to get a good sample using the sales in the book. Rockvam pointed out the twin home next to O'Neil is compared to a single family home because there is no • association. He asked Davy if the lakeshore is the same for all of West Arm Road. Davy said West Arm East is slightly less but they are fairly close with some adjustments. Rockvam said the state came in a few years ago and did a blanket increase on town homes because it was felt they were valued too low. Davy said valuations are based on the condition of the property on January 2nd of this year. Carl Widmer, 3882 and 3884 Sunset Drive - PID 17-117-23-32-0019 2004 EMV Land$394,000 Building $126,000=$521,000 2005 EMV Land$618,000 Building $34,000 =$652,000 Widmer asked how the figure of $652,000 was derived for his property. Davy said it was based on the house itself but he does not have that record with him. He said he would check into this property. Rockvam confirmed Davy would review the following four properties mentioned above: Swanson, Widmer, O'Neil, and Geib. He verified he Shavlik's property would not be reviewed again. Rockvam noted the adjourned meeting must take place in 20 days. It was agreeable April 25, 2005 is the date for the reconvened Board of Review. Rockvam asked Davy if the new condos would have an affect on increasing values. Davy said studies are done according to classifications i.e. houses versus • condos. He added a lake view and lake access is both appealing to buyers. Board of Review—4/11/05 3 • v • b) Recent Sales Booklets—Noted 1. 2004 Property Type Table c) Close Public Hearing Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to close the public hearing and hold the reconvened Board of Review on April 25, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. MISCELLANEOUS Weeks reminded the Council photos of the current Council will be on April 181h at 7:15 p.m. Rockvam verified the Spring Street project would be on the agenda and to invite the tenants on the east end of the Tonka Ventures building. In another matter Rockvam stated the barricades next to Sunset Drive are not safe and it would give everyone more room if they were removed. He said the east side of the building should be backfilled. 6. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Williamson seconded by Widmer to adjourn the meeting at 8:27 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK WtLLILAkM D. WEEK ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER • Board of Review—4/11/05 4 • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA COUNCIL MEETING APRILI8, 2005 7:30 P.M. —CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —April 4, 2005 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS a) Mike Erickson Re: Presentation of Flag & Certification to City b) Lakeview Lofts 1. Construction Update a) Memo from City Administrator—4/14/05 2. TIF Increase Request—4/14/05 • c) Planning Commission Minutes—4/13/05 1. Recommendation Re: Logo on the Water Tower d) Shoreline Place Re: Request For Parking—4/15/05 e) Miscellaneous 6. ORDINANCES &RESOLUTIONS 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES a) Mayor 1. Administrative Committee Minutes—4/6/05 b) Council—Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer c) Engineer 1. Schoell & Madson Re: Recommend Payment For Underground Jacking — 4/14/05 d) Utility Superintendent e) Administrator 1. Background &Update on Hoop House, 4340 West Arm Road 2. May Calendar 3. Expenditures & Cash Investment Summary(End of lst Qtr) 4. Miscellaneous 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT • Council Agenda—4/18/05 1 • 1 • 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS a) Letter to West Arm Residents Re: Potential Road Improvements—4/5/05 b) Letter to Todd Frostad Re: Lakeview Lofts—4/7/05 c) Letter to George Norling Re: 4316 &4332 Shoreline Drive—4/11/05 d) Newsletter Spring 2005 11. MISCELLANEOUS 12. ADJOURNMENT • • Council Agenda—4/18/05 2 a-• CITY OF SPRING PARK RECEIVED • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MAY - 2 2005 MINUTES HEAD,SEIFERT APRIL 18, 2005 &VANDER WEIDE 7:30 P.M. —CITY HALL l. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Rockvam called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam were present. Staff present: Administrator Weeks, Utility Superintendent Goman, and Deputy Clerk Corl. Others present: Tom Seifert, City Attorney, and Ken Adolf, City Engineer. Others present: Planning Commissioners Mork Bredeson, Anderson, Sippel, and Mason. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Widmer to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —April 4, 2005 • Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to approve the minutes for the Council Meeting April 4, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Williamson noted page 8, 71h sentence, first word "contract" should be "contrast". The correction was noted. Mayor Rockvam introduced Council and Staff to the viewing public. 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS a) Mike Erickson, 3934 Del Otero Re: Presentation of Flag & Certificate to City Erickson presented to the City a certificate and flag that he flew over the City of Baghdad in the Free Territory of Iraq during a combat mission June 22, 2004 in honor of the City of Spring Park's continued support of America's war on terrorism during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Mayor Rockvam accepted the certificate and flag on behalf of the City along with Planning Commission Chair Anderson who is also Commander of the VFW. Anderson noted Erickson is a lifetime member in the VFW and the only person in the community that has flown as many missions. b) Lakeview Lofts 1. Construction Update • Council—4/18/05 1 1 a) Memo From City Administrator- Noted Rockvam stated the Council held a meeting with the contractor for the Mist project and they gave a brief summary of the first phase of their project. The Council decided each developer/contractor should come in once a month to discuss concerns with their projects. Todd Frostad, Lakeview Lofts on Spring Street, was present to give a status report on his project along with Randy and Chris Ehalt, Weiss Builders. He said the construction would be ongoing, the roof is going to be capped and the building should be enclosed by the end of June and occupancy by November 2005. Frostad said the utilities have to be completed and there have been discussions with the county and engineer regarding final details concerning their placement. He stated when the utilities are installed the grading can be completed on Spring Street and it can be reopened. He said there would be open discussions with the City and J.E. Dunn (Mist Lofts) regarding the final streetscape plan that would join the two projects; Mediacom fiber optic lines will be buried within the next 30 to 45 days and this would clear up any issue with the depot project. Rockvam stated he had a concern with an e-mail from Brian Dusek, from Frostad Development to the City, stating communication regarding issues at the job should come from only Bill Weeks, City Administrator. Rockvam said the memo cites different issues regarding communication for issues at the • job site so he called Dusek to understand what is going on. He said the City made it very clear Goman would be the person from the City on site to deal with problems and the City Engineer is the one to make decisions regarding engineering and the last thing we want to do is add the Administrator to the list. Frostad said that was fine and they are trying to funnel communications to one person to alleviate frustration with problems and who they are supposed to deal with. Rockvam said one issue is keeping Spring Street open and it cannot be used as it is now. He pointed out the temporary road is available to the north of the property but the bus company will not use it because it is full of potholes and ruts, etc. Rockvam stated the City received a call from Joel Buttenhoff, owner of the adjacent property and parking lot on Spring Street. He said Buttenhoff clearly stated he is disturbed Spring Street is impassable and he was promised only brief interruptions would occur. Rockvam said it is essential to get the building built but he said the Developer's Agreement states that if Spring Street were closed or inaccessible to tenants of the Tonka Ventures building, the Developer would notify the City three business days in advance. Siefert, the City Attorney, confirmed this. He added it would be nice if this were done if there is a need to close Spring Street from here on. • Council—4/18/05 2 Frostad said he was not aware the back road is impassable. He added it would be a short time before Spring Street will be opened permanently. Rockvam asked why they could not use the north side of the property for staging materials and equipment. Frostad said they have not been able to grade the area and that portion of the site is not usable for now. Rockvam pointed out after May 1" Lord Fletcher's Restaurant has a lease for the north side of the railroad property. Frostad said his easement is on the south side of that property. Williamson referred to the memo from Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority(HCRRA) regarding the storage of materials and machinery on their property without their permission. Frostad said they are in the process of cleaning that up. Siefert asked for a target date Spring Street would be completed. R. Ehalt pointed out a storm sewer line has to be installed that would go along Spring Street to the intersection followed by putting down a class 5 material and June 1" is the approximate date the street will open. Rockvam pointed out the problem, as a municipality is we have an obligation to provide property owners access to the public street. He said it was indicated last fall the street would be usable and it is concerning that there is talk about damages to property and vehicles, etc. because the street is not open. Frostad apologized and stated it was not their intent that this problem occurred and he would be happy to invite open communication with Buttenhoff and his tenants. • Rockvam read the letter from Roger Swanson, West Arm Townhomes stating the property owners concern with the erosion caused by the run off from the project. The letter stated the run off is going into their holding pond and they are requesting Frostad help clean the pond out upon completion of his project. Also requested were more measures to be taken to minimize the run off. The early hours of construction was another concern. Rockvam pointed out the bales of hay definitely help control the run off. Frostad noted the start times and said they will control that. Hughes asked Frostad if he ever contacted Buttenhoff for an agreement to use his parking lot. Frostad said Buttenhoff was uninterested in leasing it and use of it is unacceptable. Seifert stated there is a claim of curb damage on Buttenhoff s property where the road was changed to go into the property. Frostad said that curb belongs to the City if that is the concern. Frostad said he would walk the site with the crew and review the issues. Rockvam said a light is needed on the utility pole where the Log Cabin used to be and also by the J.E. Dunn construction trailer across the street. Bob Gagne, from Senior Community Services, said the construction crew is parking at the end of the parking lot they use and equipment operators would not move their vehicles so the Senior Community Services drivers could get in • Council—4/18/05 3 and out with their transport vehicles. Gagne said the workers told him that was the cost of progress. He added he does not believe anything Frostad is saying because he does not do what he promises. Rockvam asked Gagne if they could go to the other end of the parking lot to exit. It was pointed out there is no left turn at the point. Rockvam asked if it was possible to put a temporary hold on the no left turn directive. Goman state Hennepin County public works would not allow that because of a traffic safety issue. Sippel pointed out one of the businesses in the Tonka Ventures Building receives deliveries from full-length semi's and there is no access for the trucks to get to the building. Rockvam said they could come into the parking lot and back in but they would have to have everyone move their cars to make room. Tom Heilman, from Progressive Systems, complained they could not get trucks into the businesses. He stated he was told today the street would be paved in two weeks, and they were going to grade the street to make it usable and this has not happened. Frostad said he would like to address this at the meeting Thursday and bring it back to the Council meeting in May. Heilman asked Frostad if there was a way to stage equipment elsewhere to open Spring Street. Frostad said the intent was to stage over the building and they are looking for a crane to facilitate that process. He said the issue on Spring Street is the storm sewer on the east end that has to be installed before the street can be finished. Rockvam asked if the pipe could be stubbed in • underneath Spring Street to get the grading done on top. Frostad said quite a bit of pipe needs to be put in. Goman said the storm sewer runs to the west along Spring Street and then to the south; it is north of the sewer main that is approximately in the center of the current street. Adolf showed a diagram of location of the sewer main on Spring Street. He said what is left to do is the storm sewer extension to the entrance of the garage. He pointed out the storm sewer line is going under the north curb line approximately four feet deep. Frostad said the question is if to take down the Tonka Ventures retaining wall and if it is in the county right-of-way. Rockvam said it does not seem practical to not have Spring Street open until the first part of June. Frostad said there would be an action in place after the meeting Thursday and he would communicate it back to the Council. He stated he would grade the temporary road daily to do what they have to do to keep it open. Williamson noted there has been an extensive period of time trenches have remained open. He said this was a hazard for public safety. He pointed out Cornerstone has secured their site and Frostad's site is not secured. He asked Frostad for a response and his attitude regarding protecting the site from being an attracting nuisance. Frostad said he placed safety obligations in the hands of the people in charge of the site. R. Ehalt said he is working on a site fence • Council—4/18/05 4 around the perimeter of building only for protection and a safety officer will be out this week to view the site. He added the area that has to be back filled is a vulnerable area and eventually that will get backfilled. Rockvam referred to a comment earlier regarding tearing down the depot. He clarified the depot is not City owned and it was never said we are going to tear it down even though we would like to see it down. He did not know is HCRRA has on commented on tearing it down. Weeks said removal of the depot might provide storage space and access space in the near future. Rockvam said another meeting would be scheduled with Frostad in a month for a progress report. Heilman verified he would receive a letter when Spring Street is open. 2. TIF Increase Request—4/14/05 Rockvam stated Lakeview Lofts LLC submitted a request to amend the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) agreement increasing the total amount by$150,000 because of additional costs for removal of contaminants and fuel tanks from the site. The letter said their budget for this surpassed $272,312.96 and this was outlined in the attached table. Rockvam stated the initial TIF was authorized for $500,000. He said the down side of this is the property is off the City tax roll and the upside is the amount of contamination that has been removed and would not have if not for this development. Rockvam said he would like to see a recommendation made to forward this to the City Attorney • to review this request. Williamson asked if this increase can be done without a public hearing and was told yes. He verified in so proposing the reviewing of this does not grant the request, but just getting the attorney's opinion. Williamson said he would like to see the timetable; the earliest this was to go back on City tax rolls is 2011 and now it would be 2013 if approved. He said he is sympathetic to the clean up but those were the reasons the TIF was granted in the first place and he is skeptical to grant more for the same reason the first grant was approved. Hughes verified the choice of the amount of$150,000 is to not have to hold a public hearing. Frostad said he established a certain amount of risk he had to take and the clean up went beyond his expectations and he did not want to go through the legal costs and expense of another public hearing. Motion by Williamson seconded by Widmer to approve the City Attorney to review the TIF amendment request and provide an update on the timetable before the property is returned to the public tax roll. In discussion Rockvam said he was under the impression this was not going to the year 2011. Frostad said it was going to 2006 and then increment in five years after that. The Council discussed the increase in the tax value of the property as the project got older. Reinhardt said she would appreciate more Council—4/18/05 5 background information from the initial discussion related to the TIF. Rockvam said this TIF is pay as you go. Williamson said the City did not sell bonds and did not put money up front and the only real harm is how long this will be off the tax rolls. Rockvam reaffirmed the net affect is positive. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 7. c) Engineer 2. Schoell &Madson Re: Lakeview Lofts—4/15/05 Weeks requested the engineer's report discussed at this point in the meeting. Adolf pointed out a potential issue on Spring Street regarding grading on private property on the south side of the street because the back of the proposed curb is six inches from the property line. Rockvam verified Frostad is looking for authorization to go on private property. Frostad said they would be driving onto Tonka Ventures property while grading the street. Adolf said he was just pointing out this is an issue and the construction is more involved than just having space to put in the curb because the elevation of Spring Street is being lowered. Frostad said he would need to be on private property when grading and when doing the grass area on the corner. He said he was asking how to manage the communication with Buttenhoff that he is doing this work on his property. Rockvam verified the area from the curb on the new location of Spring Street • to Buttenhoff s property line is 1 1/2 feet. Frostad said it is 6 feet from the parking lot curb cut. Hughes asked if planters are going to be in that area. Frostad said there is not room on City property for them. Adolf pointed out part of Buttenhoff s property is going to be regarded. Rockvam said the idea is great but if Buttenhoff does not want that done, would some type of retaining wall be done. Adolf said the wall would hinder the opening of car doors in the parking lot. Frostad asked how to best manage the communication with Buttenhoff. Adolf was concerned this would prevent completion of the road and he wanted to alert the Council. Hughes asked what Frostad's plan was for this. Frostad said he hoped the City would help with the communication problem. Reinhardt said the property owner has a right to be upset and this situation is in the developer's hands. Rockvam said the traveled lanes on Spring Street could be a foot less (6 inches on each side) and that extra foot would help and would not affect travel. He added the sod, if possible, would have to be restored. 7. c) 1. Schoell &Madson Re: Recommend Payment For Underground Jacking- 4/14/05 Adolf said the new water main crossing and force main crossing on Sunset Drive was for the Mist project and it was the intent to add it to the Lakeview Council—4/18/05 6 Lofts project. He said he is recommending reimbursement to Lakeview Lofts • for those costs. Rockvam said he has no issue with that but asked why there was such a delay on this. Adolf said the information was received and reviewed with the rest of the issues and it was decided to separate this from the other issues still pending. Williamson confirmed this is being added to Cornerstone's charges. Reinhardt asked if the payment was being,made to Frostad or to Weiss Builders. Weeks said the check was made to Lakeview Lofts LLC and it is on the claims for payment. 5. c) Planning Commission Minutes—4/13/05 1. Recommendation Re: Logo on the Water Tower Weeks said the base color was chosen for the water tower. Williamson stated the Council discussed and voted on using the logo on the tower last year and now something different is being requested. He said the Council asked the Planning Commission to review the request and their recommendation was 5 to 0 with communication from two absent members to reaffirm the logo. Williamson moved to go forward with the agenda. Rockvam said if there is a change in the Council they could revisit the matter and proceed with the request and vote it up or down. Williamson said he would like to appeal the decision of the chair according to Robert's Rules. He stated we must follow a process and a vote on the prevailing side can reconsider a motion. Reinhardt asked if the attorney had advice in this situation. Seifert said he has never had Roberts Rules disputed at a City Council meeting; rules are amended every day; if there are new people there is occasion to revisit something. He asked if the City of Spring Park adopted Roberts Rules. Williamson said we have accepted that Roberts Rules would be the way in which we conduct business. He added the Legislature adopts specific rules, regarding motions, order of business, special orders, calendars, etc. and every body can adopt their own rules. Seifert stated an argument that a new group can consider a previous motion could be done. He said no motion however, has been made Motion by Widmer seconded by Reinhardt to open to the public or ask about definite ideas about the logo. Hughes asked for clarification if the motion is to reopen to public discussion or the entire subject matter. Widmer clarified it is open for discussion. Upon roll call Hughes and Williamson voted no, Reinhardt, Widmer and Rockvam voted aye. Motion declared carried. Rockvam said former Council Person Thurk, 2484 Interlachen Road, submitted a request and petition to the City to reconsider the decision to use the logo on the new water tower. He said this was given to the Planning • Council—4/18/05 7 • Commission and they reaffirmed their previous position and now it is before the Council. He added there is new correspondence and different opinions and these have been entered into the record for the minutes. (Rockvam read the e-mails and letters at this time that were submitted to the City office regarding the smiley face.) Widmer said she received calls from residents in favor of the smiley face. She added that one person said the logo contains too much detail to be on the tower. Williamson referred to the general mailing sent to residents. He noted the new issue of the Verizon Directory does not contain most of the names of the Council and Planning Commission, thus he thanked the Laker for printing the names and phone numbers of the Council. Hughes said he did not receive a single phone call on this issue and one person in his neighborhood said he was in favor or the smiley face. He stated he heard more people say they do not care. Hughes spoke as a former Planning Commission member, that he has respect for the Planning Commission and their representation of residents and they reaffirmed in favor of the logo and we need to go with a new look. He said our tower was the smallest.tower on the lake and now we have a bigger tower and can represent us in a professional manner. Adolf confirmed the height of the new tower is the same as the existing but the new sphere will be larger. Rockvam pointed out when the original discussion took place last May there were a couple different proposals to • consider. He said one design was with the logo, of which many thought that may too busy, another proposal was the smiley face on three sides, and the third was to incorporate part of the logo and the smiley face. Mork Bredeson asked who sponsored the post card because the layout of the card lists the Council and it looks like they support the smiley face. She stated she received 11 phone calls asking why the Council supports this. Roxanne Rockvam, 2437 Black Lake Road, stated she sent the postcards. Mayor Rockvam pointed out the reason there is interest in this is because at the previous Council Meeting the color of paint for the tower was discussed and that is when the petition for the smiley face was submitted and it was given to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. Widmer said the names of the Council were on the card because they were going to discuss the smiley face at this meeting. Mason referred to the maturity of the development of our City and said that goes along with the water tower and that is our calling card. Widmer said our small town look is disappearing and the smiley face makes people feel at home, the lake is part of Spring Park and also part of our history. She added a lot of our history has been torn down and the only thing remaining pertaining to our history is the smiley face. R. Rockvam said the smiley face is the only link from the past to our future. She added the water tower is viewed as a • Council—4/18/05 8 landmark rather than a utility structure. She stated the Planning Commission decided on the logo as a cohesive design identifying the City and stated the logo is historical. R. Rockvam said the smiley face used with the word "Spring Park" on the tower would identify a lot of these issues. Kevin O'Neil, 4560 West Arm Road, said he agreed with R. Rockvarn to use the smiley face with name of the City. He pointed out we lost our identity with the new banners on Shoreline Drive that start in Navarre and go to Mound. He added the other City's banners displayed our logo and that would be a better place to display it. Mork Bredeson thanked the Mayor for mentioning the different options for the water tower. She said the suggestion of combining the two is not allowable because we are suggesting a change in our City logo and many people were involved in creating an identity for Spring Park such as a logo. She said if it was decided as an option to change it, we should go back to community to do this. She disagreed that keeping the smiley face is preserving history; it is preserving something that is familiar. She added she does not believe the smiley face accomplishes the objective of identifying Spring Park. Mayor Rockvam said we do not have our name on the tower and that is one reason for compromising. Williamson said the City Engineer had to prepare specs to put the water tower up for bid and so last May we proceeded as we did so they could put it out to bid. He asked why were we told we had to deal with it then and expressed his • concern an accurate presentation of information is not being given. He said he has no idea as to the author of the smiley face; he has seen it since the 60's so the idea of the smiley face is not unique to Spring Park but it has been freely used for years; he recognizes the familiarity of it. He said credit should be given to the person that designed our logo for the City. He said, as a matter of record, James Kangas produced something the City has found useful and it has served its purpose. He pointed out the petition was not a formal survey rather just soliciting opinions. Williamson stated this Council has solicited the Planning Commission for a recommendation twice and their recommendation has been unanimous to use the logo and he would be loathed if this Council would, for two times not listen to the Planning Commission. Hughes said he is concerned that the process we are using is not parliamentary procedure. He said Robert's Rules clearly states this is out of order and we should have a motion to rescind and to reconsider and the vote we should be taking is inappropriate. He clarified the motion and when it was stated the motion is for just discussion, Hughes said he was mistaken. Williamson noted the Planning Commission minutes state there were no addresses on the petition and all of the names were not Spring Park resident's just interested persons in the area. He said the petition is an expression and not a representative measure of Spring Park residents; there were multiple • Council—4/18/05 9 • signatures in the same handwriting listing family members which does not give it a great deal of weight and it cannot be expressed as Spring Park information. R. Rockvam said even though the petition does not have the full information, it displays a vested interest in what is going on the water tower. Mayor Rockvam stated the current motion voted on was to open the discussion. Motion by Widmer seconded by Reinhardt to approve the smiley face with the name "Spring Park" underneath for the water tower. In discussion Rockvam noted there is a lot of interest in what is going on the water tower and there seems to be two strong opinions. He asked how many sides for the logo on the tower were in the bid. Adolf said the bid was for one side and an alternate bid for the second side. He added the intent was to have two sides because the name of the City is long and larger letters would run into other side. Rockvam said there is a possibility that we can have the logo on two sides and the smiley face on two sides. Reinhardt said we have a nice Spring Park logo, it is appropriate for letterhead, web site, etc. but this particular logo is busy. She said most cities have the name of the City on their tower; she appreciates the Planning Commission's work on this and has respect for their opinion and comments, but does not think that the logo should be on the water tower. Reinhardt said • she feels it is vital that we have the name "Spring Park" on the tower and we can keep a little piece of that history and have the smiley face in some version in addition with the name. She added the Council is elected to voice the requests of the residents. She said she appreciates the comments from Mork Bredeson, etc. and the Council should give a second thought to this and the tower would look good with respect. Hughes stated short of sending something out to every resident the Planning Commission voted twice unanimously in favor of the logo and he would like to see something more professional looking on the water tower. Reinhardt said the smiley face would have character along with the City name. Rockvam said he is in favor of this compromise. Reinhardt said we should get a professional recommendation of what would fit on the tower. Anderson asked what precipitated this discussion on the water tower. Thurk said it was the petition and the fact nothing was publicized that the smiley face was going to be taken off the tower. Former Council Person Stone said the logo was declared too busy last May and it was decided the bird and trees would be taken off and that would not make it any busier that the smiley face. Adolf said if the name "Spring Park" and the smiley face are going to be used on two sides each, he suggests stacking the word "Spring Park" to allow more room. • Council—4/18/05 10 • Reinhardt asked if it was appropriate to amend the motion to have a professional obtain a three-dimensional view of how the word "Spring Park" stacked would look in with the smiley face. The maker of the motion agreed with the amendment (Reinhardt was the one who seconded the motion). Upon roll call Hughes and Williamson voted no, Reinhardt, Widmer and Rockvam voted aye. Motion declared carried. Goman said the paint crew would be on the site to start with the base coat and the final two coats would go on after the welding followed by the logo (or whatever). He said the completion date is August 31 st. Rockvam requested the rendition to be available in the next couple of weeks. Mork Bredeson requested the Planning Commission to be included in that process and Rockvam agreed. d) Shoreline Place Re: Request For Parking—4/15/05 Shoreline Place is requesting to use the area along the construction fence on the north side of Del Otero Avenue for their guests. Rockvam asked how many cars would fit in that area and was told about 3 or 4. Weeks said the contractor and developer have not replied to this request. Hughes verified this was the lower back parking lot used by the Mist. Rockvam asked if Shoreline Place leased the lot or just used it and was told they recently used it. He said his concern would be the flow of construction traffic through this area. • Goman said there is no issue if they park west of the east construction gate, however they are going to start water and sewer construction in the next couple of weeks so this would be a short term fix for their parking problem. Rockvam said the City could look at the "no parking" side of Del Otero. Goman said the south side of Del Otero and east of Bayview is regular parking and that area could be used. Williamson pointed out maybe 10 cars could park there but they could not block mailboxes or driveways. Mason said restaurant employee's park behind the bait shop. Martha Mason, Shoreline Place, said the tenants or guests are not allowed to park there. Rockvam said we could authorize parking per the request until that area is torn up. Mason asked for a"no outlet" sign to be installed. Goman said there already is a sign up. Hughes suggested writing Buttenhoff a letter asking to use his lot pointing out the need for parking would be in the evening. Rockvam said he did not feel the request a problem unless it interferes with the construction. Mason said it would be less of a problem as long as it happens in the evening. Reinhardt asked if there was a safety issue with parking on that street and was told there doesn't seem to be for now. A request for no boat trailer parking was made and Rockvam said that was a valid request. He suggested a 30-day trial with the parking request to see if it works. • Council—4/18/05 11 Motion by Hughes seconded by Reinhardt to approve the parking request by • Shoreline Place to allow guest parking on the north side of Del Otero along the construction fence for a 30 day trial period. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. e. Miscellaneous—None 6. ORDINANCES &RESOLUTIONS - None 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES a. Mayor 1. Administrative Committee Minutes—4/6/05 Williamson noted the committee had an extensive discussion on Norling's property, 4332 Shoreline Drive, and the lease with the Connors, the previous owners, and there is no mention of this in the minutes. Reinhardt noted a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) would be developed. Rockvam noted Norling has ceased working on the property. He added he could see how critical it is to keep the line of communication open between City, developer, contractor, etc. Hughes referred to West Arm Road central and said it was his understanding the City was not going to charge residents for any improvements but he is hearing there is a potential we are going to assess part of it. Rockvam stated the residents on Lafayette Lane were charged for some of their improvements and the City paid the balance. Reinhardt said the • residents in favor of the project would depend on what and if they are going to be assessed for it. Motion by Hughes seconded by Reinhardt to approve the Administrator to instruct Schoell & Madson to figure appropriate estimates for the two suggested designs for West Arm Road Central. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. b) Council—Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer Widmer asked if there was a leak in a water pipe on Spring Street by Sunset because a truck sank down in the mud. Goman said there was not unless a hydrant got hit and caused the water leak. He will look into this. Rockvam requested Lakeview Lofts install a sign on West Arm Drive that states "no construction traffic". Reinhardt said she is working on the website. c) Engineer—Discussed previously in the meeting d) Utility Superintendent Council—4/18/05 12 Goman gave an update on the progress of the water tower. He said the welding is • finished; the paint crew is on site and Tuesday they should start to sandblast, followed by painting. e) Administrator 1. Background &Update on Hoop House, 4340 West Arm Road Widmer pointed the neighbors stated there is a lot of activity going on such as hauling, etc. especially for someone not physically able to do anything per Rosen's communications. Rockvam asked when Rosen said he would have this done. Widmer said it would be in June. Rockvam asked the Council their decision on this. Widmer asked if Rosen received an occupancy permit. Weeks said he thought a temporary one was issued. Reinhardt asked when that expired. Weeks said he has not seen the date. Widmer asked the deadline on the landscaping. Rockvam asked if the Building Inspector inspects this and Weeks said the City Engineer does. Rockvam said if they are living in the house they should have a certificate of occupancy and why wait until June. Widmer said the City keeps on extending Rosen's deadlines. Reinhardt asked is there are options. Weeks will check on this, the status of the landscaping and the certificate of occupancy. Hughes said this issue is the hoop house and we should take it down and bill him. Rockvam said the City should know if it is legal to do that. Weeks will check on how to exercise this. • 2. May Calendar-Noted 3. Expenditures & Cash Investment Summary(End of 1"Qtr) Hughes referred to "Law/Legal Services" and asked if some of this will be charged back to developers. Weeks said this is the City's expense. Rockvam said we have to know the breakdown of the expenses. Weeks said they are for numerous projects. Hughes noted the large percentage for "Surface Water Management". Rockvam pointed out a lot of the expenses we would not have for the rest of the year. He requested a breakdown for the items with high percentages for the next meeting. Widmer referred to the claims for payment #2 Dahlke Tree Service and asked where the tree trimming was done. Goman said it was done on Black Lake Road, West Arm Road, and the banners and brackets are for the changing seasons. Widmer asked if the City received the excess increment check from the county and was told we did. Weeks said it was deposited at Prime Security. Williamson asked if the City received a check from the vacated portion of Del Otero. Weeks said no because the closing was delayed until the end of the month. 4. Miscellaneous • Council—4/18/05 13 Weeks said the Police Commission Meeting is at All Stars tomorrow at 1:00 • p.m. 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT Motion by Widmer seconded by Hughes to approve the claims for payment for April 18, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -None 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Letter to West Arm Residents Re: Potential Road Improvements—4/5/05 b) Letter to Todd Frostad Re: Lakeview Lofts—4/7/05 c) Letter to George Norling Re: 4316 & 4332 Shoreline Drive—4/11/05 d) Newsletter Spring 2005 11. MISCELLANEOUS Mason asked if it was possible to put up a sign that stated the road is closed at Bayview Place. Goman said it is possible to put one up that states road closed ahead or no thru traffic or no outlet. He said he would look into it. 12. ADJOURNMENT • Motion by Williamson seconded by Widmer to adjourn the Council Meeting at 10:40 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. —7 SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK WILLIAM hWft� ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER • Council—4/18/05 14 CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK, M NNE TS OA RECEIVED ED MINUTES MAY " 2 20 RECONVENED BOARD OF REVIEW HEAD,SE1FEW APRIL 25, 2005 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL &VANDEA 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Rockvam called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam were present and Hughes was excused. Staff present: Administrator Weeks and Deputy Clerk Corl. Others present: Bill Davy and Nathan Stulc, Hennepin County Assessors. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Widmer to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —Board of Review April 11, 2005 Motion by Widmer seconded by Reinhardt to approve the minutes for the Board of Review on April 11, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. RECONVENED BOARD OF REVIEW a) Assessor's Determinations b) Council's Recommendations The Council made their recommendations individually according to the order of the assessor's determinations discussed below. All recommendations are for 2005 Estimated Market Value. Rockvam noted that at the Board of Review, Davy determined there would be no change for Gene Shavlik's property, 4608 West Arm Road. Kevin O'Neil, 4560 West Arm Road—PID 18-117-23-34-0059 Land- $367,000; Building- $163,000= $530,000 Davy stated he reviewed the property and reduced the valuation from $530,000 to $514,000 and the reduction was in the building and that was reduced to $147,000. Motion by Widmer seconded by Reinhardt to approve the assessor's recommendation for Kevin O'Neil, 4560 West Arm Road, PID 18-117-23-34- • Reconvened Board of Review—4/25/05 1 f• • 0059 from $530,000 to $514,000. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Thomas Geib, 4550 West Arm Road, PID 18-117-23-34-0039 Land$367,000; Building $154,000 = $521,000 Davy stated the building was reduced to $133,000. Motion by Widmer seconded by Reinhardt to approve the assessor's recommendation for Thomas Geib, 4550 West Arm Road, PID 18-117-23-34- 0039 from $521,000 to $500,000. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Carl Widmer, 3884 Sunset Drive, PID 17-117-23-32-0019 Land $618,000; Building $34,000 = $652,000 The assessor's recommendation was no change for this property. Rockvam verified the valuation of the land and the building with Davy. Davy verbally applied the formula for this property. Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to approve the assessor's recommendation of no change for Carl Widmer, 3884 Sunset Drive, PID 17- 117-23-32-0019. • Williamson stated he would like the record to reflect Widmer should not be voting on this motion. Widmer stated she was aware of what her status was on this matter. Upon roll call Reinhardt, Williamson and Rockvam voted aye and Widmer abstained. Motion declared carried. Roger Swanson, 4208 West Arm Drive, PID 18-117-23-44-0064 Land $500,000; Building $315,000 = $815,000 Davy stated this property borders the keystone wall and the holding pond and this affects the property. He pointed out Swanson does have 122 feet of lakeshore and that is more than the other properties on that street. Davy said he reduced the land by $75,000 but the building remained the same. Rockvam asked how this affects the homeowner on the other side of the pond. Davy stated the pond does not impact the property on the other side as much as Swanson's. Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to approve the assessor's recommendations for Roger Swanson, 4208 West Arm Drive, PID 18-117-23- 44-0064 from $815,000 to $740,000. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Gene Shavlik, 4608 West Arm Road, PID 18-117-23-33-0047 Land$788,000; Building $188,000= $976,000 (125 feet of lakeshore) • As previously stated the assessor's recommendation was no change. Reconvened Board of Review—4/25/05 2 • Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Widmer to approve the assessor's recommendation of no change of$976,000 for Gene Shavlik, 4608 West Arm Road, PID 18-117-23-33-0047. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. c) Adjourn Board of Review Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to adjourn the board of review for 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. f 6. MISCELLANEOUS —None 7. ADJOURNMENT a R • Motion by Widmer seconded by Williamson to adjourn the meeting at*40 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. < • SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK ILL D. WEEKS ADMMSTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER • Reconvened Board of Review—4/25/05 3 CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA RECEIVED COUNCIL MEETING MAY 2, 2005 MAY - 2 M 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL HEAD,SEIFERT &VANDER WEIDE 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) Council Meeting- April 18, 2005 b) Reconvened Board of Review—April 25, 2005 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & APPLICATIONS a) Tom Scanlon, LMCD b) Upper Tonka Little League Agreement—2005 c) Schoell &Madson Re: West Arm Road Central (Public Portion)—4/26/05 • d) Water Tower Graphics (Schoell & Madson) 1. Letter Ron Keagle, 3829 Sunset Drive—4/28/05 e) Miscellaneous 6. ORDINANCES &RESOLUTIONS 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES a) Mayor 1. Police Commission Minutes & Reports—4/19/05 b) Council—Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer c) Engineer 1. Schoell &Madson Re: Pay Request#7 (Water Tower)—4/26/05 d) Utility Superintendent e) Administrator 1. Building & Sign Report—April 2. Channels 8 & 20 Schedules 3. Head, Seifert &Vander Weide Re: Lakeview Lofts TIF Amendment— 4/29/05 4. Miscellaneous 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT • 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESSS Council Agenda—5/2/05 1 e • 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS a) E-Mail from J E Dunn Re: Parking on the North Side of Del Otero b) Four E-Mails (Three from Residents) Re: Smiley Face c) Hennepin County Sheriff s Open House (Tuesday 5/17/05) d) LMCD Boat Density Committee Public Hearing Agenda(May 11, 2005) e) Letter to Todd Frostad Re: Spring Street Dates—4/28/05 f) Memo Tom Seifert Re: Lakeview Lofts Development—4/28/05 g) Gillespie Center Re: Request For Funds—4/22/05 11. MISCELLANEOUS 12. ADJOURNMENT • Council Agenda—5/2/05 2 w .- CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA RECEIVED MINUTES MAY 18 2005 COUNCIL MEETING MAY 2, 2005 HEAD, SEIFERT 7:30 P.M.— CITY HALL &VANDER WEIDE l. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Rockvam called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson Widmer and Rockvam were present. Staff present: Administrator Weeks, Utility Superintendent Goman, and Deputy Clerk Corl. Others present: Ken Adolf, City Engineer, and Planning Commissioners Anderson, Mason, and Aschinger. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) Council Meeting—April 18, 2005 Motion by Hughes seconded by Reinhardt to approve the minutes for the Council Meeting April 18, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. b) Reconvened Board of Review—April 25, 2005 Motion by Williamson seconded by Widmer to approve the minutes for the Reconvened Board of Review April 25, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Mayor Rockvam introduced the Council and Staff to the viewing public. 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS a) Tom Scanlon, LMCD Scanlon reported the official ice out date and time was April 9th at 4:00 a.m. Hughes had questioned Scanlon at a previous meeting regarding the age of the harvesters traded in. Scanlon said they were from 1988. He added the harvesting of the milfoil would start the week of June 6th and continue thru August 12th Scanlon said the process is to do two cycles around the lake. He said the LMCD • is looking for volunteers for the DNR to monitor the clarity of West Arm and Council- 5/2/05 1 Black Lake. Scanlon further reported the LMCD would be starting to work on their budget for 2006 on May 25`h, the draft will be sent to all the cities and it would be finalized by July. He referred to the handout to the Council and said it was from a presentation given to the LMCD regarding improving water clarity. He said the DNR and MCWD are going to be installing the machines to help with the declining water clarity in Stubbs Bay. Scanlon stated however, Halstead and Jennings Bays also have poor clarity. Scanlon said five such machines would be located around Stubbs Bay on a one- year lease through the DNR and the machines will be marked for safety with a flashing light on each for night safety. He said the units are 17 feet wide; the top is powered by solar energy and will pull water from the bottom and bring it to the top to churn the water and stir up the algae. There is no determination as to how effective this process is and statistics from this project would be part of the findings. Scanlon noted the increased flow of the water increases the oxygen and this would increase the number of fish in the area. Rockvam said the watershed at one time was looking for a treatment program to apply to the water at the creek in Jennings Bay before the water entered the lake. He asked if there was any mention of this and was told no. Scanlon said the program would take place in the summer only. Williamson said page three refers to TP and asked what that is. Scanlon will check on this. Hughes asked if there is any discussion about treating the bottom of Jennings Bay with something and was • told no. Scanlon said the anoxic water is where all the phosphorus is location and it is not the intent to churn that water. The machine will be set to pull water above that line. Williamson verified the goal is to put oxygen in it but not to stir up the bottom. Scanlon said the blue green algae is located above the anoxic water and he noted the algae also emits an odor. Williamson asked who is paying for the machines. Scanlon said the DNR and possibly the watershed. Reinhardt asked the cost of each machine and was told they are $30,000 each. Commissioner Aschinger said the citizen lake monitoring program for water clarity is posted on the DNR website. Scanlon noted the LMCD has an Exotics sub committee that made a presentation on a monitoring system that could be used at a boat landing and would show if boaters are exercising weed removal, etc. from their water craft. He said the system would be able to identify a person that is not following rules pertaining to the precautionary safe guard measures of preventing exotics in the lake. Rockvam noted there used to be a cleaning station for boats coming in from other lakes. Scanlon said the LMCD did not want to continue doing that. He said instructions are given to boaters that are contestants of tournaments regarding the cleaning and inspection of their boat. Scanlon asked if the Council was in favor of moving forward on the exploration of this system. He said this is a monitoring process and if people know they are monitored they would be more conscious of doing what they are supposed to do. • Council- 5/2/05 2 Scanlon also reported Wednesday May 1 lch the LMCD is having a public meeting at Wayzata City Hall regarding boat density discussions. He said they would be discussing a variety of topics and taking input from individuals and business owners. He said the goal of the committee is to create a new policy to reflect today's boating trends. He said the meeting is from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.; it will be taped and aired. In another matter Scanlon said he does not like the smiley face, the City has no identity and the logo would help improve the identity of the City. b) Upper Tonka Little League Agreement—2005 Rockvam verified the agreement is the same as in the past and they are going to maintain the infield. Williamson pointed out the City's concern has been parking and the league picking up their own trash. Reinhardt noted there would be a change in their schedule. Weeks said they would be submitting the change so they would have priority for the field. Williamson said if there are no complaints he is in agreement. Motion by Williamson seconded by Widmer to approve the Upper Tonka Little League Agreement for 2005 for the use of Thor Thompson Park. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. c) Schoell &Madson Re: West Arm Road Central (Public Portion)—4/26/05 Rockvam gave a brief background of this discussion. He said there was a fire in • that area and a recommendation was to see if we could make improvements addressing safety issues. He pointed out the area for discussion is from Kings Road to the private portion of West Arm Road Central. Greg Pederson, Fire Chief, stated on June 6, 2004, there was a fire at 4540 West Arm Road and access to the resident was limited. He said the code the fire department references is the State of MN 2003 Fire Code and that includes the International Fire Code. Pederson stated the department referred to this code when Lakeview Lofts was evaluated. He defined a fire access road as a road that provides access from the station to the fire location and applies to all roadways; it does not apply to a private driveway, and shall have an unobstructed width of 20 feet. J. Samuelson, 4484 West Arm Road, asked if this is the only road in the City that is not 20 feet wide. Rockvam said a recommendation was made on this particular road and there are roads in the City that are 20 feet wide and some are less. Williamson asked how wide this road is. Goman said it ranges from 26 feet to 14 feet where the private portion begins. L. Geib, 4550 West Arm Road, stated the problem with access on the private portion is the bushes. Samuelson said the problem on the night of the fire was at . the end of the road in the private portion. Pederson pointed out cars were parked outside at the home of the fire. Geib noted there were rocks; a structure;and a utility pole also at that address. It was noted by another resident there was a fire • on the lake the previous year and there was not a problem with the road at that Council- 5/2/05 3 time. Geib stated the construction going on at the home of the fire caused the problem for the fire trucks. Pederson said the code was in place for safety and it was developed through a long process and from a safety standpoint a 14-foot road is not a good situation. Williamson asked how the code is enforced. Pederson said it is only applicable to roads built after 2003 and conformity is not applicable to the private road. Samuelson stated the pole in question the night of the fire is located at 4512 West Arm Road that is on the private portion. He said that concern is on the private portion; if the City does improvements to the public portion and nothing to the private portion, how would expenses be assessed if they were assessed. He pointed out the property owners on the private portion have to use the public portion to get to their property. Rockvam said the City Attorney reviewed this and we were told the City has no control over improving the private portion. He stated at that time the Council looked at the public portion to see what could be done to improve it. Rockvam said moving some utility poles back and the bituminous curb were some ideas that came to mind. Adolf said a concept plan was prepared. He displayed the existing conditions and also a proposal of a 20-foot wide roadway. He said the end of April he included a second option of a 26-foot roadway that would allow parking on one side of the road. He said the north curb would be at the existing asphalt and the widening would be on the easement the City has on the railroad property. • He added this would move the line 6 feet from the existing asphalt; the cost would include concrete curb and gutter, tree clearing and both options would include storm sewer run off improvements. S. Valek, 4464 West Arm Road, stated run off water travels down their driveway. J. Peterson, 4452, West Arm Road, stated the ditch where the water goes into the lake would never handle all that water. Adolf verified there is a ditch and storage area on the south side of West Arm Road. Rockvam asked if the volume of water would need a retention pond. Adolf said there is a detention area on the south side of the tracks and under the road and if the flow is more than that area can handle, it will pond in that area. Rockvam stated concern with the deterioration of the area across Kings Road from the Mini Storage. He said the trucks going to the house construction on West Arm Road left that area a mess. He said we should plant grass and use boulders to keep traffic off. Goman stated the City owns 50 feet from the centerline south of the railroad tracks to the power pole at Kings Road and Warren Avenue. Rockvam asked the width of easement on City Streets and was told it is 40 feet. Reinhardt asked if there were other things we could do for public safety besides widening the road and moving poles. Adolf said the growth could be trimmed • back. He added a 13 foot unobstructed height is also required and the City has the Council- 5/2/05 4 ability to do that. He said it was a gray area if we could have Xcel move power ipoles if they are within the right-of-way of the 10-foot easement from the railroad and assume the utility company would pay for this. T. Geib, 4550 West Arm Road, asked if the improvement was done to this road or if two feet were added to the road, would it be considered a new road or an existing road. He added he wrote a letter to the City and pointed out the telephone poles make the road narrow at the private end of the street and that is an option to consider. M. Ronnkvist, 4484 West Arm Road, indicated burying the cable would be helpful. K. O'Neil, 4560 West Arm Road, ask if the City is considering this for all roads that are less than 20 feet in width. Rockvam said this is the only road for now; the City improved West Arm Road east and Lafayette Lane a few years ago. He added as issues come forward it made sense to take care of them all at once in this area, but we do not have a long-range plan to do all the roads. Ronnkvist pointed out the railroad forbids the property owners to maintain the railroad property and the growth is out of control. Williamson said state statue applies to noxious weeds and that problem could be solved. J. Peterson asked for the potential dollar amount on the road improvement, who is going to pay for it and who is going to bear the cost of the residents on the private portion using the public portion to access their property. Rockvam stated the City has treated each street improvement differently because of funds that were available at the time of the project. He said we had money • from the county for West Arm East, and CAM Funds for Lafayette Lane. He said those residents were assessed 25% of the cost and that project contained a major drainage issue and concrete curb and gutter were installed. Rockvam said the cost estimate for West Arm Central is $100,000 and no decision has been made regarding funding the project. He said we were at the point of presenting it to the residents to get their opinions. Rockvam said if the drainage issue off of West Arm Road was addressed, that would solve a big problem and everyone benefits from this, both private and public. He asked how much of the cost is dealing with drainage. Adolf said this would include other improvements to obtain the drainage results. Rockvam stated there are some things we could do this year i.e. take out the berm to make better access to mailboxes and address part of the drainage issue with out doing the road. He added the City is not in a position to do anything this season but could do temporary improvements such as moving poles, cut bushes, move the curb and next year review assessments. T. Geib verified it was in agreement to move the offending pole on the private portion and also hook up and move the fire hydrant. Goman said it would be moved back 10 feet. Samuelson said if the poles and hydrant were moved there would be no issues except the drainage. Rockvam stated solving that would involve improvements to the street. Williamson said the immediacy has to do • with vehicle access. Council- 5/2/05 5 He asked if the staff could research having all the poles moved back. Goman said the utility company would charge for moving the poles unless it was part of a citywide project. Williamson pointed out the cost of burying the lines is approximately six times the cost. Goman said he would obtain an estimate of the costs for moving the poles. Rockvam asked if permission was needed to move the pole on the private portion of the street. Goman stated six poles need to be moved including the private portion and we have an easement on the private portion. The newly transplanted trees on Warren Avenue were noted. d) Water Tower Graphics (Schoell &Madson) 1. Letter Ron Keagle, 3829 Sunset Drive—4/28/05 Adolf stated the Administrator worked with the firm to come up with the graphics. Rockvam read the above letter into the record and also four other e- mails. Hughes noted Reinhardt is updating the City's website (springp ark.govoffice.com) and he thanked Adolf for the updated graphics on the water tower. Motion by Rockvam seconded by Reinhardt to have the City logo on two sides of the water tower and the smiley face on two sides. In discussion Hughes noted the minutes from the last meeting stated the Planning Commission be included and Rockvam agreed and pointed out they recommended • the logo on the water tower. He asked Adolf the time frame left for a decision on the graphics on the tower. Adolf said the City is running out of time and the tower is supposed to be done by the end of June and that leaves a month to get everything done. Williamson asked if we know what firm would be doing the graphics. Adolf said it was part of the contract for the tower, the firm is a painting sub contractor of Maguire Iron, and the original City logo has been submitted. He added the only addition would be the two smiley faces. Williamson asked if the logo is on two sides and smiley face on two sides opposed what is an estimate of the additional cost. Adolf guessed it would be less than the logo cost pointing out $11,500 is for two logos and $5,000 is for an additional side using the logo. Hughes stated the Planning Commissioners present should at least be polled. Aschinger said the logo looks nice and the addition of the smiley face has a baseball affect, crowds it and takes away the nice appearance of the logo. She suggested placing the smiley face on the stem below the sphere. Widmer said the trees could be removed and replaced by the smile. Rockvam said we could not change the logo in that manner and it would be a good idea to gel the two together to please most of the people. Mason stated he never knew the smiley face existed for 29 years because it is small. He said the logo identifies the City, as Spring Park and if the smiley face is up it should be made smaller than the logo. Hughes stated he also agrees with that • representation and would like the smiley face the same size as it is now so the Council- 5/2/05 6 tower does not have a tattooed affect and there is some space in between graphics. • He said the same size smiley face would fit on the pedestal. Scanlon asked which direction each different graphic would face. Hughes said the logo should face east and west. Reinhardt said the motion is a good compromise and the smiley face maintains a sense of history. Widmer said the Council previously decided to not to include the bird, the letters "SP" and the words Lake Minnetonka. Rockvam again said if we use the logo we could not change it unless we change it formally. Mason suggested placing the smiley face on top for aircraft to see. Adolf said the size of the bird compares to the size of the fish on Tonka Bay's water tower. Williamson asked those present for their opinion. Peterson said she has looked at the smiley face every day for 40 years. Upon roll call Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam voted aye. Motion declared carried. Rockvam suggested the smiley face should be facing north and south and the logo east and west. Williamson suggested the placement to be placed southeast, southwest, northeast and northwest. Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to off set the impressions on the water tower by 45 degrees. In discussion Hughes asked if the direction of Shoreline Drive (County Road 15) was a true east west direction. He suggested tabling the motion until a drawing of the road was obtained. Motion by Hughes seconded by Williamson to table the motion until a drawing of Shoreline Drive was obtained. In discussion Williamson asked if there was time for the motion to be considered. Adolf said he thought there would be time. He said he would like to get the two sets of graphics on the same drawing because the logo may have to be reduced. Aschinger requested the dimensions of the drawing. Adolf said he would do several options. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. e) Miscellaneous—None 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES a) Mayor 1. Police Commission Minutes &Reports—4/19/05 Reinhardt questioned the change in the ownership at All Stars. Rockvam said the new co-owner is no longer there. Weeks stated he is still waiting for the application. Rockvam said they should write a letter stating the current owner Council- 5/2/05 7 • situation. He added the license is supposed to be accurate. Hughes referred to Tonka Grill's recent owner change and license situation. Williamson said All Stars brought in a new owner and that is a different situation and he would like the license to reflect the ownership. Rockvam said the license could be transferred directly to John McGinnis. Rockvam referred to the plans for remodeling City Hall that were reviewed by the Planning Commission. He said he was interested in just redoing the hall, not the entire interior. Williamson said we asked for options i.e. redoing the Council and Planning Commission table and this could be addressed at the joint meeting May 23`d. Hughes suggested setting time frames for topics to make sure it is a two-hour meeting. Accommodating an overflow crowd was briefly discussed. Rockvam said the Council has not seen the plans and the architect should present them at a Council meeting In another matter Rockvam noted a letter from the attorney to Lakeview Lofts that stated Spring Street will be closed until June. Goman said the street is supposed to be open and "construction passable". Rockvam asked if anything has been done with the requested lighting. Goman stated they are putting lighting on the exterior of the building due to the angle from the pole and also there is no power on the pole. Rockvam asked about the lighting on the pole for the Cornerstone project. Goman said they are working on this. • b) Council—Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer Reinhardt stated it would have been helpful to have minutes from the past regarding discussions that have been continued to this Council so the new members have as much background information as possible. Williamson pointed out there may be a few of those discussions because we revisit items from other years. Weeks told Reinhardt to call the office or stop in to review if there is something available that would be helpful. c) Engineer 1. Schoell &Madson Re: Pay Request#7 (Water Tower)—4/26/05 Adolf recommending payment for field erection and painting of what has happened so far. He noted the tower is 75% completed. Motion by Williamson seconded by Widmer to approve pay request #7 to Maguire Iron for the water tower. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Rockvam expressed dismay in the length of time it is taking to get amounts in the funds they are supposed to be in. Williamson pointed out Hughes suggested creating a spreadsheet on each project that would indicate the status of each one. Weeks said he is waiting to start new funds until we have money to put in them. We still must take money out of savings accounts to pay bills. Rockvam pointed out we received the money from the TIF. Council- 5/2/05 8 Williamson said upon the closing of Cornerstone with their lender, we would • receive money from the partial vacation of Del Otero and money from their building permit. He asked for the most recent information of their closing status. Weeks said they hope to close in a couple of weeks and they currently are experiencing problems with the contamination of the soil and are applying for a grant from the county to offset costs for the clean up. Rockvam said we should set up monthly meetings with them to keep the Council briefed on their project. Hughes said each contractor should be coming in every other meeting. d) Utility Superintendent Goman said he would have an update on Lift Station 96 for the next Council Meeting. He said the update would include an engineering estimate and recommended changes to the roof. In another matter he said he checked Thor Thompson Park i.e. the complaints regarding missing nuts and bolts on the play equipment and did not find any problem. e) Administrator 1. Building & Sign Report—April—Noted ." 2. Channels 8 &20 Schedules—Noted 3. Head, Seifert &Vander Weide Re: Lakeview Lofts TIF Amendment& 4. Springsted Re: Spring Street TIF Amendment—5/2/05 Weeks noted the memo regarding the options for the TIF Amendment request • from Todd Frostad, Lakeview Lofts. Weeks said he could ask Bruce Kimmel, Springsted, to attend the Council Meeting on May 16`h. Williamson said he had several concerns with Frostad's request for additional TIF and expected to see a new revised pay out and pay back schedule. Rockvam asked how much longer it would take for TIF reimbursement. Williamson said according to Kimmel it would take one additional year. Williamson said this is not just a yes or no proposition and there is a difference in the amount of money paid today versus the amount paid over a period of years as noted in the last paragraph of Kimmel's letter. He said the question is not only what is proper but also what are economical and actual dollars that would go out and the pay back amount. Rockvam said he wants to see an adjusted schedule. Weeks said he would get one that supports Kimmel's summary. Hughes referred to the request on 9/16/04 to the Planning Commission that stated the amount would be nothing more than $500,000. He said at that time the Planning Commission did not discuss it because not enough information was provided. Hughes stated he would like to see Kimmel's comments regarding the amount of the request increasing above $500,000. Rockvam pointed out Kimmel said we could go to $650,000. Hughes asked where is the margin and the difference. Weeks pointed out according to Frostad's application he had an additional $250,000 in soil contamination costs. He said the Council has to weigh if they want to give more or not. He pointed out there are additional costs for the Council- 5/2/05 9 developer if there is a public hearing. Weeks said he would get the schedule • Williamson requested for the next meeting. He added we are only going to pay the increment as it comes in. Reinhardt said she would like to see what else the money is for but not on a schedule, estimates are acceptable. Rockvam said to mention to Frostad the original request for $500,000 was all that was needed. Hughes does not believe that money has all been spent yet. Rockvam suggested Hughes meet with Kimmel. Hughes said we pay Kimmel, our financial advisor on this, and have not found anything that would differ from that document and we do not have that list of what is included. Briefly discussed was an hour meeting with Kimmel but that was opposed because it would not be in front of the camera for the viewing public. Rockvam said Kimmel and Frostad should meet to discuss this. Weeks said Frostad is coming to the Council Meeting May 16cn 4. Miscellaneous Weeks reminded the Council of the City wide clean up on 5/14/05 at 7:00 a.m. Widmer referred to the Building and Sign Report and asked if a building permit was obtained for the stucco on the side of the building and was told no. Rockvam asked if one was needed. Weeks said new siding requires a permit and he tried to reach the contractor. Rockvam said the permit, if required, would be an after the fact permit. • 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT Motion by Hughes seconded by Reinhardt to approve the claims for payment for May 2, 2005. In discussion Williamson referred to #5, lease payment to Connors and verified it was deducted from Maguire Iron's payment. He also referred to #9 to Gillespie Senior Services and thought the Council should have approved this first. Rockvam said this amount was approved in the budget. Widmer and Hughes reiterated this. Widmer referred to #17, Norling's, and asked what was done for the main break. Goman said there was damage on the east side of the road by Lord Fletcher' Restaurant that was restored, and restoration was also done on the west side of the lower driveway behind the retaining wall. Rockvam asked if all the transplanted trees go to same area and was told yes. Widmer asked if there would be some type of barrier on the upper drive at the retaining wall. Goman said the upper drive would be totally redone. He said the building inspector said shrubbery could take the place of a fence. Widmer inquired about the boulders piled by the water plant and Goman said they would be used on the east side of the upper driveway. Rockvam requested Goman bring all of the • enhancements to the Council so they could see what they would look like. Widmer Council- 5/2/05 10 clarified all of Norling's costs are not going to the Beautification Fund. Williamson • inquired about the future of the existing water tower. Goman said it belongs to Maguire Iron, and will be sandblasted, and shipped to another City. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS —None 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) E-Mail from J E Dunn Re: Parking on the North Side of Del Otero b) Four E-Mails (Three from Residents) Re: Smiley Face c) Hennepin County Sheriff's Open House (Tuesday 5/17/05) d) LMCD Boat Density Committee Public Hearing Agenda(May 11, 2005) e) Letter to Todd Frostad Re: Spring Street Dates 4/28/05 f) Memo Tom Seifert Re: Lakeview Lofts Development—4/28/05 g) Gillespie Center Re: Request For Funds—4/22/05 11. MISCELLANEOUS Hughes stated he would like to see a list of the money coming in similar to the list of outgoing money. Weeks said there is an income fund for every department done monthly and he would distribute it to the Council. • 12. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Williamson seconded by Widmer to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK ILLIAM D. WE KS ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER • Council- 5/2/05 11 CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA RECEIVED COUNCIL MEETING M05 MAY 16, 2005 MAY 18 20 7:30 P.M. —CITY HALL HEAD, SEIFERT &VANDER WEIDE 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —May 2, 2005 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS a) Presentation- Jan Haugen, Videographer b) Todd Frostad 1. TIF Request a) Springsted Re: TIF Amendment—5110105 b) Frostad Development Co. Re: TIF Supporting Data—5/11/05 • c) Letter From Ron Keagle, 3829 Sunset Drive—5/12/05 d) Letter From City Re: Lakeview Lofts Deposit Deficiency—3/30/05 2. Construction Update a) Memo From Weeks Re: Spring Street Complaint—5/11/05 c) NAC Re: Streetscape Review(The Mist Lofts &Lakeview Lofts)—5/13/05 d) Phil Johnson Re: City Hall Remodeling e) Wayne Olson, Cornerstone Re: Grant Application Request 1. Head, Seifert &Vander Weide Re: Land Grant Clean Up—5/12/05 a) City Letter to DEED &Henn. Co. Dept. of Econ. Dev. —5/2/05 f) Planning Commission Minutes—5111105 1. Recommendation Proposal for Thor Thompson Park 2. Recommendation for Start Time Joint Meeting g) Miscellaneous 6. ORDINANCES &RESOLUTIONS a) Resolution 05-15 —Approving Execution of Consent to Assignment &Agreement By The Mist Lofts, Lender, City 1. Head, Seifert &Vander Weide Re: Proposed Resolution 05-15 —5/12/05 a) Letters From City Referencing Cornerstone Deposit Deficiency 1. March 30, 2005 2. May 12, 2005 2. Consent To Assignment &Agreement Council Agenda—5/16/05 1 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES a) Mayor 1. Administrative Committee Minutes—5/4/05 b) Council—Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer c) Engineer 1. Schoell &Madson Re: Update on Lift Station#6—5/13/05 d) Utility Superintendent 1. Estimate for Moving Power Poles on West Arm Central e) Administrator 1. Calendar - June 2. Income Summary—First Quarter 3. Water Tower Graphics: Size Determination & Orientation 5. Miscellaneous 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS a) Kennedy& Graven Re: SRA— 5/3/05 b) LMCC Re: Air Times for Channels 8 & 20 c) Letter to Frostad Development Co. Re: Progress Report—5/9/05 d) Letter to Cornerstone Group Re: Progress Report— 5/10/05 • e) Letter to J. McGinnis Re: All Stars— 5110105 1. Orono Police Dept Re: All Stars—5/13/05 f) Orono Schools Re: Distinguished Alumnus (Rockvam)—4/18/05 g) Orono Police Department Press Release Re: Seat Belts— 5/3/05 h) NAC Re: Tonka Ventures/Salvation Army Request—5/13/05 11. MISCELLANEOUS 12. ADJOURNMENT • Council Agenda—5/16/05 2 • CITY OF SPRING PARK RECEIVED SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA JUN - 6 2005 MINUTES HEAD, SEIFERT COUNCIL MEETING MAY 16, 2005 &VANDER WEIDE 7:30 P.M.— CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Rockvam called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. 2. ROLL CALL Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam were present. Staff Present: Administrator Weeks, Utility Superintendent Goman and Deputy Clerk Corl. Others present: Brian Vitek, City Engineer; Dan Petrik, City Planner; Tom Seifert & Nancy Beck, City Attorney's; Planning Commissioner Mason. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to move item 5.b)l.d) to the first item under 5.b) "Todd Frostad" and adopt the remainder of the agenda. All votes • were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —May 2, 2005 Motion by Williamson seconded by Widmer to approve the minutes far the Council Meeting on May 2, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Mayor Rockvam introduced the Council and Staff to the viewing public. 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS a) Presentation—Jan Haugen, Videographer Rockvam noted that Haugen is leaving the LMCC and has been taping the City's Council Meetings for over 13 years; her involvement with the LMCq started in 1983. He wished her good luck on behalf of the City and presented her with a tape of"Spring Park Glory Days". b) Todd Frostad Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to have the Council retire into an executive closed session with the City Attorneys regarding deposit deficiencies and to discuss potential personnel matters. Upon roll call Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam voted aye. Motion declared carried. . (See attached minutes) Council—5/16/05 1 E • Rockvam requested the minute's state the Council returned to the regular meeting from the executive session at 8:41 p.m. b) Todd Frostad Rockvam told Frostad his escrow account has been delinquent for 45 days, he submitted a check tonight and he is still short. Williamson pointed out there would be additional bills and the escrow account has to be restored to $50,000. Rockvam informed Frostad that when the account gets down beyond the balance in the agreement the City would red tag the project. He said there is an agreement to maintain a certain balance and Frostad has not kept his part of the Developer's Agreement. R E,� 1. TIF Request a) Springsted Re: Amendment— 5110105 -Noted b) Frostad Development Co. Re: TIF Supporting Data—5111105 - Noted c) Letter From Ron Keagle, 3829 Sunset Drive—5/12/05 -Noted Williamson requested there be a ten-minute limit on this discussion. Frostad said he has been in communication with Weeks and apologized for the delay with his payments and it will not happen again. He said he is trying to get clarification on some of the items. Frostad stated his request is to amend the TIF request that subsequently is a request to amend the Developer's Agreement. He said he experienced unknown costs associated with site • improvements that were part of TIF utilization, particularly the significant cost with the soil remediation. Frostad added the building would not have adequate water pressure and he will have to install booster pumps. He said he was originally assured the pressure would be adequate but the flow test came up negative. Hughes asked how the new water tower would affect this site. Goman said the water is adding capacity, not pressure Frostad noted the Council requested documentation of the added costs and he provided those invoices. Rockvam pointed out Springsted has provided us with a pay out and pay back schedule. Williamson said the schedule adds a minimum of one year and it does explain how it would work. Rockvam said the figures are based on real estate values today. Williamson stated that is what we asked for. Hughes referred Kimmel's letter from 9/16/04 that states the projected return on investment does not indicate a requirement for anything more than the proposed $500,000. He said his question still remains unanswered regarding the increase in the TIF and as to where is the margin and the difference. He said nothing addresses this question and he asked what Bruce Kimmel's (City Financial Advisor) answer is to that question. Rockvam said this message should be transmitted back to Kimmel for an answer. Seifert stated the note and the Developer's Agreement would have to be corrected. Williamson referred to the deficiency in the escrow account and said • an amended figure had to be prepared. E R Council—5/16/05 2 s. Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to table the TIF amendment until such time the City Attorney can verify to the City any such default and deficiency has been corrected. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 2. Construction update a) Memo From Weeks Re: Spring Street Complaint—5/11/05 -Noted b) BGS Re: Tonka Ventures, Lakeview Lofts—5/16/05 -Noted Williamson verified all neighbors and tenants at the east end of the Tonka Ventures Building (Joel Buttenhoff, owner) have been notified of this item on the agenda. Seifert stated the City received a letter from Buttenhoff s attorney registering a complain with the City regarding the use of Buttenhoff's property as a staging area for construction needs; it particularly referred to four cement trucks parking in his lot when he was told the use of his property is unacceptable. Frostad said he has spoken with Buttenhoff, the site superintendent, and adjacent tenants and has provided them with a schedule for Spring Street reconstruction. He said Buttenhoff has been responsive to the retaining wall, etc. and there was communication with him last Friday. Williamson asked Frostad if he was surprised to hear of trucks with heavy loads parked in the lot and an "attitude" • as well as trespassing was expressed. Frostad stated if damage is found he will repair it. He said he would reopen communication with him in regards to this letter. Reinhardt asked if there was any written agreement to the use of his property and was told no. Seifert said he received a photo of the cement trucks in Buttenhoff's lot. Rockvam said the drivers of the cement trucks and the owner or tenant engaged in a verbal spat. He added construction people do what they want with total disregard of anyone one else or their property. He said whatever is going on is between Frostad and Buttenhoff not the City. Rockvam asked the status of the schedule for Spring Street. Frostad said the utilities on the street would be complete 5/23/04. He said there is an issue,with the property line with Buttenhoff at Sunset Drive and Schoell and Madson has not located that line. He added the utility storm sewer line has to go in before the final grading. Williamson asked how that area was engineered without those dimensions. Frostad said they have been unable to stake that property. Goman said there is some discrepancy with Hennepin County with the storm sewer line and that line has to be determined when the retaining wall is reconstructed; Weis Builders is trying to get Hennepin County to survey the line but that is not going to defer from the construction schedule. Seifert said the Torrens case is proceeding that involved the property that is being Torrens in that area. Frostad said that area is not related to the corner of Sunset Drive and County Road 15 and is not within the development area. • Williamson asked if any of this would involve expense to the City. Weeks said Council—5/16/05 3 r . it should not. Williamson asked if there is any issue of the restoration of the retaining wall. Rockvam said the county wants the retaining wall on Buttenhoff s property. Mason asked the width of the road at the west end of Spring Street. Frostad said what you visibly see is not representation of the final grade; the mouth opening is 26 or 28 feet. Mason asked if that width is consistent with the entire road. Frostad said that would actually be wider. Rockvam verified on June 3ra the overlay would be on Spring Street. Frostad clarified the surface would be construction grade and that date may be over achieved depending on the weather. c) NAC Re: Streetscape Review (The Mist Lofts &Lakeview Lofts)— 5/13/05 Dan Petrik stated the design team, in coordination with the Mist Lofts and Lakeview Lofts, worked together with the lighting and paving approach to the area. He said the lighting plan illustrates where the light posts are going; the fixture displays a nautical feel and a contemporary look; the light fixture shows a one-arm pole and the current banners are not depicted. Petrik asked if we want banners on Sunset Drive. Rockvam said we should have a provision for the holiday season but he questions banners with advertising on them. He noted we do have flags for Sunset Drive. Petrik confirmed banner availability should be maintained on the light poles. • Petrik asked for feedback from the Council. Rockvam noted the proposed pole base is alloy aluminum and that has a corrosion problem from salt residue from the street. He said the City has had some problems with some poles on County Road 15 and the bases had to be sandblasted and repainted. Petrik said he would have the designers address that. Hughes asked the reason for the gap in the placement of the poles. Petrik said that land is owned by Hennepin County and not part of either development. He said the City could pay for a light pole in that area. Petrik referred to the paving pattern and pointed out the first two feet behind the curb will be scored every foot to provide an edging treatment. Rockvam said pavers or exposed aggregate would dress up the area and asked if this i'vould be considered versus the scoring. Goman said several spots on Shoreline Drive have been identified that require attention regarding sidewalk sinking and he noted exposed aggregate is high maintenance. Frostad pointed out if pavers have to be replaced there may be a visual change and concrete would be better looking long term. Rockvam said pavers do not heave a lot if they have a solid footing. is Reinhardt asked if the traffic lights would be impacted by the plan at the intersection and was told no. Petrik said this is the plan unless the Council has other feedback. Hughes said the corrosion of the alloy aluminum is a point to consider. Petrik said he would check on this and report back to the Council at the next Council meeting. Reinhardt pointed out it would have been beneficial to • receive this information in the packet instead of at the meeting. Council—5/16/05 4 • d) Phil Johnson Re: City Hall Remodeling Johnson will attend a June meeting. e) Wayne Olson, Cornerstone Re: Grant Application Request 1. Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: Land Grant Clean Up—5/12/05 a) City Letter to DEED & Henn. Co. Dept. of Econ. Dev. — 5/2/05 Olson stated the grant application request was to benefit the developer with contamination on the Mist Lofts site. He said of three grant opportunities, DEED ' (Dept. of Employment & Economic Development) is the only possible one they may qualify for. He said they score on a variety of factors; there is a local match of ,; i4 which the developer will be that local match; the amount of the match is 20%. He said the City is not obligated to anything, they signed the paper and it has been sent. Rockvam said the only problem with that is the Council did not know anything about it. Weeks said he was under the impression the City would not have any participation, the application was long and he signed only an endorsement letter. He reiterated he was under the impression there would not be any obligation by the City in this matter. Williamson said they require the government body to be the governing agent and the advice of the City attorney is that the City would be the responsible party and administrator of the grant and would have to be declared normal work by City staff • and not reimbursable to the City. He said this is not provided for in the Developer's Agreement and we would need an amendment that would provide for adequate expenses. Olson stated at this point he would encourage the City to partner with Cornerstone and if there is concern with staff time the Developer's Agreement could be reopened. Seifert verified there was agreement the developer would be responsible for the local match. Olson said most programs require a local match and he was sure the developer would provide that and they intend,to have a cooperative effort to participate in state funding. He added there is no current written agreement but a resolution would have to be written to support that. Williamson confirmed the developer would pay the matching funds and but are currently in arrears of $92,147.63 and the figure is climbing; taxpayers are being used by this developer; this developer is using this City grievously with tax payers money; any further assertion at this point will be in the form of a payment of approximately $92,000; this developer must pay obligations contracted to pay; and this is a default of the Predevelopment Agreement. Olson asked if that is a notification of default. He said he was not notified this was going to be a legal discussion; he is not prepared to discuss this because he does not have legal representation. Motion by Williamson seconded by Rockvam to direct our legal counsel to prepare the appropriate declarations of default status and to be delivered to the Mist Lofts, LLC. Upon roll call Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer • and Rockvam voted aye. Motion declared carried. Council—5/16/05 5 • f) Planning Commission Minutes—5/11/05 1. Recommendation Proposal for Thor Thompson Park Hughes pointed out the Planning Commission does not see it appropriate to light the existing flagpole but they do recommend to move the pole to the proposed location. Rockvam verified they are recommending installing a new flagpole. Widmer suggested putting a spotlight on the existing flag from the lift station. She stated she just cannot justify tearing down the existing flagpole. Hughes said the estimated cost the lighting the current flag was $1,000. Reinhardt stated the current pole is rusty and does not look good. Hughes said the Planning Commission's concern was not to spend money unnecessarily. Motion by Hughes seconded by Reinhardt to get another estimate other than from a landscaper for lighting the flag and see if the VFW would fund or partially fund it. In discussion Rockvam said this plan has been in the office for over a year. Weeks said he has seen it in Norling's office only once. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 2. Recommendation for Start Time Joint Meeting Rockvam said the time has already been set for 7:30 p.m. with a 2-hour limit. • He said the agenda should only have on it screening and outdoor storage in a commercial district and a PUD (Planned Unit Development). Weeks stated the Planning Commission asked for an historic view of the Beautification Plan and their role in the Beautification Plan. Hughes verified the architect would not be present to discuss the updating of City Hall. Rockvam said there would only be time for the two above-mentioned items. f) Miscellaneous -None 6. ORDINANCES &RESOLUTIONS a) Resolution 05-15 — Approving Execution of Consent to Assignment & Agreement By The Mist Lofts, Lender, City 1. Head, Seifert&Vander Weide Re: Proposed Resolution 05-15 —5/12/05 a) Letters From City Referencing Cornerstone Deposit Deficiency 1. March 30, 2005 2. May 12, 2005 2. Consent To Assignment &Agreement Beck suggested the Council put this on hold because the Mist Lofts is in default 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES a) Mayor 1. Administrative Committee Minutes—5/4/05 • Council—5/16/05 6 • Reinhardt noted Bayview Apartments parking lot looks nice since the boats and trailers have been removed but a boat is now parked in the lot. Rockvam said to call the police and have them ticket or remove the offending boat/trailer. He said the City has spent a spent a lot of money on attorney's fees to get that lot free of boats. In another matter Rockvam suggested the City send Seton Village a letter commending them for their nice remodeling job in the past couple of years. He pointed out when something like this is done it benefits the entire City. ''. Motion by Widmer seconded by Reinhardt to draft a letter commending Seton Village on their remodeling project. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. b) Council—Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer Hughes noted there was a request by the fire chief to adopt the fire code but he requested Spring Park to put it on hold until the City of Mound has adopted it. He said if they have done that we should adopt it. Rockvam asked how procedures would change from what we are doing now; he is curious to see what Long Lake and Orono are doing and what the difference would be. Williamson stated he would be interested if the City of Mound has adopted it and if t*i made any changes. Hughes noted any ordinance changes could be more restriOve than the fire code. • Widmer noted the hoop house at 4540 West Arm Road has been taken down. Rockvam said we should send a letter to them for getting it done. Widmer asked if the hydrant located by that address is leaking. Goman said the rain caused the settling; the hydrant has been moved and it is now working. c) Engineer 1. Schoell &Madson Re: Update on Lift Station#6—5/13/05 Vitek said they have advertised for bids for the upgrade of Lift Station#6 in the Laker and Construction Bulletin and ran the ad three times. He said the bid opening will be held June 15'h, awarded on June 20`', and it would take a month to review the contract. Rockvam verified work would start the third week in July. He asked the construction timeline. Vitek said the work would start by late fall early winter and the final would be mid May 2006. He reviewed the additional amenities on the building and said the increase in the cost is $30,000 for the exterior of building. Rockvam verified this was for the roof, door, vegetation, trees, etc. d) Utility Superintendent 1. Estimate for Moving Power Poles on West Arm Central Goman reported Xcel would move the poles one time at no cost to the City and the City would be responsible for the under grounding of the lines (the cost • would be the difference). Rockvam pointed out if the poles are moved this Council—5/16/05 7 would include the private portion also and the group that attended that • particular Council Meeting were in favor of that. Hughes suggested the City send a letter to the property owners on the private portion informing them the moving of the poles would be no cost to them. Rockvam suggested adding that the City acts as the facilitator. Williamson said we have to have their permission to act on their behalf. Goman said there is one power pole at the west end of the road. Williamson said one issue is moving them at no cost to the property owner and the other issue is under grounding them at an unknown cost. Goman said Mediacom and Qwest also have to be factored in the picture. Rockvam stated he would like to see what under grounding would cost. Hughes asked the potential cost of under grounding to their homes. Goman said under grounding to their homes would be a requirement if the project were going to be done. Rockvam asked the information be available for the next Council meeting. Weeks said we should obtain the costs before contacting the residents. Reinhardt verified we could get an estimate at no cost. e) Administrator 1. Calendar—June Weeks noted the Police Commission meeting is tomorrow. 2. Income Summary—First Quarter -Noted 3. Water Tower Graphics: Size Determination &Map of Shoreline Drive Rockvam said the recommendation from the Administrative Committee was to have a larger smiley face. • Motion b Widmer seconded b Rockvam to approve the larger smiley Y Y PP g ley face on the water tower. Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to amend the motion to substitute the smaller smiley face. In discussion Rockvam asked why the smaller smiley face and Williamson pointed out that would allow more space between the graphics. Reinhardt asked if either of the graphics provided the Council displays the current size of the smiley face. She was told the current size is the smaller size on the graphics provided. Widmer said the larger one is more visible. Hughes called the question. Williamson said his subsidiary motion on the table. Widmer and Rockvam voted no. Motion declared carried. Weeks stated the orientation of the graphics has to be determined. Hughes had submitted a chart showing the orientation of the tower in relation to Shoreline Drive and also offset 45 degrees. Williamson suggested the "orange" configuration because it was not due east/west. Hughes said the original intent was to have the logo face east/west and the smiley face north/south. • Council—5/16/05 8 • Motion by Hughes seconded by Reinhardt to approve the orientation of the graphics on the tower to follow the black lines (east/west same as Shoreline Drive) with the logo on the east/west axis. In discussion Rockvam said if the graphics were placed where the orange lines are, both could be seen on Shoreline Drive but if they are placed on the black lines only one could be seen. Upon roll call Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam voted aye. Motion declared carried. 4. Maguire Iron Re: Cost of Smiley Face—5/16/05 Rockvam verified this cost was in addition to the original cost. Motion by Williamson seconded by Widmer to authorize the additional cost and extra time to have the smiley face painted on the water tower. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Hughes to approve the claims for payment for May 16, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • Hughes verified#18, spring cleanup, was for the City parks and tennis courts. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Rockvam asked the attorney if there is anything else the City could do along with preparing the documents on default for Cornerstone. Seifert said to update the accounting to get a clearer picture of the situation. Williamson said terms of the Developer's Agreement have to be met. Hughes asked if the invoice is separate or included in the default or one of the same. Beck said the invoice is separate from the default notice but the default notice will contain the amount in arrears. Seifert said he had made their attorney aware the Council was not going to adopt the parisent to assignment resolution because of the defaults even though Olson said he was not aware of this. 10. NEW BUSINESS &COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Kennedy& Graven Re: SRA— 5/3/05 b) LMCC Re: Air Times for Channels 8 & 20 c) Letter to Frostad Development Co. Re: Progress Report—5/9/05 d) Letter to Cornerstone Group Re: Progress Report—5/10/05 ;r e) Letter to McGinnis Re: All Stars— 5110105 Rockvam asked if All Stars has responded to the letter regarding their liquor license and was told no. Williamson asked when their annual renewal would take place is and Weeks said it would be the end of May. Rockvam verified McGinnis's name Council—5/16/05 9 • is still on the liquor license and referred the situation to the attorney present. Seifert stated it is not an issue if they take in a new partner and the new partner leaves as long as the original owner is on the license. He said the renewal should reflect the current owner. f) Orono Schools Re: Distinguished Alumnus (Rockvam)—4/18/05 Widmer read the letter honoring Rockvam. g) Orono Police Department Press Release Re: Seat Belts—5/3/05 h) NAC Re: Tonka Ventures/Salvation Army Request—5/13/05 Hughes asked if there were any comments received regarding this. Rockvam said the planner's response was accurate, the property is zoned manufacturing; the ordinance states it is permissible and this could be discussed at another meeting. Weeks pointed out the planner would be attending the joint meeting on May 23ra i) Mike Mason Re: Update on His Property at 3950 Del Otero in Relation to Mist Lofts Project Williamson noted the letter from Mason and verified it would be placed in the appropriate file. 11. MISCELLANEOUS -None 12. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to adjourn the Council Meeting at • 10:25 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK WILL D. EKS ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER • Council—5/16/05 10 CITY OF SPRING PARK RECEIVED • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA JUN - 6 2W5 MINUTES Ham, SEIFERT EXECUTIVE SESSION OF THE COUNCIL &VANDER WEIDE MAY 16, 2005 Executive session of the Council with the City's Attorney's met at 7:35 p.m. to discuss Lakeview Lofts, LLC (Todd Frostad, Frostad Development Co.) and The Mist Lofts, LLC (Wayne Olson, Cornerstone Group) deposit deficiencies and potential personnel matters. Present: Roll remained the same for the Council and City Attorney's. Staff present: Administrator Weeks and Deputy Clerk Corl. (This discussion included from the agenda the following items: 5.b)l.d) Letter from City Re: Lakeview Lofts Deposit Deficiency — 3/3/05; all communications pertaining to Resolution 05-15 (item#6) including deposit deficiencies from the Mist Lofts.. Weeks stated Lakeview Lofts was short $75,000 and Frostad submitted a check for $50,000 tonight and he is now in the black. Seifert stated if he was asked to submit • $50,000 he will pay only $50,000. He asked how soon the accounting could be completed regarding this and Weeks said it would be done tomorrow. Seifert stated this account needs to be at least $30,000 to the good and Frostad should bq Vent a letter. Rockvam asked if the check received tonight was a personal check or a company check. Weeks said it was a business check. Rockvam pointed out Lakeview Lofts has a $30,000 deficiency and The Mist Lofts is deficient $92,000 in their escrow accounts. He asked if the City was paying their bills. Williamson said we were able to extract expenses from deposits and if their accounts ever dropped below $10,000 we are supposed to give 15 days notice. Rockvam pointed out we have a big deficiency with Cornerstone (Mist Lofts) and we are using our money to pay their bills. He asked why the Council was not notified before this. He noted one letter regarding this was dated March 30th to Frostad. Weeks said the accounting is done monthly and the reports could take up to another month before they are completed and mailed. Rockvam stated how this is being handled is a poor banking policy and the City has lost interest on that money for 45 days. Williamson pointed out the City is using a savings account to pay these bills. Rockvam said we rely on the Administrator to inform the Council of these matters. Seifert stated Lakeview Lofts Development Agreement states the initial deposit of$50,000 and if this amount is reduced to $30,000 written notice is to be sent. Seifert said the accounting has to be brought up to date to see when the money came in so we know where we are and it may be to the good. • J t Executive Session—5/16/05 1 • Hughes asked if that account is to the good for up to $30,000. Seifert stated we do not know that but the City has to act first. He said the problem is there is so much detail it is hard to keep track of the big picture. Hughes stated if Frostad's account has gone below $30,000 he should be sent a notice to bring it back up. Rockvam pointed out this has been going on since March 30th. Seifert suggested asking Frostad to explain the timeline of the money from March 30th to date. Rockvam asked how deficient the account is at this time. Beck said the check received brings his escrow to $13,000. Seifert pointed out the City needs $37,000 more. Rockvam asked if we need the accountant to set up a system. Weeks said he could to do that. Rockvam stated we are at a point where we are minus and taxpayer dollars are being used to pay their bills. Widmer said we should give them certain amount of time to pay. Seifert said they have 15 days to pay. Hughes verified Frostad is $13,000 to the good and $37,000 deficient after March 1st. Seifert asked if the City wants to evaluate this deficiency against his TIF request. Rockvam pointed out it is the "last minute" we talk about the TIF and the "last minute" he writes a check. He said the City is not a bank, collection agency or a loan company and he did not think this matter would be as involved. He added we have to cover ourselves especially when we are using tax payer dollars. Rockvam said the account has to be set up so we can keep track of it, and it looks like there have been some problems and someone has to collect the money. Hughes pointed out the Council is not kept informed of the status of these accounts until • there is a Council Meeting. Seifert suggested adding a page to the monthly report that shows the balances and status for the escrow accounts for Lakeview Lofts and the Mist Lofts. Rockvam said more than a minimum should be maintained. Seifert said if there is a problem or disagreement with an escrow account, there is a delay in receiving the money. Rockvam stated we should have them pay and then work it out. Beck said there is more language in the Mist Lofts agreement than in Lakeview Lofts agreement. She stated it sounds like maybe the City is missing triggers when getting monthly reports. She thought setting weekly reports would not stretch out the time frame. Williamson noted there is a delay with invoices. Rockvam pointed out if we did not have cash reserves we would have to borrow the money and we are not getting any interest on the loan we are floating them. He added if we have to hire an accountant to set this up, the developer will pay the bill. Rockvam said we should not pay the vendors. Williamson said the vendors have conducted themselves in good faith and just because somebody is not paying us does not mean we do not pay them. He stated we need a fast recourse to go back to the developer to correct the problem. Rockvam asked if there is a procedure for this. Williamson said we have tQ pay the bills for services rendered and we could ask vendors to refuse to do the billable work. Rockvam stated we should charge interest rates to the developer. Seifert said the interest' rates are too low to bother with. Hughes stated if the developer falls into the default category, we need a mechanism to trigger this. He added we could tell the developer we will no longer provide attorney and engineering services etc. Seifert pointed out if • Frostad was told the attorney is not going to do any work on Lakeview Lofts it does not t Executive Session—5/16/05 2 • mean he will pay the City anything. He added the City is paying for services it needs to provide. He suggested the City could red tag the job site but that is not what we want, we just want them to pay the money and we can only threaten so much. Hughes said the objective is to have a trigger mechanism to wake up the developer. Seifert said that can be the threat of a red tag. Rockvam said we can tell the developer that is what we would do. Hughes said we have to treat both developers the same. Seifert pointed out we asked for $50,000 and we received $50,000. Rockvam said the balance was not accurate when we sent the notice. Seifert stated Cornerstone has not paid any of the $92,000 we gave them notice on. Weeks said we can do reports on the 15' and the 30th of the month. Rockvam stated if they are in default we red tag the building projects; they have proven by their actions they have not run the projects very well so far. Williamson speculated we might only have to threaten once with Frostad; Cornerstone may be reassessing their project and may not proceed with it and then the City would have to pay the retro costs. Williamson pointed out the City has larger bills coming that have not been billed. Seifert stated if Cornerstone goes bankrupt and another developer comes in, the City could hold the next developer to the previous amounts due. Beck asked what the protection is if they do not get their financing. Seifert said any other developer will have to pay Cornerstone's past due amounts. Weeks asked if we could put a lien on the property now. Seifert pointed out the City is not going to deal with selling it and there is risk to • development. Seifert verified the City did not get a straight answer from Cornerstone. Beck pointed out Cornerstone is not closing on their loan. Williamson asked if they are no longer dealing with Prudential. Seifert said we will have to ask Olson. Williamson stated we cannot approve the resolution for the Mist Lofts at this point. Beck said there is no reason to. Williamson asked how we get paid from Cornerstone. Beck said to ask him what the reasonable expectations are with the project. Rockvam verified the City is $92,000 in debt with them. He asked the minimum draw on the Mist Lofts. Beck said when the amount gets down to $10,000 it should go back up to $30,000. Weeks pointed out the paperwork for the force main was just recently completed and this delayed that request for funds. Hughes said that leaves $40,000 which is 30,000 over the limit of what is owed. Rockvam said we have to have answers for the general public. Weeks said the developers make promises to pay the amounts due. Hughes asked if there is any documentation of the promises to pay and was told no. Reinhardt verified the Council does not have to act on anything for Cornerstone tonight. She asked if the Council has to address the TIF concerns tonight for Lakeview Lofts or wait until his account is clear. Seifert noted a change in the TIF note does not give Frostad any more cash. He said the Council could discuss the TIF request and tell him the Council is going to lay the matter over to the next Council meeting to see what the accounting comes out to. Rockvam said we are not here to debate correctness of the bill; it is going to be "pay us • now and discuss it later" and Frostad has to have $30,000 in his escrow account in the Executive Session—5/16/05 3 r • bank. Hughes asked the status of the balance and this will have to be evaluated. Rockvam stated the City cannot continue to operate like this because it is taxpayer dollars. He reiterated Frostad's account dropped below $30,000, we have to require a certified check or the project will be red tagged if we do not have the money. Seifert said the Council does have to decide on the change in the TIF request. Williamson said he would rather lay it over. Seifert stated Frostad could be told the Council will not consider this tonight and he must pay and the Council can wait for the accounting to be brought up to date. Hughes asked how the accounting process could involve the Council. Williamson said a developer's report could be attached to the claims for payment. Widmer said there should be a running total somewhere and a letter issued giving the amount of money due and time frame allotted to submit it. Williamson agreed with Widmer and Rockvam agreed a report to the Council on the status of the accounts is important. Seifert said the report should show the bills received and remaining balance for Cornerstone and Frostad. Weeks asked if this should be done weekly and Seifert stated a page could be added to the claims for payment. Rockvam pointed out he is still waiting for the figures on the fund balances. He said this was going to be done after the TIF decertification Check was received and it was not done. He added setting up another system would take too long. Weeks said he would work on this tomorrow. The Council agreed better accounting practices regarding Lakeview Lofts and the Mist Lofts have to be done by the Administrator and reports submitted to the City • Council more often. Williamson asked the best course of action and how to state it. Beck stated it does not hurt to listen to the TIF presentation and hold over the decision to the next Council meeting pending answers to the issues. Seifert said to ask Frostad why it took 45 days to pay and the City expects him to be paid up when the accounting is figured. He suggested not discussing anything with Cornerstone until they are paid up. Hughes said we need to make a motion to instruct the City Attorney prepare a formal notice of default. Williamson added the Council move on to remedies for default. Seifert instructed the Council to tell Frostad the City is going to red tag the project. Seifert asked Beck is she has spoken to Hennepin County regarding the grant ie4uest by Cornerstone for the clean up of soil contamination. She said Cornerstone wants the City to be the applicant and the administrator of the grants. She said the Developer's Agreement does not cover normal City employee work time for such matters:"Beck said the Council could amend the Developer's Agreement and state the developer pays for this or have the developer present a letter to the Administrator there is obligation on behalf of the City. Rockvam asked if there was an application signed by the Administrator. Beck said the applicant is the City but it can be voided. Williamson asked what would happen if we did nothing. Beck said Hennepin County is reviewing applications next week and those recommendations would be approved in July. • Beck pointed out the Council has not yet approved this and a resolution would be Executive Session—5/16/05 4 ''� required. Rockvam asked if there is a matching part of that grant. Beck said the Mist • Lofts would be the matching party. Williamson asked what obligation the City has in this when the default issue is raised. Seifert suggested letting Olson make his presentation so we to know what contamination is on the site. Hughes pointed out one of the grants available is for $462,000 and we do not qualify because we are not part of the Livable Communities Program. Weeks said he signed the endorsement letter but not the application. Rockvam stated concern with the Administrator signing something like this on behalf of the City without Council approval. Weeks said signing the letters presented no obligation except endorsement of the application for the grants. Seifert suggested asking Olson if Cornerstone has been planning the grants for sometime, why the City has not been notified. Rockvam said his concern is the deficiencies and notoriety that comes with a state audit should that happen. Williamson asked if there is more to be gained by driving home the message of default or do we want to allocate time to listening about grant. Seifert said if someone comes to a meeting to make a presentation, listen and then give them the message. Rockvam said he is worried about Spring Park, not Cornerstone. Reinhardt stated she is in support of taking care of the financial problem first. Rockvam referred to the Tonka Ventures property that abuts Lakeview Lofts and stated the bottom line with the problems between these two properties regarding construction is not the City's problem. ; • ' The executive session adjourned at 8:39 p.m. SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK L D. WEE ADMMSTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER Executive Session—5/16/05 ' 5 ' t RECIFIViiD CITY OF SPRING PARK JV N — 6 2005 • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA H � Vp'E EIFERT MINUTES R W c DE COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 23, 2005 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Rockvam called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL a) Council Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam were present. b) Planning Commission Anderson, Klein, Sippel, and Mason and were present, Aschinger was excused, and Mork Bredeson arrived after the roll was taken. Staff present: Administrator Weeks, and Deputy Clerk Corl. Others present: Alan Brixius, City Planner; Tom Seifert, City Attorney. 3. ADOPT AGENDA • Motion by Widmer seconded by Williamson to adopt the agends. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. DISCUSSION a) Screening & Outdoor Sales & Storage in Commercial District Rockvam noted there have been substantial discussions in past years on this subject. Hughes stated he appreciated the historical information in the packets from those past discussions. Brixius distributed a sample ordinance to use as an example for the discussion. He also distributed photos from various City businesses and most of the pictures identified unsightly junk or dumpsters in front of the business. Brixius pointed out some areas do not have paved surfaces and the lawn gets chewed up and the area is not organized. He said there are a few sights that are at issue and there is a long history with those issues and the City. Brixius noted the presence of outdoor dumpsters not screened; the City has the opportunity to have the property owner to move them to the back of building. Rockvam referred to the picture for Ace Hardware, 4695 Shoreline Drive. He stated their Conditional Use Permit (CUP) contains a condition that planters are supposed to be on the street side of fence and they have not done this. Williamson pointed out they are not supposed to have just product for sale but added screening. Rockvam also noted the unscreened propane tank. Williamson said the site has a junkyard appearance. Brixius stated the City could have requirements for propane tanks and • there are fire code issues. He said we have to understand the diffeience in outdoor Joint Meeting—5/23/05 1 storage and outdoor sales; sales are for display and storage should be screened or to • the back of the building. Rockvam pointed out someone in the City has to keep track of what is going on then has to enforce the requirements. Brixius said if conditions are established as an annual issue this would take care of an enforcement issue. Williamson stated when we have a condition we have to do a better job of describing items such as the landscaping. Brixius told the Council to have the applicant submit a plan for the Council to approve; that way there is no discretion on the part of the Council or Staff as far as the conditions. He said to ask the applicant for a plan the Council can approve or the Council would not approve the CUP and it should be addressed on an annual basis. Brixius encouraged the use of site plans. Hughes asked if 10% of the property can be used for outside storage is the correct figure. Brixius pointed out Ace Hardware's outdoor sales material preceded the current owner and they are allowed to keep it. Williamson said the City requested the hardware store the items not for sale on the side of the building. He referred to our ordinance (C-2 — Shopping Center District) that allows a CUP for outdoor service sales or rental and it has to be an accessory to the principal use of property, etc. He said we do not have a specific maximum sales area requirement. Rockvam stated permanent landscaping in front of the fence at Ace Hardware would' serve as a buffer and enhance their property. Brixius said Ace meets most of the • criteria we are trying to establish; the propane tank is not attractive and could be located in the back of the sales area. Rockvam stated the easiest solution of trying to get control is a conditional use permit but someone has to enforce it. Brixius pointed out the boat sales areas are looking better. He said in Spring Park commercial sites are constrained as far as size and every inch of property is being used. He added the uses are existing uses and the only time to change this is if a new use comes along. Williamson said this is the time to, at least, take sinall steps in the direction we want to go; define what triggers a CUP and then start discussing what standards we want to apply. Brixius referred to the sample ".ordinance from Albertville that listed conditions for outside storage in a commercial and industrial district. He said all of these conditions could be applied to Spring Park. Rockvam referred to the picture of Blue Lagoon, 4470/78 Shoreline Drive and said that property has a combination of uses taking place. Brixius pointed out storage should be located in rear yards and sales in the front. He said the application should define what is storage and what are sales and the area for each. Rockvam explained some boats are for sale and some are in transit and being worked on. Brixius said that type of processing and not classifying storage and sales are issues. Brixius stated there is a certain sensitivity with the merchants and the City has a few sites that are always going to be unsightly because of their owners. He said people • are taking more pride in their ownership. Rockvam verified the idea is trying to Joint Meeting—5/23/05 2 improve the attractiveness of the business. He said the front area along Shoreline • Drive is for display. He asked how far off the right-of-way allows for display. Brixius said no one is allowed to place private property into the right-of-way. Rockvam said if the area allowed for display is too extraordinary the display area is eliminated. He added an area of vegetation should be set up and not restrict the view. Anderson said if this is the worst we have in Spring Park we are lucky. He stated he appreciates the concerns with Ace Hardware and they could screen some of it, but their stacks are neat and are part of the business. Anderson said the biggest thing is screening dumpsters and he thinks we have an opportunity to solve a simple problem. Rockvam said dumpster screening is acceptable. Anderson asked if Blue Lagoons operation is objectionable. Sippel said it was not to him. Anderson stated the propane tank is clean and white and the location at Ace Hardware is not objectionable to him. Brixius said there are narrow deep lots on Shoreline Drive and displays are going to be close to the street. Rockvam pointed out a plan was established with a new merchant several years ago and the City has never gotten compliance on what was requested. He said he has no problem with the business owner displaying merchandise on his bank, but the problem lies when that land is disturbed and the rain washes soil down onto the sidewalk and street. Rockvam added the City had a difficult time getting compliance with how the merchandise was being handled. Williamson said the City tried to address the stacking issue with that. Rockvam • pointed out there is a fence for stacking merchandise but it can only be a certain height and the property owner was stacking merchandise higher than the fence. Brixius stated the ordinance could state only one layer of merchandise can be stacked. Sippel pointed out this discussion is about front yard and back yard activites. Hughes asked what triggers when a new business comes to town. He said the Planning Commission discussed putting in place a formal process a new business has to go through but we need a mechanism to trigger that. Rockvam said that would be in the sign permit; at that time parking, storage, landscaping, sales, displays can be addressed; we can require a certificate of occupancy. Hughes asked if the sign permit is an adequate trigger. Sippel stated it was not adequate but the only one we have. Mason said we should have a welcome packet for new businesses. Rockvam stated the City does not know when a new business comes to town. Williamson pointed out it was possible someone buys a business and does not change the sigh. Widmer said they have to change the name on the water/sewer bill. Weeks pointed out some tenants do not pay the bill only the landlords pay the water/sewer bill. Mason suggested checking with other cities to see what they do. Williamson said it could be as simple as a registry for new businesses and this would offer us chance to be proactive. Rockvam said we should have something that would tell a new business what is required; sometimes we have two businesses that are net compatible. Brixius was asked what triggers would work. i • Joint Meeting—5/23/05 3 He pointed out that language in our ordinance that states a change of use of buildings shall be accompanied by a site plan. Brixius stated the individual free standing business are the ones we want to check. Rockvam pointed out Blue Lagoon, 4478/80 Shoreline, purchased the lot next door, tore down the house on the lot and plans to use the property for storage. Brixius said they should have gotten a CUP permit. Weeks said they are not going to construct another building. Rockvam said this would have been a good time to address the change of use. Rockvam referred to the car lot property, 4500 Shoreline Drive, and the conditions we required at that time are no longer there. He said a CUP helps the businessperson and the City and both know what has to be done. He asked how to enforce a CUP. Brixius said non-compliance to the ordinance and a CUP is a misdemeanor. Weeks asked Brixius for an outside sales sample ordinance. Brixius pointed out our ordinance already allows outside sales in a commercial zone and C-1, General Commercial and C-2, Shopping Center are the same in that respect. Williamson said commercial uses that abut railroad property has been an issue and we ought to provide and include "abutting residential property, public right of way", in the language in our ordinance. Rockvam said the vegetation in the summer provides screening but in the winter certain areas look bad. He said a good fence works both ways. Brixius referred to the sample ordinance addressing trash enclosures. He said that we • could define for the City what we choose; the enclosures could be designed to look like the building; the enclosure would be located in the rear and out of the front yard. Hughes inquired about the requirements for apartments buildings and this was not immediately known. Klein asked if the screening would apply for commercial-to- commercial and commercial to residential. Brixius said we could stipulate conditions and he would build a list of things and give us options. Rockvam verified this would include outdoor storage also. Brixius said he would include language on change of use, definition of storage versus sales that would include standards on both and screening of trash enclosures. Rockvam explained his situation at his boat yards. He said they store boats in the winter, some are for sale, this is not uncommon, but they all look the same. Brixius said the ordinance would need some adjusting to address this scenario in boat yards. Rockvam said they are trying to make everything look more attractiver' Williamson said we have to think forward for future businesses. Rockvam pointed out some businesses are an interim business and some are here for a longer term. Williamson stated we still have to address the issues regardless of how long a business is going to be here. Brixius said he would provide us with a language that will address Spring Park and has a baseline that accomplishes our objective. Sippel referred to the ordinance that was written up for Lakeville and said it was almost perfect for Spring Park with the exception for auto sales and seasonal boats, Joint Meeting—5/23/05 4 Reinhardt asked if the information Brixius was going to prepare would be in • ordinance format. She said we have to have it in black and white and edit it; she could not believe the City has been discussing this since 1996. Hughes asked if outside sales and storage on the property at gas stations was going to be addressed. He said the issues we have is expandability and the treatment of the area on the properties. He stated to control the size and location of the storage; we could issue a minor administrative permit for certain situations and one CUP that requires City action. Brixius said he would define everything in code form and establish trigger mechanisms and make sure everyone is treated fairly and not put any business in a non-conforming situation. Rockvam said the Council would meet with the Planning Commission to make changes as a group, to maintain continuity, and then have a public hearing. Williamson verified the group was satisfied with pertinent points and further discussion would be held at another joint meeting when Brixius has a draft ordinance prepared and it was agreeable to move on to the next item. b) Planned Unit Development (PUD) as Possible Addition in Ordinance Rockvam explained when the current zoning ordinance was ready for adoption, Brixius made a recommendation to adopt a PUD. Rockvam said the Council was opposed to it at the time after developing all the districts as pure districts but after going through the condo projects, he said it would have been easier for the City if we • had a PUD in place. Williamson stated he would like to hear a clear definition of a PUD and the plus and minus of a PUD compared to a CUP. Brixius pointed out the City has had three projects that would have been simpler if a PUD had been in place, West Arm Town Homes, the Spring Street, and Mist projects. He added it may not have changed the product, but it would have been easier to get to the end result. Brixius said a PUD is a process and planning tool for condos; a PUD is to provide a concentrated development pattern rewarded with amenities and the City processes it; the City would look at what the project is offering the City because of allowing additional density. Brixius said a PUD has a specific street design and these rules are basically the same rules we did thru our ordinance. Brixius said the process for a PUD is more extensive; a general overall concept plan is submitted and should represent significant elements which the City reviews such as overall maximum density, location of streets and pedestrian walkways, location of open space, location of residential and nonresidential land uses, staging and time frame of development. He stated the advantages of a PUD is within the development and the City has flexibility with setbacks, etc. whereas in the past this has been handled as part of a variance; it is easier to process than a variety of exceptions or variances especially if we have a large scale redevelopment project. Brixius said it is a good idea to have a PUD in place; one way is a PUD zoning • district and it would apply when the City does not want to do a mixed use and Joint Meeting—5/23/05 5 t negotiate setbacks; another way is a PUD that falls in each zoning district and only • the uses and flexibility in that district are allowed. Williamson requested the definition of flexibility and asked if it meant that the rules we have could be bent or thrown out. He also asked if the City could package the product as one and the process would be the same. Brixius referred to pages 154, 155 and 156 of the sample and stated the City could stipulate private streets, landscape requirements, refuse pick up, allow for reduction of setbacks i.e. with a town home arrangement. He said the City would have flexibility in asking what amenity they are getting for allowing density. Williamson asked for examples. Brixius pointed out Cornerstone was willing to modify their exterior, and have more open space, and more green space. He said the Mist project was in reality like a PUD because of all the improvements they offered. Williamson asked what the advantage a PUD would have been. Brixius said to know that it exists. He said he could put one together for the City to adopt so it is in place. Williamson asked if it would be zone specific. Brixius stated he could set it up the same as the New Hope sample; he could set up a district and outline what it is intended to do and not have application until the City decides if they want it and where. He said the developer could be given flexibility but in exchange the City would want enhancements. Reinhardt verified if we do have a PUD, the standards are the underlying standards • for that particular district. Brixius said we do give flexibility but also try to hold the standards in the district as close as possible. Reinhardt pointed out the underlying zoning district might have some holes that need updating before proceeding with a PUD. Hughes asked how much flexibility would be available with a "boiler plate" ordinance. He added he thought the setup would allow a PUD in the ordinance but each PUD would be in specific on its own merit. He the City could justify it and be willing to give flexibility; a PUD would give opportunities for a large project and whether it is used or not is up to the Council. Williamson asked if we have it on the books, what degree of support is needed to approve it. Brixius said a change in the ordinance used to be 4/5t 's vote but state statute changed it to a majority vote of the Council to pass. Williamson said we should get an update from our attorney. Rockvam said we have to decide if we are going to do this. Klein stated we should look at the properties that may come up for redevelopment. Brixius pointed out the City's high density developments are all conforming; he said he could put an ordinance draft together according to what the City wants for a Planning Commission meeting and if a project comes in he could draft something that would work for the project. Hughes said he called the City of Maple Grove and asked if they saw a benefit to a PUD. He was told with a PUD there is more control over the developer. Brixius said that means flexibility and amenities. Hughes asked if we added a PUD to the • ordinance would there still be a public hearing with the Planning Commission. Joint Meeting—5/23/05 6 Brixius said the City could have a PUD per zoning district; there is more flexibility in • a PUD instead of variances. Weeks asked if we could consider a PUD if we have an applicant in front of us. Brixius said we could and the time frame would allow it. Rockvam confirmed a PUD eliminates a variance. Anderson asked for an explanation of the process. Brixius said there would be a concept review, publication for a public hearing before the Planning Commission and their recommendation to the Council. He added his review of the project is easier with a PUD. Mason asked if there were state guidelines for a PUD and does it relate to single-family homes. Brixius said there are provisions for one and Spring Park does not have a need for one relating to single-family homes. Williamson asked if there was anything we might want to do regarding a PUD that would raise a red flag with the Met Council with density. Brixius said everything we do has to fit into the City's Comp Plan. Hughes asked if there were any issues with Comp Plan and was told no and a PUD would be helpful with a large project i.e. the Tonka Building or Marina Center. He said he would see it only applicable on the larger lots that would mandate flexibility. Rockvam said we could adopt one and periodically update it and he asked the costs. Brixius said we could use one of the sample ordinances to save on costs. Klein asked if a contractor brings in a concept to a public forum, does it stay there. Brixius said that does not always apply. Rockvam said we should think about and it • and look at what we are spending and maybe budget it for the next year because it is not critical now. Hughes said he thinks a draft document is good idea and spread it out time and money wise. Brixius said he would look at a draft and costs and get back to the City so it could be discussed at the next Planning Commission meeting. Klein asked if the PUD would be kept at non-single residential property and not certain areas. Brixius said certain areas have to have a certain number of acres. Rockvam said if we plan what we want to have, it might not come into use. Hughes stated it would be a good tool to have to start a development process and we could set a target from a finance point of view for next years budget. Brixius stated the Planning Commission could review the samples that were looked at tonight. Rockvam said to run a tab on it at this point so we can back budget on it if that happens. Brixius verified he is to go ahead with the outdoor storage and sales changes and hold off on the PUD. The meeting was continued to a Council only meeting at 9:25 p.m. 5. COMMUNICATIONS -None • r Joint Meeting—5/23/05 7 • MINUTES • CONTINUED COUNCIL ONLY MEETING MAY 23, 2005 9:30 P.M.—CITY HALL The roll for the Council and Staff remained the same. 1. Memo Tom Seifert Re: Mist Lofts—5/20/05 a) Memo from Joanne Matzen Re: Consent to Assignment & Agreement 2. Resolution 05-15 a) Head, Seifert & Vander Weide (Nancy Beck) —5/12/05 3. Consent to Assignment &Agreement 4. Collateral Assignment of Contract &Developmental Rights a) E-Mail Nancy Beck—5/12/05 Seifert stated he recommend the Council pass Resolution 05-15 approving the consent to assignment and agreement so this is in place for the closing between Cornerstone and their lender tomorrow morning. He said the Developer's Agreement we have signed does provide that the developer may assign the agreement to another investor. • Rockvam said the City has already signed that to Prudential but not to the current lender for the project, Richter-Schroeder Co. He said the loan is for 59 million dollars. Rockvam confirmed the closing is tomorrow and the City would receive the money for the sale of the vacated portion of Del Otero. Seifert pointed out the default fees would also be paid by Cornerstone. Reinhardt asked why this business is on the agenda for tonight versus a regular Council Meeting. She stated this developer has made a lot of requests and the City has jumped thru a lot of hoops for Cornerstone and she is uncomfortable taking this action tonight. Hughes said we have "heard the story before" and he agrees with Reinhardt. He said there are number of issues with the document and he thinks the City is giving things away; he does not want to vote on the agreement and resolution tonight. Williamson agreed and stated this meeting was called as a work session and topics were taken off the agenda because of time constraints and in the spirit of the open meeting law, this is an inappropriate item on this agenda. Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to end the discussion on this topic on the agenda and move onto the next item. In discussion Rockvam stated we should show respect for our attorney regardless if we think this may be an inappropriate item for this meeting. Hughes pointed out this meeting was to be a timed meeting and time has expired and we should move on to the next item on the agenda. Rockvam reminded Hughes there is a motion on the table. He stated the law requires the Council to summarize the conclusions of an executive session Joint Meeting—5/23/05 8 at its next open meeting. Seifert reiterated this. Reinhardt stated this is separate from • the motion. Upon roll call Hughes, Reinhardt and Williamson voted aye and Widmer and Rockvam voted no. Motion declared carried. Rockvam read the memo from Nancy Beck to Tom Seifert, City Attorney's, regarding closed meetings under MN State Statute. He also read the summary of conclusions reached at the closed meeting held on May 16, 2005 as required by law. (The summary will be filed with these minutes.) 6. MISCELLANEOUS (from first agenda) a) Planning Commissioner Nelson's Resignation Motion by Williamson seconded by Widmer to reluctantly accept Nelson's resignation from the Planning Commission. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Rockvam reminded the staff to order the appropriate plaque. Williamson noted it was a consensus from the Council regarding past applicants to notify them when there is a vacancy and an announcement should be placed in the local press so the Council can consider applicants at their second meeting in June. • 7. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to adjourn the meeting at 9:39 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 6� SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK D. W S ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER • Joint Meeting—5/23/05 9 r s RECEIVED CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA JUN - 6 2005 AGENDA HEAD, SEIFERT COUNCIL MEETING & VANDER WEIDE NNE 6, 2005 7:30 P.M. —CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) Council Meeting- May 16, 2005 b) Executive Session—May 16, 2005 c) Joint Meeting & Council Meeting—May 23. 2005 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & APPLICATIONS a) Tom Scanlon, LMCD b) Liquor, Cigarette, Amusement &Dance License Approvals • c) Judy Petron(3836 Togo Road) Mortgage Subordination Request 1. Head, Seifert &Vander Weide—6/3/05 + 2. Mortgage Subordination Agreement d) Cornerstone Group (Mist Lofts, LLC) + 1. Cornerstone Group Re: Construction Update—6/l/05 2. MPCA Re: Mist Site Dewatering—5/13/05 3. Cornerstone Group Re: Invoices—6/1/05 4. Head, Seifert & Vander Weide to Joanne Matzen Re: Reimbursement Requests Including Spreadsheet—6/3/05 5. Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit Draft—6/2/05 , e) Miscellaneous 6. ORDINANCES &RESOLUTIONS a) Resolution 05-15 —Approving City's Execution of Consent to Assign. &Agree. (Proposed Resolution#1 or#2 or#3) 1) Head, Seifert &Vander Weide Re: Consent to Assign. & Agree. —5/31/05 2) Winthrop &Weinstine to Beck Re: Requests to City—6/l/05 3) Consent to Assignment &Agreement b) Resolution 05-16—Approving City's Execution of Quit Claim Deed 1) Head, Seifert &Vander Weide Re: Resolution's 05-16 & 05-17—6/3/05 c) Resolution 05-17—Agreeing to Commence Vacation of Certain Property d) Resolution 05-18—Authorizing Execution of Subordination Agreement • Council Agenda—6/6/05 1 w 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES • a) Mayor 1) Police Commission Minutes &Reports— 5/17/05 b) Council—Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer c) Engineer 1) Schoell &Madson Re: Pay Request#8 Re: Water Tower—5/31/05 d) Utility Superintendent e) Administrator 1. Spring Clean Up Summary(5/14/05) 2. Fire Code Update—5/26/05 3. Water Tower Construction Use of Leased Property—5/13/05 4. Channels 8 & 20 Schedules 5. Financial Updates a) Expenses YTD Thru April `05 b) Cash Investments Thru April `05 c) Revenue Thru April `05 d) Funds Update Thru April `05 6. Miscellaneous 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS • 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS a) Mediacom Re: Adding Channels—5/25/05 F. b) List of Documents Sent To Council Re: Mist &Lakeview Lofts' — 5/20/05 c) Transmittal to Council Re: Time Sensitive Material—5/31/05 d) Letter to Seton Village Re: Exterior Upgrade—5/23/05 e) CenterPoint Energy Re: Service Line Replacement Project—5/19/05 4 f) LMCD Board Minutes— 5111105 g) E-Mail from Administrator to Nancy Beck Re: Bayview Parking Lott' 5/23/05 11. MISCELLANEOUS 12. ADJOURNMENT • Council Agenda—6/6/05 2 n CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES COUNCIL MEETING NNE 6, 2005 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Rockvam called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam were present. Staff present: Administrator Weeks, Utility Superintendent Goman and Deputy Clerk Corl. Others present: Ken Adolf, City Engineer; Nancy Beck and Tom Seifert, City Attorneys; Planning Commissioners Anderson and Mason. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to change the agenda and bring all matters pertaining to Cornerstone to the top of the agenda. • In discussion Rockvam stated that Tom Scanlon, LMCD Rep, would not be on the agenda. Rockvam requested to leave the approval of the licenses where it is. Williamson withdrew his motion. Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to proceed to the second item on the agenda and then to all of the items pertaining to Cornerstone. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Motion by Williamson seconded by Widmer to adopt the amended agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) Council Meeting-May 16, 2005 Motion by Hughes seconded by Reinhardt to approve the minutes for the Council Meeting May 16, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. b) Executive Session—May 16, 2005 Motion by Widmer seconded by Williamson to approve the minutes for the Executive Session May 16, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared • carried. Council—6/6/05 1 Seifert reminded the Council that meeting was not a public meeting, thus the • minutes are not available to the public. c) Joint Meeting& Council Meeting—May 23, 2005 Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to make the minutes of that meeting one contiguous meeting; on the bottom of page 7 strike the word "none" after (#5) Communications; page 8 strike the entire heading and the first sentence (The roll call . . .) and renumber items #1 thru #4 to be consistent with the format of the agenda; page 9 delete after#6 Miscellaneous "(from the first agenda)". Hughes amended the motion to include deleting the last sentence on page 7 above (#5) Communications, "The meeting was continued . . ." and Williamson agreed to the amendment. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried to approve the amended minutes for the joint meeting May 23, 2005. Mayor Rockvam introduced the Council & Staff to the viewing public. 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS a) Tom Scanlon, LMCD—Referred to Council Meeting on June 201n b) Liquor, Cigarette, Amusement&Dance License Approvals Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to approve the above • mentioned license applications as presented. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. In discussion Rockvam asked if the applications were all in order. Weeks said they were and all of the fees have been paid. Reinhardt asked if there were any new changes. Weeks said only the missing ones i.e. the Mist. d) Cornerstone Group (Mist Lofts, LLC) 1. Cornerstone Group Re: Construction Update—6/l/05 Brad Ridgeway, from J E Dunn, said the current activities are the abatement and demolition of the current buildings, the setup for moving the fiber optics and the prep work for the remediation system and they are gearing up for the actual project itself. 2. MPCA Re: Mist Site Dewatering—5/13/05 Reinhardt asked for an explanation of the remediation system. Rockvam said they have to filter the contaminated water that is normally discharged into the storm sewer. Goman explained the contaminate was found in the southeast corner of the property where the lift station is going to be located and this is one reason the area has to be treated is because it is close to the lift station. He said the treated water would be discharged into the lake. Rockvam asked the depth of the contaminant and if this is going to hamper construction. Ridgeway said they have excavated to 928 feet and they are going two to three • Council—6/6/05 2 feet below that. Ridgeway said it would take five days to get the water level • down and it should not be a problem with construction. 3. Cornerstone Group Re: Invoices—6/l/05 Rockvam said it is his recommendation to let the City Attorney work this out with the developer. 4. Head, Seifert & Vander Weide to Joanne Matzen Re: Reimbursement Requests Including Spreadsheet—6/3/05 -Noted 5. Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit Draft—6/2/05 Rockvam asked if we have received a letter of credit. Colleen Carey, Cornerstone, said it has been issued and it would be sent directly to the City. Seifert said he hopes to have it tomorrow morning. Williamson asked if the draft form is word for word as the one that was issued and was told yes. Williamson inquired as to whom Global Trade Services were as it was a new name that appeared in documents. He suggested upon receipt of a letter of credit the legitimacy of Global Trade Services should be confirmed. Rockvam requested Carey go over her memo regarding the project update and Beck to review her memo for the benefit of the people present and the viewing audience. Carey explained Cornerstone has two financial players, M & I Bank and Richter Schroeder; Prudential Real Estate is an equity investor in the project and also provided the land acquisition. Williamson said it was the • understanding of the Council that Prudential was Cornerstone's financial partner and they made the demand to increase the number of units from 106 to 120. Carey said they are a big player and provided the six million dollar acquisition loan and is guaranteeing the construction loan on an ongoing basis. Williamson said the City was under the impression they were coming up with the 60 million dollar loan. Carey stated the only way M & I and Richter Schroeder are going to loan Cornerstone money is because Prudential is guaranteeing the equity. Williamson expressed concern with the representations made by Cornerstone that Prudential made the demands and now we are finding out Richter Schroeder and M & I are involved and this has not been fully communicated to this Council and a lot of problems stem from communication problems or lack of. Carey explained Prudential was and is the lender of the project; that loan matured and M & I took over and that is how the process works with construction loans. She said they receive from the investor and lender a list of items they have to complete or documents they have to provide that also include approval from the City. Carey stated they let us know if something else is needed i.e. 48 units under purchase agreement and there were some environmental issues; it took time to get issues resolved; a title issue came up, • etc. She said they should have a closing coming up soon but they have a Council—6/6/05 3 laundry list of things to take care of and they have to have confirmation the • City is ready to issue permits when a fee is submitted. Rockvam asked if the permit was ready to be issued. Weeks said the Building Inspector and City Engineer are ready. Carey pointed out everything has to happen simultaneously before the closing can happen. Hughes asked if there have been any significant changes in the project documents and Weeks said no. Williamson stated the closing date has come up before and has yet to happen. Carey confirmed the odds for closing are about 80% or better it would be done by the end of next week but it is just difficult to say exactly when. Rockvam said Carey's explanation is reasonable and he appreciates her candor. He stated he checked Cornerstone's credibility with the City's of Richfield and Hopkins and nothing but good things were said about them. He was told large projects change all the time and Carey's letter eluded that the project is a living entity and constantly changing and Cornerstone is doing the best job they can; it's just that the Council is trying to understand what it being done. Williamson referred to the last three paragraphs of Carey's letter regarding better communication with the City. Carey agreed this has not gone smoothly; it is a learning process for them; they intend to be good neighbors • and they have to earn trust from the City. She said they are willing to come in every month with an update on the project and continue to work on their relationship with the City. Carey stated they are open to ways to restore that relationship. Rockvam said if there is something they are not sure about, if they state this the City would have more understanding; the more we know the more it helps. Williamson reiterated what Rockvam just said. Hughes said he thought Cornerstone was first under communicating and now their actions are earning back trust by over communicating. Beck stated Cornerstone asked for several resolutions and the Council has many questions. She said all of this was outlined in her memo. Beck said item #1 concerned the City's status if Cornerstone defaulted; the original paragraph provided the bank either takes over the project or sells it; the bank would not be responsible to any obligations to the City that were incurred prior to the bank taking over. She said the lender's attorney was willing to change the consent document and the bank can step in if the project is in default but would still be responsible to all the City obligations. Beck said the second concern is financial protection of the City. Rockvam clarified the City is not financing the project and we want to make sure the dollar amount is secure with an irrevocable letter of credit for the utility improvements. Beck said the amount of$491,036 is 10% above the proposed • cost of municipal improvements. She said item #3 clarifies the fee for the Council—6/6/05 4 vacation of Del Otero would be paid at closing and noted the project cannot • go forward without that vacation. Beck stated the City's fees should be reduced so any invoices for fees should be covered by the developer's deposit of$30,000; Item #4 requires the City to send the lender copies of all notices to the developer; Item #5 provides the developer cannot further assign its rights under the Developer's Agreement without consent from the City and the lender until the project is complete. Beck pointed out item #6 states the legal descriptions for the property are public record and dock rights will be recorded so all future purchasers of the property will be subject to the rights and restrictions contained in the Agreement. Williamson said it is critically important the dock issue is clear and the dock rights for Del Otero residents will not be diminished. Rockvam stated the City has incorporated a lot of safeguards regarding the dock issue and it is secure because of that. Beck said there have been no defaults except those that have been secured. She explained the City is the middleman in a quitclaim action. Reinhardt thanked Beck for the quantity and quality of work and a job well done and Williamson agreed with Reinhardt. Rockvam made it clear that the City was never at any time in a financial risk situation because of Cornerstone. Williamson pointed out the Consent . . .Agreement did say any new developer would not be responsible for any obligations the Mist Lofts had to the City prior to any default. Rockvam stated the Developer's Agreement has always been in place and a letter of credit would always have been issued. Williamson said the City is spending money on resources that is the developer's expense. Rockvam said we should, in no way, indicate the City was ever in any financial straits with this project because this was not the case. He emphasized at no time did we have a situation in which the City would have been at risk. Williamson said we could have had a potential for short-term difficulty and the changes made were extremely important. Rockvam said we have always had safeguards in place and Cornerstone has made the payments. Hughes said had changes not been implemented there probably would not have been a yes vote to the Consent . . . Agreement. 6. ORDINANCES &RESOLUTIONS a) Resolution 05-15 —Approving City's Execution of Consent to Assign. &Agree. (Proposed Resolution#1 or#2 or#3) 1. Head, Seifert&Vander Weide Re: Consent to Assign. & Agree. —5/31/05 2. Winthrop & Weinstine to Beck Re: Requests to City—6/l/05 3. Consent to Assignment&Agreement Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to approve (Resolution 05-15, approving City's execution of Consent to Assignment & Agreement) "proposed Resolution #2 approving the developer's assignment of its interest • in the Development Agreement to its lender and authorizing the Mayor and Council—6/6/05 5 City Administrator to sign and deliver the Consent to Assignment and • Agreement in the form attached to the resolution contingent upon the developer's delivery to the City of a letter of credit in the amount of$491,036 which names the City beneficiary". In discussion Rockvam asked Beck's recommendation. Beck pointed out option #2 gives the City adequate financial protection and option #3 is already going to happen at closing. Rockvam said he preferred option #3 but would go along with option#2 and recommends the Council adopt the resolution. Upon roll call Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam voted aye. Motion declared carried. b) Resolution 05-16—Approving City's Execution of Quit Claim Deed Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to approve Resolution 05-16, approving City's execution of Quit Claim Deed. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. c) Resolution 05-17—Agreeing to Commence Vacation of Certain Property Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to approve Resolution 05-17, • agreeing to commence vacation of certain property. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. Carey asked if communications could be mailed electronically to Council Persons so they are kept abreast of everything. Williamson said he would appreciate that. Rockvam pointed out the policy has been that every communication goes thru the City office. d) Resolution 05-18 —Authorizing Execution of Subordination Agreement Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to approve Resolution 05-18, authorizing execution of Subordination Agreement (3836 Togo Road). All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. e) Resolution 05-19 — Authorizing Attorney to Prepare Reimbursement Requests, etc. to Lakeview Lofts &Mist Lofts—Voted on later in the meeting. 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES a) Mayor 1. Police Commission Minutes &Reports—5/17/05 Williamson commented the discussion on predatory offenders was timely in light of a recent incident in a neighboring community. Rockvam said people • Council—6/6/05 6 want to know if a sex offender is living in the area. Williamson stated the • problem comes with level one offenders. Reinhardt noted the discussion on a solicitation ordinance and the police department recommendation to adopt one. Weeks said he forwarded two ordinance samples to Beck, City Attorney. In another matter Rockvam noted the meeting with Three Rivers Park District on Thursday. He wanted to review the Council is supportive of the concept of the trail and trailhead established here and to see elaborate landscaping at the trailhead. He pointed out the Council has adopted resolutions that we want the trail and he has tried to impress on the county to not let this idea fall by the wayside. Williamson said we have to see any design concept. Hughes agreed that we would like to know more detail. He said we should ask what is a trailhead, what are the amenities and definitions. Rockvam said that is up to the county. Reinhardt said she supports the trail but would like definitions. Rockvam explained the City had a selfish standpoint because we wanted to see that area cleaned up and the county gave us assurances they would be willing to do something. Mason asked how available the meeting is to the public. Williamson said it was for mayors, councils, administrators and other members of the community. Hughes noted certainly a member of the • Planning Commission could attend. Weeks will call them to let them know there will be representatives from Spring Park attending. Rockvam noted he received a letter from Senator Norm Coleman regarding grants for local fire depts. He requested this information be forwarded to the City's of Mound and Orono. b) Council—Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer Williamson reported he walked around part of the City and discovered there is an issue with the tennis courts. He said a new sign is needed and there are two diagonal cracks, one in each court and each has a two-inch opening. He said no one could safely play tennis with this problem and asked if there was a plan in place for the courts. Goman said they are on the schedule to be done this summer and the sign has been that way for many years. He said the sign could be taken down. Rockvam asked what the sign said. Goman said it was a courtesy sign regarding reserving and rotating time, etc. Hughes asked if resurfacing is going to correct the problem. Goman said prior to resurfacing, the cracks are filled. Rockvam asked if Modern Roadways is going to fill the cracks. Goman said they were and the Tennis Court Doctor would do the resurfacing. Rockvam said any time we have the City name on something it should be in first class condition because it represents the City. He stated people • would be using the courts more especially with school out. Goman asked if he Council—6/6/05 7 should replace the sign or take it down. Rockvam said to replace it and Hughes • said the sign states a good general rule. Williamson stated the flagpole is a rusty, ugly piece of work and the minimum should be done to repaint flagpole. Hughes said we should see what the cost is for a new flagpole. Goman stated he is going to contact the VFW to see if they are still going to help pay for it the lighting, and the new flagpole. Hughes said the request was for a quote for new flagpole and not from a landscaper in the location recommended with lighting. Williamson said the bottom line is just painting it for now and not allow rusty the pole to remain. Rockvam verified the new pole would be aluminum and Goman stated it would be the same as the pole in front of City Hall. Goman said there has to be an internal halyard for security reasons so no one can take the flag. He added he has two proposals and electrical costs. Reinhardt stated the motion was for lighting the flag. Widmer said to just light the flag and look at the rest later on when Sunset Drive is being considered. Goman stated that flagpole was painted five years ago. Rockvam said he feels strongly about lighting the flag at night especially for a municipality. In another matter Rockvam reminded Goman that he is the "point guard" on the condo projects and if he needed help with cutting grass, it was the Councils position he could contract it. Goman said he has been able to mow the parks but • has not had time to trim. He added his interest in Lakeview Lofts is more or less done. Rockvam verified a sales trailer would not be brought in once Spring Street is in. Goman said construction equipment would be delivering materials, concrete this week and black top next week. Williamson reported he has an issue with the vegetation that has been removed from the east side of the building at Shoreline Place. He asked what the requirements were for Shoreline Place around their building. Rockvam said what is there has to stay there and what has been removed should be replaced. Mason said they removed the trees on each side of the garage and plantings have been replaced by rock. Rockvam said they should be notified of their green space requirements. c) Engineer 1. Schoell &Madson Re: Pay Request#8 Water Tower—5/31/05 Adolf said the pay request is for the painting on the water tank and a change order for the addition of the two smiley faces. Rockvam clarified the Council agreed to go with the smaller face in relation to the face on the old tower. Goman said it is the same size or slightly larger. Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to approve pay request#8 for the water tower and the change order for the addition of two smiley faces. • All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Council—6/6/05 8 • Williamson asked when the graphics are going to be applied. Goman said the painting will be completed within 7 to 10 days and he does not know when the graphics are being done. Adolf provided information on the actual placement of the street light fixtures on Sunset Drive. Rockvam verified the amount of illumines dictate where the poles go. Adolf pointed out the highlighted locations of light standards for the developments. He asked if the Council is committed to improving Sunset Drive and continue the light standards up to Northern Avenue and West Arm Drive. He added that would include two more on the west side and one more on the east side of the street. Hughes asked what the developer is doing on Spring Street. Adolf said he is going to mount fixtures on his building on Spring Street and the proposed plaza area. Rockvam stated he would like to carry the same lighting design on Spring Street and continue to Northern Avenue. Hughes said it is okay if the developer wants to add lighting to the building but we should have the same poles on Spring Street. Reinhardt asked what was in the official lighting plan. Rockvam said nothing has been submitted for Spring Street. Hughes said the plan for Sunset Drive was coordinated by the two developments and it should continue down the south side of Spring Street. • Rockvam agreed and noted the Council has not made a final decision on the sidewalks. He said he would like to physically see what it would look like and pavers on edge of the sidewalk would look nice and give it an upscale look. Goman said there is no municipality on the list of street light samples and the Council should question if that product going to hold up. Adolf said he would have this information for the next meeting. Hughes noted the space with no lighting on Sunset Drive would be a City expense and he would like to see an expanded map with the lighting on Spring Street. He said the parking spaces on the north/south side are our parking spaces we should have a say in the matter. Weeks noted Dan Petrik, NAC, would be attending the meeting on June 20th to address pavers, lights, expenses, etc. Rockvam verified Adolf would research the pavers. Williamson said he would like to see a ballpark cost on everything we do on these projects. Adolf pointed out on the east end of Del Otero there is an area where there is diminished lighting and stated the gap should be filled in. Rockvam said the higher the pole the more illumination and verified we could place flags on these poles. Adolf said there is a 35-foot standard at the southeast corner that is being replaced by a 20 foot standard and the City would need additional standards to replace the loss. He asked if the Council would consider this. • Rockvam requested this information available at the next meeting. Council—6/6/05 9 • At this time the Council considered Resolution 05-19 (6.e). Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to approve Resolution 05-19, authorizing the City Attorney to prepare reimbursement requests and other notices to the Mist Lofts, LLC and Lakeview Lofts, LLC and prepare status reports to the Council regarding the same. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. Rockvam verified the reports would be received in the Council's packets. e) Administrator 1. Spring Clean Up Summary(5/14/05)—Noted 2. Fire Code Update—5/26/05 —Noted 3. Water Tower Construction Use of Leased Property—5/13/05 Rockvam asked if there was a response to the letter and was told no. Reinhardt requested background information and Weeks said the first paragraph explains the situation. Rockvam inquired about a permit being needed for the facing. Weeks said a permit was not needed for the repair that was done on the stucco. 4. Channels 8 & 20 Schedules—Noted 5. Financial Updates a) Expenses YTD Thru April `05 • Hughes inquired about the "plan check fee". Weeks said most of it is pass thru money for building plans. b) Cash Investments Thru April '05 -Noted c) Revenue Thru April '05 -Noted d) Funds Update Thru April `05 Reinhardt asked if we did adopt a policy for funding. Weeks said the Council did adopt one after they discussed definitions. Rockvam asked this be researched for the next meeting. Weeks will set up names and definitions for next meeting. Williamson noted maturity dates are coming up on our investment schedule at least once a month and all are earning 2.0 to 3 percent and current CD rates are between 4.35 to 5.38 percent. Williamson said we would be taking in a substantial amount of cash and we want to make sure it is placed for the best return. Rockvam asked if we want to invest for more than five years. Williamson said 36 months is the happy medium. This was briefly discussed. 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to approve the claims for payment for June 6, 2005. In discussion Hughes asked if we are being charged a flat rate or per hour rate when • our planner, engineer, and attorneys attend Council meetings. Weeks said it depends Council—6/6/05 10 • on the reason for their attendance. Williamson said we should move them to the front of the agenda and think about this in the future when it is our money. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Mediacom Re: Adding Channels— 5/25/05 Rockvam pointed out we should have good equipment or get rid of it if something does not work. Hughes pointed out we need a microphone for someone in the audience that does not come to the podium. Reinhardt said this is something that could be addressed in the update of City Hall b) List of Documents Sent To Council Re: Mist &Lakeview Lofts' —5/20/05 c) Transmittal to Council Re: Time Sensitive Material—5/31/05 d) Letter to Seton Village Re: Exterior Upgrade—5/23/05 e) CenterPoint Energy Re: Service Line Replacement Project—5/19/05 f) LMCD Board Minutes—5/11/05 g) E-Mail from Administrator to Nancy Beck Re: Bayview Parking Lot—5/23/05 h) NAC Re: Proposed Light Fixtures for Shoreline & Sunset Drives—6/6/05 11. MISCELLANEOUS -None 12. ADJOURNMENT • Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to adjourn the meeting at 9:44 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK WILLIAM D. W K ADMMSTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER • Council—6/6/05 11 t ' CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 20, 2005 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—June 6, 2005 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS a) Tom Scanlon, LMCD b) Frostad Development, LLC l. Construction Update 2. TIF Requests a) Bruce Kimmel, Springsted—6/9/05 • 1. E-mail -Iu Council— 6/13/05 b) Letter from Ron Keagle, 3829 Sunset—6/19/05 c) Head, Seifert &Vander Weide—6/16/05 1. Memo from Administrator To Council—6/17/05 3. Status Report Re: Escrow Acct. & Invoices, Head, Seifert & Vander Weide— 6/10/05 c) NAC Re: Streetscape (Mist & Lakeview Lofts's) d) Planning Commission Minutes—6/8/05 1. Recommendation for Attendance Guidelines 2. Planning Commission Candidates a) Wendy Lewin, 3880 Sunset Drive b) Sera Maloney, 4710 West Arm Road e) Northwest Tonka Lions Club Re: Donation Designation—6/7/05 f) Miscellaneous 6. ORDINANCES &RESOLUTIONS a) Resolution 05-20—Resolution approving City's Execution of Joint Coop. Agreement (CDBG Program) (Head, Seifert &Vander Weide—6/10/05; Joint Agreement) 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES a) Mayor • 1. Administrative Committee Minutes—6/15/05 Council Agenda—6/20/05 1 M 4 b) Council—Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer • c) Engineer 1. Lift Station#6 Bid Review d) Utility Superintendent e) Administrator 1. July Calendar 2. Miscellaneous 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS a) Mist Lofts Info 1. Head, Seifert &Vander Weide Re: Building Permit—6/9/05 2. Head, Seifert &Vander Weide Re: Status Report—6/10/05 3. Dept. of Employment& Econ. Development Re: Grant Program Denial— 6/10/05 4. Tom Seifert Re: Del Otero Payment—6/14/05 b) LMCC Re: Committee to Wi-Fi &Wi-MAX— 5/31/05 c) LMCC Re: MACTA Wireless Tech Seminar—6/13/05 d) Met Council Re: Population&Household Est. —6/3/05 • e) LMCD Re: Deicing Public Hearing on 6/22/05 11. MISCELLANEOUS 12. ADJOURNMENT • Council Agenda—6/20/05 2 r s CITY OF SPRING PARK RL9011vat) SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA JUL - 1 MINUTES $,HEADE� COUNCIL MEETING & VA JUNE 20, 2005 WME 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Rockvam called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam were present. Staff present: Administrator Weeks, Utility Superintendent Goman, and Deputy Clerk Corl. Others present: Tom Seifert, City Attorney; Ken Adolf, City Engineer; Bruce Kimmel, City Financial Advisor & Mary Ippel, Briggs & Morgan; Planning Commissioners Anderson and Mason. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Rockvam said 5. c) NAC Re: Streetscape (Mist & Lakeview Lofts') would be deleted from the agenda. Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to adopt the amended agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —June 6, 2005 Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Widmer to approve the minutes for the Council Meeting June 6, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Mayor Rockvam introduced the Council and Staff to the viewing public. 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS a) Tom Scanlon, LMCD Scanlon presented an educational video on zebra mussels to the City. He said the Hennepin County Water Patrol's Report was from January through April. He further reported the LMCD Board would vote on their budget this week. He briefly explained some of the additional costs for the upcoming year. Scanlon distributed copies of a boat washing system that could be installed at entrances to the lake. He stated one unit washes 300 boats without reloading water or propane; cost for one is $50,000 and the size of it prohibits it to be at the smaller entrances to lake. This was just a presentation to the LMCD. • Council Minutes—6/20/05 1 Scanlon also reported the 2004 Statistical Analysis of the water quality for Lake Minnetonka does not show significant changes in the past nine years. He pointed • out last year was a better year for water quality. He noted the City of Plymouth was the first city to implement a fertilizer Ordinance and Parker Lake in that city has had improvements in water quality over a period of time. He added that lake is considerably smaller lake than Minnetonka but in time improvements will be seen. He suggested the City send a letter to hardware stores to remind them to keep phosphorous items off their shelves. Scanlon further reported the LMCD is holding a public meeting on deicing (information is in the Council packets under Communications). He said areas to be addressed are the areas to be deiced, fencing requirements and permits; there are currently 32 permits that deice on the lake; there is a difference in permanent and seasonal permits; hardship for a deicing permit cannot be financial. Scanlon reported about 70 people attended the boat density public hearing. He noted the boat count is not any higher than 10-15 years ago. Courtesy and boat size was part of the discussion; he thought the comments were all well thought out; and overall it was a good meeting. Scanlon said the majority of the attendees were from Deephaven because they have internal issues that are of importance to the residents. Rockvam noted the boat count went from 8,000 to 9,000 boats. Scanlon said he would check on the accuracy of this. He said the board is concentrating on a 5- year program on public relations on boating courtesy; they also discussed signage to educate the public on this. He pointed out people that live around the lake have a different opinion than those coming in to use the lake. Widmer said some people do not know what the rules are i.e.jet skiers just hang around in a certain area and a lot of them are not aware they have to leave after 20 minutes. She also noted big boats do not always stay 150 feet from the dock. Scanlon said the Water Patrol has a limited patrol department to enforce a lot of these rules. He stated they are trying to find a cost effective way to get the word out to boaters. Hughes suggested a videotape on boating courtesy that boat manufacturers could include with the sale of a boat. Hughes asked if there was a preliminary report on the milfoil. Scanlon said the cutting was just recently started. Rockvam stated that anyone that operates a boat should be required to take powerboat training. He referred back to the deicing topic and said if there is a violation by someone they should be tagged. Reinhardt noted the Boat Density Goals stated it was a draft. Scanlon said the board has yet to vote on it. Scanlon verified the Council wants to continue support in the budget for televising the LMCD Board meetings. b) Frostad Development, LLC 1. Construction Update • Council Minutes—6/20/05 2 Frosted reported the recent rains have forced the final grading of Spring Street to be postponed and they are also trying to get the roof in place. He said it • would be a 10-day sequence to get the street up to the first asphalt base. Rockvam asked if the neighboring businesses were notified of this meeting. Weeks said they were sent a letter stating Frostad would be giving a construction update at the second Council Meeting of each month (3rd Monday). Frostad said he would be sending a letter updating the businesses tomorrow; he hopes to have the windows in the week of July 41h and residents moved in by Thanksgiving. 2. TIF Request a) Bruce Kimmel, Springsted—6/9/05 1. E-mail from Weeks to Council—6/13/05 Bruce Kimmel, from Springsted, and Mary Ippel, bond and TIF attorney from Briggs & Morgan, were present for the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) amendment request. Kimmel congratulated the City for the decertification of the original TIF District and said it was a financial success for the City. He referred to his memo of 6/9/05 and said the proposed amendment would extend the life of the TIF one year, from 5.5 to 6.5 years. He said he reviewed two findings of the but-for test that are outlined in the memo. Kimmel stated the 2004 analysis did not find any clear proof of the developer's need for the TIF. He said it should be noted again the primary but-for test focuses on if the proposed development would reasonably be expected to occur through private investment only. Kimmel said they did not believe the $500,000 TIF note would grant the developer any undue profits at the City's expense and the TIF assisted with a blighted section in the downtown area. He said when the Council approved the TIF, it did not include interest. He stated the developer's 2005 request is not the same as in 2004. Kimmel reviewed the following information, provided by the developer: a) Project cost overruns of$272,000 for clean up of soil contamination and $475,000 for unanticipated expenses; b) The project return on investment, which now is lower than the 47%, estimated last year. . . the total developer profit now is estimated to be closer to 15-20%; and c) The cost overruns wipe out the contingency budget. In conclusion Kimmel stated given the scope of the cost overruns related to soil contamination in relation to their previous but-for analysis, he believes the request of$150,000 additional TIF funds is financially appropriate. • Council Minutes—6/20/05 3 Hughes asked Kimmel to elaborate on the 47% on internal rate of return. Kimmel stated he ran a multi year cash flow with a negative of$550,000 and • a positive of$815,000 and looked at it over ten years in today's dollars and asked what the equivalent interest rate would be. He added he knew a calculated number would be a gamble. Reinhardt said state law states what TIF money can be used for. Kimmel said the $500,000 was classified for demolition and site preparation; all costs reimbursed would be documented as to how the money was being spent. Ippel stated any cost for a housing project is a reimbursable cost; state law has additional requirements; the developer had to provide invoices but it does not have to be for a certain item. Hughes asked if with the state law could the City could make it more restrictive. Ippel said there is flexibility for a housing project. She then stated she misspoke and corrected the fact she thought the project was a housing project when in effect it is a redevelopment district. She said any costs related to this project are reimbursable; the City could define what categories we want to cover and limit it to a dollar amount the Council wants to reimburse. Hughes referred to the Kimmel memo dated 9/16/04 that stated the return on the investment would not be on anything for more than $500,000. Kimmel said that has changed with the cost overruns and Springsted's analysis would have shown a different return on investment if they had known that then. He stated that would have changed the equation and his analysis at the time. Hughes said it stated the project would not have gone ahead and it has. Kimmel said it is not now a requirement to make the but-for analysis; the Council has to decide if they want to consider the request because of the cost overruns or make the authorization for a public hearing; they just have to decide what vehicle to use to approve the request. Kimmel pointed out Springsted was not asked to verify construction costs and all the data is in terms of if and assumptions and nothing is fact. He said he was requested to try to compare with what he did last fall and he could not say what the projected return would be in 2005 like he did in 2004. Williamson referred to the first paragraph of Kimmel's memo and the statement ". . .TIF assistance was an appropriate means of mitigating risk . . .". He said what is being asked for now is eliminating risk and this is not appropriate. Frostad stated there were costs not only within the TIF qualifier that were cost overruns and he is going to have a significant amount of money in the project. He added there are also undisclosed costs that were not qualified under TIF and the major reason for making the request for more money was the City's equalization fee that was never disclosed in any previous discussions. He said he was looking for reimbursements for qualifying costs and not asking for all of it; he stated he chose to do it administratively because it would be less • Council Minutes—6/20/05 4 r costly than a public hearing and that is an expense that would not be reimbursable. • Rockvam referred back to when Frostad approached the City to develop Spring Street and asked for a list of projected costs in March i.e. permits, s.a.c. and w.a.c. charges, meter connection, building permit, etc. He added that he remembered the City had this charge for new multi-unit residential buildings and several new apartment buildings were charged the fee; he reviewed the ordinance until it was located and the cost was figured for Frostad and it was approximately $100,000. Frostad said the contaminated soil was also in a location it was not expected to be. Rockvam stated the City agreed to divide the building permit in half because Frosted was blindsided, not intentionally, because we did not have the information; we should have given him an accurate list of what the costs would be. Rockvam said he was not under the impression that the TIF request would be called interest because we agreed to $500,000 and not pay interest on it. b) Letter from Ron Keagle, 3829 Sunset Drive Rockvam read the above letter regarding the TIF request for Frostad Development. c) Head, Seifert & Vander Weide—6/16/05 1. Memo from Administrator to Council—6/17/06 Seifert stated his memo stated the facts. He said he recalled the meeting that Frosted was informed of the Water Equalization Fee and he would have to pay $97,000 more than he was previously told. Williamson referred to the November meeting when this problem came to light; he asked if the perceived solution to that problem might be added to the TIF, that would have been the appropriate time to revisit the matter. Rockvam said the extent of the problem was not known at that time. Frostad said it was known after the Development Agreement was signed. Rockvam stated it was then Frostad decided he could apply for additional TIF. Frostad said his priority was to get the project started and not start a legal battle instead of trying to figure out what the total costs would be for soil contamination. He stated when this was known he would then send a letter to the City and formally request additional TIF because this was a qualifying expense. Williamson said Frostad should have said something to the Council when the problem arose that would precipitate an adjustment in the TIF. He stated the most opportune time to raise the issue would be before the Council serving at that time. Widmer pointed out Frostad did not know the scope of the issue at that time. Williamson again reiterated there was no action initiated until after the election and new Council members were elected. • Council Minutes—6/20/05 5 Frostad stated the TIF was for reimbursable expenses for site preparation and his soil correction went over budget; there was a significant expense in • hauling contaminated soil. Williamson asked if Frostad was suggesting that suggesting that contemplating unknowns was the basis for establishing the TIF request. Frostad said there wasn't a clear easy way of entering into that process with the cost of the equalization fee added after the initial estimate of costs to the City was given to him. He said he was provided an advisory that this problem with the soil was emerging and he had not seen his final bill for contamination at that time. Frostad stated he did not realize the overage would be so great and ultimately it was a much larger number and it was a sufficient amount to make the request for additional TIF. Seifert referred back to the original meeting with Frostad and said neither the City nor Frostad knew of the problem with the soil on the site. Reinhardt asked if the project is in jeopardy without this money. Frostad said it was not. He added he had to increase the selling prices and hopes to recoup this overage item maybe six years from now. He stated the rate of return does diminish. Hughes asked if this was 15% to 20% and was told yes. Reinhardt expressed appreciation of Frostad's honesty. Frostad said the biggest risk now is time and it is important to keep things moving. Widmer asked what if the decision is made to go to a public hearing. Frostad said he would look at changing the amount just to cover costs. Hughes asked if the Council is being asked to look at interest. Frostad said the only action asked of the Council is to amend the Developer's Agreement. Ippel said the Council has to address if they want to provide $150,000 more. She stated when the plan was adopted in September, the document did provide for $650,000 to the developer and the Council chose not to pay interest on the note. She added there are two ways to grant $150,000 to keep it simple and legal; one is not do anything with the TIF plan, but to amend the Developer's Agreement and add some whereas clauses to grant interest up to a total of $650,000; another way is go back and have a public hearing and amend the TIF plan; it is solely a policy decision on the Council's part; the City has to give notice to the county and school district to amend the plan. She summarized the Council has to decide if they want to grant $150,000 and the directions on how to proceed. Williamson asked Frostad if he used the original $500,000 as security to the lender. Frostad said no and if he would default, the income from the account goes to that and the development is assigned. Williamson asked if it would have been better if the City had sold bonds. Ippel said no because if you issue bonds you bear the interest risk and it was better to issue the pay as you go note and if at the end of the term Frostad receives nothing; he bears the risk. Rockvam referred to the TIF for Presbyterian Homes and at that time everything went wrong but the City had the foresight to escrow three years of • Council Minutes—6/20/05 6 real estate taxes. He added Frostad's project has no risk obligation on the City's part and we are better off doing the pay as you go note. • Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Hughes to not rant the g g additional $150,000 request under the TIF for this project. In discussion Williamson suggested directing the attorney to prepare a resolution to deny the request. Hughes said there are two options, the interest portion and for us to say we are not going to go ahead with any additional amount and clarified the motion is not in favor of granting $150,000 under any circumstances. Rockvam said there should not be a negative motion. Williamson asked if the attorney could suggest the course of action. Seifert said the Council could have a negative resolution. Rockvam said if Frostad has made a request for $150,000 the Council should make an action on that request. Seifert read the letter from Frostad dated 4/18/05 making a formal request to amend the TIF agreement increasing it by$150,000 to cover overruns for the remediation of on site contamination. Williamson said the letter did not explain interest. Seifert said the Council should decide if they want to take any action for Frostad. Widmer asked if this request was tabled. Rockvam said the Council decided not to consider this request previously because of the escrow deficiency. Hughes referred to the term "preauthorized amount" used in a previous memo and asked if this was preauthorized as interest. Williamson said the issue has to be interest or a public hearing. Frostad said he is ultimately looking for $150,000 and the request and mechanics are secondary. Hughes said he is trying to justify the request. Rockvam said he has no problem with $150,000, just with calling it interest. Widmer said she has no problem with the request as long as it is not classified as interest. Williamson said he agrees with that part but not the timeliness of the request; the Council should have been fully informed and a lack of confidence has been created because of this; profit and risk is part of any developer's projects. Rockvam referred to Williamson's implication that this should have come back to the Council and it did not. He said the Council was fully advised; Frostad did not have any idea, until spring, the extent of the costs; at no time was there any intention to keep information from the Council. Williamson said at the time the problem was first learned would have been the time to revise the TIF. Widmer said the additional costs were unknown at that time. Frostad stated he had no idea of the scale of the problem at the time. Upon roll call Hughes, Reinhardt and Williamson voted yes and Widmer and Rockvam voted no. Motion declared carried. • Council Minutes—6/20/05 7 3. Status Report Re: Escrow Acct. & Invoices, Head, Seifert & Vander Weide— 6/10/05 • Seifert confirmed the escrow balance is where it should be. He said the status report will be done monthly. Widmer asked what happens if we receive an unusually large bill. Seifert said the Developer's Agreement states invoices will be sent monthly and as the project goes forward there would be fewer costs. Hughes asked what percentage of the costs being transferred to them is already done. This was unknown. Seifert said there would be ongoing inspections and the streetscape plan is left to do. d) Planning Commission Minutes—6/8/05 1. Recommendation for Attendance Guidelines Hughes stated he was pleased with the process the Planning Commission used to come to their recommendation; it is an expectation rather than a requirement. Reinhardt stated she was pleased to see they set the bar high for themselves and came up with the number themselves. Williamson said it would be useful if the Council would clearly state to candidates for the Commission what the expected attendance requirement is. Widmer inquired as to the open house suggestion before a public hearing. Hughes said it was if the public would want to look at drawings and ask questions regarding the reason for the public hearing and it is not meant to take away from public hearing. Widmer pointed out the questions could be beneficial for the public hearing. Reinhardt said developers in Plymouth hold open houses and residents find this beneficial. Rockvam pointed out we could not selectively decide who gets an open house; one has to be held for everyone to be fair. Williamson referred to the discussion on a Planned Unit Development (PUD). He said it is a two-stage discussion, looking at a concept and then the actual language. 2. Planning Commission Candidates a) Wendy Lewin, 3880 Sunset Drive b) Sera Maloney, 4710 West Arm Road Motion by Sarah seconded by Hughes to appoint Sera Maloney to fill the vacancy on the Planning Commission. In discussion, Reinhardt pointed out Maloney is a civil engineer and she represents the western section of the City and this would be an asset to the Planning Commission. Rockvam stated there should be diversity and we should have people with different viewpoints on the Commission. Hughes pointed out the vote has been done by secret ballot not a motion. Reinhardt said she opposed the ballet because she liked to hear other people's reasons for their vote. Hughes withdrew his second to the motion. Reinhardt said she was open to what the rest of the Council would like to do. • Council Minutes—6/20/05 8 The motion by Reinhardt failed because there was not second to the motion. • A secret paper ballot was taken and there were three votes for Maloney and two votes for Lewin. Maloney was declared appointed by the Council to fill the vacancy on the Planning Commission. The staff will notify her. e) Northwest Tonka Lions Club Re: Donation Designation—6/7/05 Hughes asked for a summary of the donation designations received from them in the past. Rockvam said they have all been for beautification. He said to look at the loss from pull-tabs and the liquor license because the Mist decided go out of business because of MGM Liquor. Williamson disagreed it was because of MGM. Widmer verified the money was going to be designated for the park. Weeks said that is the Lions request. Rockvam said he thought the infield was supposed to be taken care of by who is going to use it. Widmer asked if the Little League marks the base lines in the spring. Goman said no major work has been done in a long time. Rockvam asked what happens to the original agreement if they improve that portion of the park. Widmer said she would like to see something done with the drainage issue, even though it has to do with the water level of the lake. Williamson asked if we are going to make the commitment with the park. Goman said it would make it look better. He verified the Lions were projecting no • improvement with the pull-tab sales at Lord Fletcher's; the season might still provide a stronger market. Rockvam said they do not have the same nucleus as the Mist. Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to thank the Northwest Tonka Lions Club for apprising us of the current status of their pull-tab operation in Spring Park. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. f) Miscellaneous -None 6. ORDINANCES &RESOLUTIONS a) Resolution 05-20 — Resolution Approving City's Execution of Joint Coop. Agreement (CDBG Program) (Head, Seifert &Vander Weide—6/10/05; Joint Agreement) Motion by Hughes seconded by Widmer to approve Resolution 05-20, approving the City's execution of a joint cooperative agreement between the City and the county for participation in the Community Development Block Grant Program. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES a) Mayor • Council Minutes—6/20/05 9 I. Administrative Committee Minutes—6/16/06 Reinhardt referred to the streetscape discussion and Rockvam said Mound has • similar fixtures as the ones proposed for Spring Park. Goman said the ones in Mound are not aluminum. Williamson asked for price information and Goman said he does not have that ready. Goman pointed out there is an alternating design of flags and banners and Mound has a flag and a banner on some poles. He pointed out nothing is supposed to be above the American flag. In another matter Rockvam stated a date has to be set for the executive session of the Council with the Administrator to discuss personnel matters. Motion by Widmer seconded by Reinhardt to hold the continuation of the review of the Administrator in an executive session of the Council pertaining to personnel matters on July 11, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. b) Council—Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer Reinhardt noted she has put most of the permit applications on the website for residents to use. She asked Goman if he had an update on the information regarding underground utilities on West Arm Road. Goman said he is waiting for a firm proposal from Xcel and this work could be done this construction season. Williamson referred back to the Dakota Rail discussion in the Administrative • Minutes and said the corrected total cost is 2.4 to 3.0 million dollars and a Laker Newspaper article confirms this correction. He added he spoke with two people from the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA). He said they are interested in any design features we would like to see regarding the trailhead in Spring Park. He stated they urged us to submit our interest and indicate any features we want to be included. Rockvam said we would like a fairly large public parking area that is heavily landscaped. Williamson said they would like us to pass a resolution at the earliest possible time stating our requests. Hughes suggested sending a letter inviting the HCRRA to a Council meeting. Rockvam verified they would like a resolution from the City. Williamson said we have to express interest and state we want to be involved in the concept and design. Weeks will see if a representative can attend a Council meeting and he will see that a resolution is done and report on this at the next meeting. Rockvam said he would like to see a more pedestrian friendly area at the boat landing area. Weeks said NAC is working on a proposal to do a master plan for the City's downtown area including the boat ramp and depot areas. Mason asked what the county is planning on doing at the ramp area. Goman said they are doing just the ramp. • Council Minutes—6/20/05 10 Williamson stated we have spent money to have Phil Johnson do design concepts for City Hall and we should put this back on the agenda. Weeks will see if he can • attend the Council meeting on July 5th. Williamson stated City Hall does not have a safe and questioned the protection of documents in the event of a fire or other natural disaster. He said we should explore the options i.e. fireproof file cabinet, etc. Hughes asked the attorney what should be used and what we should store. Seifert said the a safety deposit box is a good means of storage and it should contain at least the letter's of credit, CD's and other important items. Seifert also suggested backing up the water and sewer records and storing them off site. Motion by Hughes seconded by Williamson to approve the Administrator to obtain a safety deposit box for the City immediately. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Widmer thanked Goman for the generator service after the recent storm. Rockvam said we should start to look at buying generators for the lift stations over a period of time and noted we are getting new ones for Lift Stations 3 and 6. Williamson stated this would be appropriate for a Capital Improvement Program (CEP). c) Engineer 1. Lift Station#6 Bid Review Adolf reported bids were opened for Lift Station #6, two were received, and both were considerably higher than projected estimates. He stated the • proposal presented to the Council was a basic lift station as an option with generator out in the open; that was the starting point and the Council added a prefab package of a lift station with the generator housed in an enclosure; it was thought at the time this would be cost effective. Adolf said alternatives were included in the bid documents with the intent to get competition in prices but ended up with a sole source supplier and a higher cost than in the beginning. He added more bidders result in more competition. Adolf noted some of the proposed costs were underestimated. Rockvam noted the bid was $300,000 over bid. He asked if the bid should be redone or changed. Adolf said bids are good for 90 days. Rockvam asked what has been spent so far and the cost to continue. Goman said about $10,000 for engineering costs. Adolf said if the Council chooses to reject the bids and re-bid the project he recommended the following: not furnish a third pump but include pipes for if for the future; allow three pump manufactures in the bidding process, a custom built generator and enclosure; include the generator and building in the base bid but have an alternated bid with a deduct to eliminate the structure; include an alternate bid with a deduct to extend the completion date to Spring 2006. Hughes asked if we could wait until spring 2006. Goman said not with this lift station. Rockvam said if we took the generator and closure house off it • Council Minutes—6/20/05 11 would reduce the amount. Hughes said we could have everything above ground with the generator and control panel in the open similar to Lift Station • #3. Reinhardt asked how much would be saved by deleting the third pump. Adolf said not much would be saved. Rockvam asked if we could negotiate the third line ($455,396) and remove the enclosure. Adolf said we would get a fraction of the credit that would be available than if it was re-bid. Goman said there were three big contractors that did not bid because they had other projects going on; if we provide more flexibility for contractors we will get more contractors bidding the work. Rockvam stated he thought this was a rush situation; if we re-bid it that would take more time and money and not get done until into the winter; his reaction is to wait until next winter. Williamson said if there was an ultimate failure we would have to go into an emergency bypass pumping situation. He asked Goman how fast that would happen. Goman said it would take 24 hours and cost$24,000 to $30,000. Rockvam asked Adolf if he felt the bid was in line. Adolf said it was somewhat unique. Goman stated the previous estimates were correct and the item that was costly was the enclosure. He pointed out the original design was simple and the brick and roof design added to the cost. Rockvam suggested going back to the contractor and eliminate some items or wait until next year. Williamson said if it was the timing of the bid, re-bid it later. Rockvam said to get a cost reduction from the contractor. Adolf said he has to check to see how significant a change can be made before it is violating the • competetive bid law. Reinhardt asked if the lift station could be without an enclosure. Goman said the other six lift stations do not have enclosure; Lift Stations#6 would function just fine; it was being super sized. d) Utility Superintendent Goman said he spoke with Commissioner Anderson regarding the VFW donating a portion of the costs for lighting the flag and Anderson stated the VFW could not make any financial commitment at this time. Goman said he has received two quotes; the approximate lighting is $1000 and the total cost is around $3,000 to $4,200 with a new pole. Widmer pointed out it would cost $200 to paint the existing pole and lighting it is another $1,000; she cannot see taking down the pole because it has a rusty appearance and the original request was to light the pole; the added cost does not make sense to her. Goman said the proposed new general location would not impact any improvements and it would not impact the one tree in that location. Rockvam asked if the reason for moving the pole is to get it closer to a power source. Goman said it was not the reason. Hughes asked if we used a spotlight, could the power source be from the lift station. Goman said that is approximately 150 to 200 feet away. Rockvam said a new pole could be placed where the old one is located. Williamson said the first thing he noticed when he started on the Council was the rusty flagpole; it was repainted and stayed that way for five years. • Council Minutes—6/20/05 12 Motion by Williamson seconded by Widmer to repaint the old flagpole and approve the most economical lighting method. In discussion Rockvam asked for an estimate to have someone paint the pole. Goman said he painted it last time and estimated it would cost about $500 to have it painted without sandblasting. Rockvam pointed out if the paint is lead based it would cost more to have it sandblasted. Upon roll call Hughes, Reinhardt and Rockvam voted no and Williamson and Widmer voted aye. Motion declared failed. Motion by Hughes seconded by Widmer to purchase a new flagpole and spend $3000 to install and light it. Upon roll call Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson and Rockvam voted aye and Widmer voted no. Motion declared carried. Goman reported Norling is replacing four trees. Rockvam asked the location. Goman said two are on Shoreline Drive on the north side of Tonka Ventures and two are on the south side. Rockvam asked if the replacement trees are the same in maturity. Hughes asked the original cost of the trees. Goman said he would have to find this out. Rockvam suggested waiting with the planting until the answers are known. • Goman also reported the smiley face on the south side of the tower had to be repositioned to be more evenly spaced between the logos. e) Administrator 1. July Calendar-Noted 2. Miscellaneous -None 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT Motion by Hughes seconded by Reinhardt to approve the claims for payment for June 20, 2005 including the supplemental sheet. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS —None 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Mist Lofts Info 1. Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: Building Permit—6/9/05 2. Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: Status Report—6/10/05 3. Dept. of Employment & Econ. Development Re: Grant Program Denial — 6/19/05 • Council Minutes—6/20/05 13 4 w r 4. Tom Seifert Re: Del Otero Payment—6/14/05 b) LMCC Re: Committee to Wi-Fi &Wi-MAX— 5/31/05 • c) LMCC Re: MACTA Wireless Tech Seminar—6/13/05 d) Met Council Re: Population&Household Est. —6/3/05 e) LMCD Re: Deicing Public Hearing on 6/22/05 11. MISCELLANEOUS—None 12. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Williamson seconded by Widmer to adjourn the meeting at 11:14 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK ILLIAM D. WEE ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER • • Council Minutes—6/20/05 14 CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDAIV "® COUNCIL MEETING JULY 5, 2005 JUL - 1 2005 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL HEAD, SEIFERT &VANDER WEIDE 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—June 20, 2005 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS a) Betty Nelson Re: Service Recognition(Planning Commissioner) b) Mist Lofts, Brad Ridgeway Re: Construction Update c) Phil Johnson Re: City Hall Update d) Philip Schrader, 2470 Island Dr. Re: Request for Crosswalk at Marina Center 1. Memo to OPD—6/29/05 e) Sr. Comm. Services Re: Request for Additional Support 2006—6/23/05 • f) Proposal For Lakefront Master Plan 1. Planner 2. Engineer g) Frostad Development Co. Re: Request For Refund—6/24/05 1. Head, Seifert & Vander Weide—6/23/05 2. Letter to League of MN Insurance Trust Re: Frostad Request—6/29/05 h) Miscellaneous 6. ORDINANCES &RESOLUTIONS a) Resolution 05-21 —Cub Scout Recognition b) Resolution 05-22—Trailhead in Spring Park 1. Boe Carlson, Governmental Affairs Coordinator(Three Rivers Park District) 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES a) Mayor 1. Police Commission Minutes &Reports—6/21/05 b) Council 1. Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer c) Engineer 1. Schoell &Madson Re: Proposal For City Hall Driveway—6/28/05 2. Lift Station#6 Update a) Head, Seifert &Vander Weide—6/28/05 • Council Agenda—7/5/05 1 d) Utility Superintendent 1. Maguire Iron, Inc. Re: Temp. Construction& Staging Area for Water Tower • Construction—6/30/05 e) Administrator 1. Building& Sign Report—May&June 2. Channels 8 &20 Schedules 3. Safe Deposit Box Update 4. Henn. Co. Assessor Re: Board of Appeal Training—6/28/05 5. Miscellaneous 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS a) Memo from City to Tonka Ventures Re: Lakeview Lofts—6/22/05 b) Letter to S. Maloney Re: Appointment—6/23/05 c) LMCD 2006 Adopted Budget & Levy d) Head, Seifert &Vander Weide Re: Status Reports Lakeview &Mist Lofts' — 6/23/05 11. MISCELLANEOUS 12. ADJOURNMENT • • Council Agenda—7/5/05 2 RECEIVED • JUL 18 2005 CITY OF SPRING PARK HEAD, SEIFERT SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA &VANDER WEIR MINUTES COUNCIL MEETING JULY 5, 2005 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Rockvam called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam were present. Staff present: Administrator Weeks, Utility Superintendent Goman, and Deputy Clerk Corl. Others present: Brian Vitek, Tom Goodrum, Engineers; Anne Klusendorf, Planner; Planning Commissioner Mason. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to adopt the agenda. Hughes • recommended moving 6. a) Resolution 05-21 to follow 5. a). Williamson accepted the amendment. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —June 20, 2005 Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Widmer to approve the minutes for the Council Meeting June 20, 2005. In discussion Rockvam referred to page 5, the first paragraph. He stated he would like to draft an insert to fully explain that paragraph. Williamson asked if Rockvam felt the statements in the minutes are not accurate or not complete. Rockvam said he felt a further explanation was needed and it was not complete. He stated he would like to draft a presentation for the next meeting. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Mayor Rockvam introduced the Council and Staff to the viewing public. 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS a) Betty Nelson Re: Service Recognition(Planning Commission) Rockvam presented Nelson with a gift of appreciation and thanked her for her service on the Planning Commission from 1998 to 2005. • 6. a) Resolution 05-21 —Cub Scout Recognition Council Meeting—7/5/05 1 • Rockvam read the resolution thanking the cub scouts for removing debris and cleaning up portions of the City during our Spring Clean Up. He presented them with a check for their service. The scouts said they are going to donate their earnings to charity. Motion by Hughes seconded by Williamson to approve Resolution 05-21, Cub Scout Recognition. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. b) Mist Lofts, Brad Ridgeway Re: Construction Update Ridgeway, from J. E. Dunn, gave an update on the Mist Lofts project. He reported they have been recycling 16 to 18 semi dumps of soil; the trucks have been coming in from Bayview Place and exiting on Sunset Drive; they are sweeping the street regularly and the silt fence and erosion control systems are keeping the site confined. He stated the filtration system is in place to dewater and lower the water table in preparation for construction of the lift station. He said they hope to start construction for that toward the end of the week. Ridgeway stated that a portion of County Road 15 is being closed down to install a manhole to manage the storm water that exits into the lake. He said they have a weir that collects the silt as they dewater the area to make sure the water is acceptable to enter the lake. Ridgeway reported they are excavating for the retaining wall footing, then pouring concrete for the footings for the columns. He • noted temporary power will be hooked up to service the needs for the site and the concrete walls for the north building should be in by the middle of July. Ridgeway said the lift station and retaining wall would be done before the south building is started. Rockvam verified what the current excavating is for and was told it is for Lift Station #3. He also asked if anything else is being excavated in the area now. Ridgeway said the retaining wall to the east would be removed. Rockvam verified the road would be closed for the construction of the catch basin. Widmer asked where the road would be closed off. Ridgeway said County Road 15 would be closed at Navarre to County Road 51 (Sunset Drive) at the Mist site. Goman said there would be access for local traffic but no thru traffic. Reinhardt asked if the road would be closed during rush hour and Ridgeway said he could not anticipate an answer. Williamson said the time of day does matter because of rush hour traffic. Goman said the original discussion was to start at 4:00 a.m. and reopen by the afternoon rush hour that same day if according to plan. He said traffic would be diverted from westbound 15 to eastbound 15. Reinhardt asked how thru traffic would be determined. Goman said the street would be barricaded completely at Bayview Place. Williamson said it was explained to him by workers on the site the cleaning process with the water is a two-stage process. Ridgeway verified this and said • Council Meeting—7/5/05 2 • stage two is to capture oil that would be on top of the water along with any other contaminants that appear. Williamson referred to the adjoining property owner to the east and the location of the walls being too close to that property line. Ridgeway explained how the wall would be constructed and when it was cured it would be removed below the grade. Williamson clarified the wall would be three feet from the property line because he understood the set back requirements were 5 feet from the property line. Ridgeway said that detail is on page L803 on the plans. Williamson verified what is visible now will not be visible when completed. Mason asked how far below grade this would be cut. Ridgeway said this has not been defined. Mason pointed out the distance between the lot line and the wall averages 18 inches and an easement may be needed. Mason asked how long the boom (silt curtain) would be in the water and was told another week. He asked if it would be moved to another new storm sewer during construction. Ridgeway said it could be part of the plan. Mason asked how long they would be removing dirt. He was told 15 working days at the most but dirt would be coming and going for three months. Mason requested Ridgeway to find out how far down it would be cut and how much room is needed to do that process because there is only 18 inches. • c) Phil Johnson Re: City Hall Update Johnson distributed a packet showing four schemes for remodeling City Hall and said "A" and "D" should be reviewed. He pointed out "A" shows a modification in the office area and the addition on the back to allow for a handicap restroom. Johnson said this proposal shows the following: it would allow storage underneath but above the basement level for storing records; allows police space; the Administrator's area would be located in the north corner; a front desk area with a counter and display case in the hall; the ceiling in the Council Chambers would be removed to open up the area; the Council table would have a wing shaped desk for convenience; staff table on both sides of the Council; the podium in the center for presentations; space dictates cameras in the space and presenter can be facing a board; room for some technical aspects i.e. sound system and several camera locations. Johnson referred to "D" and pointed out that plan contained the following: turning the Council table slightly; hallway recessed; counter area and storage room divided differently than it is currently; same presentation on the south side of the building; Council desk is a winged design and includes staff and consultants on the right side; exit to office behind the staff and council table; northwest corner there is room for another board for a presenter; opens east wall with glass that would allow two additional rows of seating; exit in the back. • Rockvam verified the wall would not be open but instead there would be a glass panel. Johnson said the door to the room could be closed for sound. He added Council Meeting—7/5/05 3 • there would be two doors for elections whereas "A" has the single opening and "D"does not. Williamson asked if the staff table would be removable for elections. Johnson said it would be on wheels or lightweight enough to move. He said he would make additional detailed presentations if the Council would decide on one of the plans. Widmer verified both "A" and "D" have additions to the building. Johnson said it is the south portion with a stairway to the lower lever, handicap restroom, and a raised lower level storage space. Hughes asked if the mechanicals i.e. heating and air have been reviewed. Johnson said they do not need an upgrade. Williamson asked the width dimension of the addition and was told about 11 feet. Rockvam asked if the addition is just for the handicap improvement and if there was no way to make that improvement without an addition. Johnson said the addition is for the handicap restroom and there is no way remodeling can be done without it. Widmer said a basement would not have to be put in under the new addition. Rockvam stated there were certain conditions made when the building was donated and the building had to maintain a certain design. Johnson said his plan would not alter the character. Reinhardt asked what is in the lower lever and how do you get to it. Goman said the lower level of the building is coded for an • emergency preparedness shelter and it is used for public works on a daily basis. He added we have to go outside to get downstairs. Williamson asked if there was ever a change in use in the basement in the last ten years. Goman said enhancements were made in the last five years to make it more user friendly and also old records are stored down there. Weeks added banners and Christmas decorations are also stored there. Williamson asked if water plant supplies/parts are stored in the water plant. Goman said they are all stored downstairs per the Health Department and more room is needed. Reinhardt asked how much additional storage space is going to be added. Johnson said just the area elevated in the addition and that would be for records. Williamson asked if there was plumbing in the basement. Goman said there was a sink and toilet. Williamson referred to the handicap access and asked if we are under any obligation to enhance our present facility. Johnson said when you make a change to a building you have to comply and 20% of remodeling costs must be for handicap features. Rockvam asked if more square footage in the storage area in back of the Council chambers could be used for a handicap bathroom. Johnson said there is not enough room. Hughes asked if it was appropriate to have one unisex facility and was told no. Williamson stated there are three issues: addition to city hall and add a handicap restroom, configuration of the seating for the Council, and the office area. He asked if we could do one of the elements or do we have to do all three. Johnson • said the reconfigure of the Council table could be done and not be called Council Meeting—7/5/05 4 remodeling. He said he is aware we needed a display case and proposed the hallway could be a display area. Williamson pointed out the current lighting is not old. He asked Johnson if his suggestion is new lighting or change the interior to lighter walls. Johnson said his suggested is to change the character of the room and keep the character of the old school house and have lighting that could be adjusted. Reinhardt asked if it was not possible to phase in one aspect first with the ultimate plan to incorporate entire design. Johnson pointed out when the remodeling project is started with a permit we need a handicap facility. Rockvam asked what is needed for the handicap requirement. Johnson said four feet is need in front of the toilet. Rockvam said we could cut into the storage room. Johnson said that would waste a lot of space. Goman said we are tight for space all over. Rockvam said records could be put on disks and not in boxes. Williamson said we should deal with this Council chamber and council table configuration, look at lighting, the outer hallway is too dark, redo the sound because we do not have amplification and not all voices carry well. Hughes said we should concentrate on the Council chambers from a priority standpoint. He said he would like to see an election overlay on future drawings and we need to go with a handicap facility. Rockvam said there are doors that roll up in the ceiling in the hall wall and • someone has to check out the requirements when the building was donated. Williamson said we should look at the budget and what is sensible. The Council agreed estimates should be obtained. Johnson said this would take one to two months. d) Philip Schrader, 2470 Island Dr. Re: Request for Crosswalk at Marina Center Rockvam asked if the memo was forwarded to the police department. Weeks said Sgt. Erickson posed a few questions i.e. other cross walks in the City. Rockvam said the focus should be just this area. Williamson said the Marina Center offers no area for bus riders to safely cross to the parking lot from the north side of Shoreline Drive. He said there are other options, in the City, for crossing safely at streetlights but not at the Marina Center. Weeks pointed out another unsafe crossing area is at Presbyterian Homes. Widmer said there is no way to put in a cross walk at the Marina Center and insure safety. The Council briefly discussed cross walks in the City's of Mound and Wayzata. Williamson said taking some steps would be appropriate. Rockvam said to start with the police department and Hennepin County and see if something could be done. Mason suggested the bus pull into the parking lot. Widmer said the bus is not allowed to go into the parking lot. Rockvam said it has to be agreeable with the property owner. Hughes suggested sending Schrader a copy of the letter to the police department and Hennepin County. Rockvam recommended adding this item to the pending project list. Reinhardt said crosswalks are becoming more recognizable. • Council Meeting—7/5/05 5 • e) Sr. Comm. Services Re: Request For Additional Support 2006—6/23/05 Williamson said he would like to make a declaration that he has a conflict of interest with this request He said he is allowed to weigh in with the information but he cannot vote on this matter. Rockvam said he recommends this be moved to the budget discussion. He said if we have something permanent like a joint powers agreement it would be easier to deal with this request and we are not making any progress on any permanent solution. Williamson clarified this is not for the Gillespie Center it is for senior community services that are in the center and for transportation. Motion by Hughes seconded by Widmer to put this item on the budget discussion. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. f) Proposal For Lakefront Master Plan 1. Planner Anne Klusendorf was present on behalf of Dan Petrik, NAC, at the City's request to present a proposal to create a master plan visual for the City in coordination with the two developments. She said Phase 1 is a Conceptual Master Plan that would include the lakefront, trailhead and downtown streetscape. Klusendorf listed the six steps from the memo dated 6/28/05. She said Phase 2 would be in coordination with the county and other jurisdictions to communicate and build support for a vision. She said the • proposing cost for Phase I is $5,900 for NAC and an additional $2,800 to complete two other components in the plan. Rockvam noted the total was $8,700 and asked if the City would receive a drawing like the sample distributed to the Council. Klusendorf said SRF Consultants is being contracted by Three rivers Park System to design the trail. Rockvam asked Klusendorf s position with NAC and was told she is a landscape architect and planner. 2. Engineer Tom Goodrum is a Sr. Planner with Schoell &Madson. He said the company is a full service company and he wanted to emphasize their capabilities in this area. He outlined his proposal letters for Master Plans for the City trailhead and launch area. He said the work described for the launch site would cost $6,295, and the cost of the trailhead would be$7,360. g) Frostad Development Co. Re: Request For Refund—6/24/05 Rockvam noted the City Attorney answered this request. Williamson asked if the City has heard from the insurance trust and the answer was no. h) Miscellaneous—None 6. ORDINANCES &RESOLUTIONS a) Resolution 05-21 —Cub Scout Recognition—Discussed earlier in the meeting. • b) Resolution 05-22—Trailhead in Spring Park Council Meeting—7/5/05 6 • Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to approve Resolution 05-22, trailhead in Spring Park. In discussion Williamson stated the resolution states we support this and want this to happen but pointed out the resolution does not indicate particular functions. He said a representative would like to take a copy of this resolution to a meeting regarding this tomorrow. Rockvam verified the Council did not want to make any amendments to the resolution. He said he liked the concept of a trailhead but would like an idea of what one looks like. Williamson said it would include parking, lighting, landscaping and some sort of structure. He added they would be evaluating the condition of the depot and stated they are interested in sanitary facilities and basic services but it could be more elaborate. Rockvam said the City is looking for a large public parking area with more than enough parking to accommodate bikers, hikers and walkers on the trail and this would also clean up the area. He asked if there were any trailheads in the area that would give us an idea of what one looks like. Vitek said there was one in Shorewood north of County Road 19. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES • a) Mayor 1. Police Commission Minutes &Reports—6/21/05 —Noted Rockvam asked if the owner of Shoreline Place had been contacted regarding the replacement of arborvitae that was removed adjacent to Bayview Place. Mason indicated Dick Swart was the contact person. Weeks will contact him. Rockvam asked about the replacement of storm damage trees as had been previously quoted by Norling. Goman indicated the City is waiting for a another quote that would more closely match size for size replacement as Council had requested. Rockvam said we could also get quotes from other tree growers. Goman will have a proposal by the Council Meeting July 181' Rockvam indicated he has received education information on advanced zoning training and rain garden designing if the Council was interested. He suggested rain garden technology might work at the county shoreline in Spring Park Bay. b) Council—Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer Reinhardt indicated the stop sign on West Arm Road was not visible because of overgrown brush. Goman will follow up on this. Williamson asked what the county had proposed for the boat ramp upgrade. Goman indicated the decking only would be replaced. Williamson asked if • we would have some sort of formal dedication of the new water tower and if Council Meeting—7/5/05 7 • we should add a plaque with names of Council members including those in 2004 that actually approved its construction. He also asked when it would go on line. Goman indicated it would take approximately five days to sanitize and be ready for use, and we had planned for July llth to July 15th. This schedule would have allowed us to supply Orono with water starting August lst when their tower was scheduled for repair. Orono, however, would like to move their schedule back to start July 1". Goman, Schoell & Madson, and Maguire Iron were just notified of this Orono request and are now trying to work out the details that would postpone our conversion to the new tower approximately three weeks to possibly accommodate Orono's request. Penalties (if any) would be paid by Orono if our schedule changes. We are presently pumping between 180,000 and 236,000 gallons per day. c) Engineer 1. Schoell &Madson Re: Proposal For City Hall Driveway—6/28/05 Brian Vitek presented a quotation dated June 28th from Schoell & Madson wherein the engineer suggested that if we were considering any other changes to the parking lot and driveway behind City Hall we could deduct approximately $7,730 from the Maguire Iron tank contract and the design and build a larger project. Weeks and Goman had indicated to the engineer that certain existing problems with drainage and overall layout had to be corrected some time and possibly this would be the way to • eliminate (2) projects with (2) contractors having to match up with each other. In discussion, the Council felt that it would be more efficient to complete the tower project as is, and plan the parking lot and driveway modifications later. Rockvam asked why the driveway modifications were not included with the new tower modifications. 2. Lift Stations#6 Update a) Head, Seifert &Vander Weide—6/28/05 -Noted Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to reject all bids. In discussion, Vitek and Goman indicated that the original engineering estimate that we had considered when we decided to proceed with the project was too low and not complete, and the actual bids we did receive may not be as far away from what the final bid documents required as we first thought. The project ended up with several upgrades and Council requested enhancements that might not have been adequately included in previous estimates. Goman suggested we take no action tonight but wait until Ken Adolf returns from vacation and discuss further with him. Existing bids may not be withdrawn for 90 days. • Council Meeting—7/5/05 8 • Williamson withdrew his motion and Hughes his second. Rockvam indicated this topic would be better discussed in a special meeting or a workshop on this item only. Vitek explained, in another matter, the proposal for this Spring Park lighting estimate per Schoell & Madson letter dated 6/30/05. The Council had previously asked the engineer to consider what lighting might be required beyond the immediate locations of the two condominium projects. This proposal suggests 14 additional fixtures at a total of $137,275 installed with engineering and a 10% contingency. Rockvam asked why the developers wouldn't be responsible for a share of these lights. Williamson was not in favor of spending any City money for these improvements. Hughes asked why the engineering fee was 15%. Goodrum indicated this would be filling in where the developers stop. Mason asked if smaller fixtures were available. Williamson suggested that if we do anything at all, it should be assessed to the adjoining property owners who benefit, and not to the whole City. Rockvam suggested we ask the attorney in light or our signed Development Agreements what share of these costs should be the developers. No Council action taken at this time. • d) Utility Superintendent 1. Maguire Iron, Inc. Re: Temp. Construction& Staging Area for Water Tower Construction—6/3/05 Goman reported Maguire Iron has officially abandoned the temporary construction and staging area (former Connors property). e) Administrator 1. Building & Sign Report—May&June—Noted 2. Channels 8 &20 Schedules—Noted 3. Safe Deposit Box Update Weeks reported a safe deposit box at Wells Fargo Bank (Mound) has been secured. Signers are Rockvam, Widmer and Weeks. 4. Hennepin County Assessor Re: Board of Appeal Training—6/28/05 Next mandatory training session for Local Board of Appeal training has been scheduled for 8/23/05 at Hennepin County Public Works from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. Reinhardt, Rockvam and Widmer indicated they would attend. These attendees will be confirmed. 5. Miscellaneous—None 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT Motion by Rockvam seconded by Widmer to approve the claims for payment and the supplemental for July 5, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared • carried. Council Meeting—7/5/05 9 • Reinhardt asked what Modern Roadways had done on West Arm Road. Goman indicated it was West Arm west and included street and drainage correction. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS—None 10. NEW BUSINESS &COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Memo from City to Tonka Ventures Re: Lakeview Lofts—6/22/05 b) Letter to S. Maloney Re: Appointment—6/23/05 c) LMCD 2006 Adopted Budget & Levy Williamson complimented the LMCD and our rep, Tom Scanlon, for adopting their final 2006 Budget including the item for filming. Rockvam concurred. In another matter if was noted that the base coat blacktop and concrete curb and gutter are now on Spring Street. 11. MISCELLANEOUS Hughes asked Goman to find out more about the signs for the closing of Shoreline Drive on 7/13/05. He also liked the new concrete sidewalks being installed. He also asked for more signs re: pick-up of dog litter on the sidewalks. Weeks indicated we could add it to the Newsletter. • 12. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to adjourn the meeting at 10:35 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK i LL fD WEE ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER • Council Meeting—7/5/05 10 RECEIVED • CITY OF SPRING PARK JUL 18 2005. SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA HEAD,SEIFERT AGENDA &VANDER WEIDE COUNCIL MEETING JULY 18, 2005 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —July 5, 2005 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS a) Construction Update Re: Lakeview Lofts b) Schoell &Madson or NAC Re: Master Plan Vision " (Proposal distributed 7/5/05) , 1. Schoell &Madson Re: Trailhead Master Plan—7/12/05 c) Approval of Plaque Re: Water Tower d) NAC Re: Streetscape Recommendations—7/14/05 e) Miscellaneous 6. ORDINANCES &RESOLUTIONS 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES a) Mayor 1. Administrative Committee Minutes—7/13/05 b) Council—Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer c) Engineer 1. Schoell &Madson Re: Lift Station#6 2. Head, Seifert &Vander Weide Re: Lift Station#6 (Bids) d) Utility Superintendent 1. Norling's Re: Revised Proposal Storm Damaged Trees—7/7/05 e) Administrator 1. Gambling Contributions 2. May Financial Status Reports (Cash & Investments, CD's, Revenue, Expenditures) 3. Dock Complaints 4. August Calendar 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT Council Agenda—7/18/05 1 • 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS a) Lakeview Lofts Communications 1. Head, Seifert &Vander Weide Re: Status Report—7/14/05 2. Frostad Dev. Co. to HCRRA Re: Depot—7/5/05 3. Head, Seifert &Vander Weide to Allied Adjusters—7/8/05 4. Head, Seifert & Vander Weide to Frostad Re: TIF Request—7/11/05 5. LMC Re: Claim Frostad by- 7/11/05 b) Mist Lofts Communications 1. Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: Status Report—7/14/05 2. NAC Re: Fence &Retaining Wall Setback—7/7/05 3. E-Mails Re: Dust—7/11/05 4. E-Mail Re: Hourly Restrictions for Construction Activities—7/12/05 c) Planning Commission Minutes—7/13/05 1. Requests for Further Info Re: Norling's Proposal a) Norling's Re: Revised Proposal—6/14/05 d) Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: Closed Meetings—7/11/05 e) Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: Council Committees/Public Meeting Law - 7/13/05 f) E-Mail to OPD Re: Crosswalks—7/7/05 g) Henn. Co. Trans. Dept. Re: Traffic Count 2004—6/29/05 h) AMM News—7/14/05 • i) Council &Planning Commission Updated List j) Letter to Henn. Co. Assessor Re: Local Equalization Board Training—7/13/05 k) Letter to R. Swart Re: Shoreline Place Landscaping—7/12/05 1) Henn. Co. Trans. Re: CSAH 15 Closure—7/7/05 m)Mediacom Re: Rate Increase—6/29/05 n) Newsletter Summer 2005 o) 2004 Audit (Previously Distributed) 11. MISCELLANEOUS 12. ADJOURNMENT • Council Agenda—7/18/05 2 • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES COUNCIL MEETING JULY 18,2005 7:30 P.M. —CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Rockvam called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam were present. Staff present: Administrator Weeks, Utility Superintendent Goman, and Deputy Clerk Corl. Others present: Ken Adolf, City Engineer; Nancy Beck and Tom Seifert, City Attorney's; and Planning Commissioner Mason. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Williamson seconded by Widmer to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —July 5, 2005 Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Widmer to approve the minutes for the Council Meeting July 5, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Mayor Rockvam introduced the Council and Staff to the viewing public. 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & APPLICATIONS a) Construction Update Re: Lakeview Lofts Brian Dusek, Frostad Development Co., LLC, was present for the report. He reported the street is finished, windows are being installed, the roof is 95% complete, and the projected completion date for the building is November of 2005. Dusek said the staking at the east end on the Tonka Ventures property is underway and the contractor needs street light information. Rockvam verified the color scheme on the outside of the building. Dusek said it would be the same as in the Developer's Agreement. Rockvam stated he spoke to the Chris Ehalt, Weis Builders, about dust control measures at the staging area. Dusek said they are going to water down the area during the concrete operations. Williamson noted the street is unusable because their equipment is blocking it. He said he has observed it being blocked at least half of the time and he asked how long is the blocking of the street going to take place. Dusek said for the next two to four weeks until • after the windows are in and the masonry is finished. Dusek added the exterior cladding Council Meeting—7/18/05 1 • will begin on the north side first and the exterior surfacing will be done by Labor Day. He said the street is always cleaned up for evenings and weekends. Williamson stated he wanted to make sure there is an awareness that blocking the street is an inconvenience for the tenants in the next building. Rockvam asked if the tenants were notified of this meeting. Weeks will send them a notice for the next meeting with the contractor. He said he has not received any recent complaints from any of the tenants. b) Schoell &Madson or NAC Re: Master Plan Vision (Proposal distributed 7/5/05) 1. Schoell &Madson Re: Trailhead Master Plan— 7/12/05 Rockvam said the Council was interested in getting the ideas we have incorporated in both projects and this should be placed on another agenda later. Weeks noted a follow up letter mentioned a meeting on 7/26/05 with Three Rivers Park District. Williamson clarified that is an open house not a meeting. He said we need them to meet with the Council. Rockvam pointed out Weeks had set up a meeting for during the day but the Council did not want a work session at that time but rather discuss the trail head, etc. at a regular Council Meeting. Williamson said work sessions are not televised and they exclude the public but conceded this workshop would consist of one topic and it is a major amenity for the City. Weeks said he would set up a meeting between the Council and Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority(HCRRA) after the open houses. c) Approval of Plaque Re: Water Tower Hughes asked the size of the plaque and what it would be made of. Weeks said it would • probably be around I I"x 17" and Schoell &Madson agreed to furnish it at their expense. Adolf said it would be made of cast bronze. The Council recommended removing the years served by Council members because it was already noted at the top. d) NAC Re: Streetscape Recommendations—7/14/05 Motion by Rockvam seconded by Widmer to approve the streetscape recommendations from NAC. In discussion Rockvam said he preferred Range 1, the red/charcoal paver colors. Reinhardt asked if the pavers are going to be against the curb. Hughes said he preferred Range 3 because of the contrast in colors. Reinhardt asked if the City should be doing prep work for this now in preparation for finishing it later when the developments are done. Adolf said part of the project approval is in the Developer's Agreements and it is understood the street lights at the development's are to be paid for by the prospective developer but the additional lights needed would extend out beyond the developments. He said two lights are needed on Sunset Drive and on Spring Street there are going to be fixtures mounted on the building. Rockvam asked if they would look like the ones on the street. Dusek said they are similar but not exactly. Rockvam stated one question asked at the previous Council meeting was what are the project developer's paying versus what the City is paying for the lights. He said the City • should be paying the same or less than what the developers are paying per light. Adolf Council Meeting—7/18/05 2 • said he expects the amount to be about the same. He added we have to get quotes/bids for the work. Reinhardt again asked if there is a cut off time when we need to act so we have what is needed underground now. Adolf pointed out it is less expensive if we do not have restoration costs. He said the Council indicated they want to see light standards on the south side of Spring Street and it is also a separate item to have two on Shoreline Drive and those would be the City's expense. Adolf stated the storm sewer is located there and we do not need to worry about restoration. Rockvam said he thought those were going to be put in by the developers. He added the reason for installing the extra lights is to keep continuity between the two developments. Williamson said the question here is the style, color, and configuration acceptable to us to go forward. Rockvam said the streetscape, per say, is acceptable but if there is a gap with the lighting on the west side of Sunset Drive it will not tie everything together. He verified there were two light standards by the parking lot. Adolf stated those are outside of the development. Rockvam asked what is in the Developer's Agreement regarding the streetscape lighting and he noted the south side of Spring Street is not the developer's responsibility Adolf said the lighting of Spring Street in the Developer's Agreement is the mounted lights on the building. Seifert stated the streetscape plan was not specific when Developer's Agreement was done in October and the Council has to agree on a • streetscape plan now. Rockvam questioned approving a plan when the number of light standards is unknown. He said one would think the lights on the building would be the same as on the south side of Spring Street. Dusek pointed out the planner would choose lights that would complement both buildings. Hughes said the lights on the building could be a smaller version of the same light. Reinhardt asked if the Council were to act on this tonight it says we are approving the design. Williamson said that matter is open in the Developer's Agreement. Dusek said he would have to check on the exact lights that are going on the building. Williamson asked if we adopt this design standard does that become incorporated by the developers. Seifert said the Council is being asked to approve only the lights connected with Lakeview Lofts property. Beck clarified if this plan is approved that would be the design standards for both projects. Seifert said he is not hearing that the Mist Lofts have agreed to this plan. Rockvam stated these questions have to be answered. Reinhardt pointed out we want to concur the pavers are in favor with the Mist property. Rockvam said the planner should be present to answer questions. Hughes stated the plan states it applies to both projects. The Council concluded Frostad should bring in a sample of his building lights, planner and rep from each development should be present, and a sample of the pavers would be helpful. • Council Meeting—7/18/05 3 Motion by Hughes seconded by Williamson to table the motion until the next Council meeting. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. e) Miscellaneous A.J. Chouanard, 4369 Warren Avenue, submitted a letter regarding the parking situation on Warren Avenue. Rockvam read the letter. Chouanard verified there was no parking on the street when he moved in because there were no signs posted. He added now the signs are posted only at the end of and across the street from his driveway and because of this he feels he is singled out. Chouanard said he wants to know when the signs were originally put up. Rockvam said Warren Avenue has always been posted no parking. Chouanard pointed out neighbors on both sides park on the street and on the grass and there is 275 feet between the sign at his driveway and the next sign down the street. He added the police told him they have to be every 30 feet. Goman pointed out there is state guidelines and the signs were installed about three years ago and they are in the approximate correct locations where they should be depending on sightlines, curves, and within 30 feet of a stop sign. He added in certain areas the guidelines allow up to 100 feet between no parking signs. Goman said the street was posted no parking about three years ago. Reinhardt asked if the police have been notified of violations. Goman said tickets have been written on West Arm Road and Kings Road, none have been issued on Warren Avenue but warning citations have been issued for cars parking on the right-of-way. Hughes verified there is no parking in both directions. Reinhardt asked how many streets in Spring Park are no parking and was told they all are no parking. Chouanard said from his point of view he cannot park there but other people can. Goman referred to when the signs were covered for a garage sale. Rockvam said only the police have the right to allow the parking. Parking on the grass on the north side of the street was briefly discussed and it was determined the City does not want any vehicle to park on the grass. Widmer pointed out Chouanard could park in the City parking lot. She pointed out there is a requirement for parking for duplexes. Chouanard said he felt he was being treated unfairly and would like the exact dates when the no parking was approved for Warren Ave. Rockvam said the staff has time constraints. Chouanard stated he would go through the records. Hughes asked the attorney if it was legal for someone to go through records without staff present and was told he does not advise it. Chouanard was advised to call the police if he observes parking violations. In another matter Chouanard pointed out the walk light does not work on the stoplight at Shoreline and Interlachen. Rockvam said the county takes care of that problem. Goman will call on this. 6. ORDINANCES &RESOLUTIONS -None 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES • a) Mayor Council Meeting—7/18/05 4 • 1. Administrative Committee Minutes—7/13/05 Widmer verified there is a meeting July 26th with the accountant. Rockvam verified the staff is checking on finding someone other than the staff to take the minutes. b) Council—Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer Reinhardt expressed gratitude for the clearing of the brush from the stop sign at West Arm Road and Kings Road. She asked the status of moving the power poles on West Arm Road. Goman said he is working on the proposal. Williamson said there has been a dust control issue the past two days with the Mist project. He said he understands excavating means dirt but he can see a cloud of earth in the air. He said he also understands the contractor has requirements for watering and street sweeping and Williamson would like to see if proper enforcement measurements could be done for dust control. He also pointed out the starting time is not being observed for construction. He said he has observed diesel trucks running 20 minutes prior to the time allowed and the ordinance states times and that diesel engines can only be operated during certain hours. Williamson said this is not an isolated event and it appears to be becoming a daily habit and occurring earlier everyday. Williamson stated our ordinance means something or it doesn't. Hughes agreed dust is a major issue. He said at gravel pits truck paths are watered down and the contractors at the Mist site need to step up the watering. Hughes pointed out the • gravel trucks need to have a different staging area because their current location interrupts traffic going into local businesses. Rockvam stated if the staging area is creating a safety issue the police should be called. Williamson asked what happens if the police respond after 7:00 am and do not witness the violation. Rockvam said this should go on the Police Commission agenda. Goman said the majority of heavy truck traffic is pertaining to the north building; they are sweeping the street and using the hydrant for wetting down the traffic area. Rockvam said they have to be more aggressive with dust control. Mason said construction has been continuous with starting early all the time and at one particular time they were dropping off metal at 3:15 a.m. and there was no response by the police department when they were called. Mason said trucks blatantly block the road but if they stage the trucks on the county road they would not be blocking the road. Rockvam they might not able to stage on the county road. He said this item should be placed on their agenda in two weeks. Hughes said this could be addressed at the upcoming Fire Commission Meeting. Williamson asked the status of the tennis courts. Goman said the sign is down and he is looking for someone to do it, cracks are filled and the courts will be resurfaced in couple of weeks. Widmer asked the status of the landscaping at 4540 West Arm Road. She said the east side of the house has never been finished and there was a time limit to finish the project. • Weeks will follow up with a report from the Building Inspector. Council Meeting— 7/18/05 5 • c) Engineer 1. Schoell &Madson Re: Lift Station#6—7/14/05 2. Head, Seifert&Vander Weide Re: Lift Station#6 (Bids) Adolf explained the reasons for the significant difference in costs between the low bid and Schoell & Madson's, as outline in his memo. He stated it was discussed to negotiate this down with the low bidder but the attorney stated this was in conflict with the state statute. It was then decided to reject all bids and advertise for new bids with changes. Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to reject all bids received on June 15, 2005 for Lift Station #6. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to authorize re-bidding of Lift Station #6 per the proposed changes recommended by the engineer on page 2 of his memo dated 7/14/05. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. In discussion Rockvam verified the expense of the project would be a simple adjustment. Reinhardt asked if reducing pump size would affect performance with a smaller pump. Adolf said this was a standard design with two pumps to operate at peak flow times. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. • Williamson referred to the clause that had been included in the first bid that the winning bidder would be responsible for continuing service, etc. Goman said that language was remaining in the bid. Williamson referred to offering a bonus for an early conclusion with the late start time and asked what amount and what timing makes sense. Goman said potential suppliers and contractors stated they could still complete a majority of the infrastructure before the end of the year. Rockvam verified that when a contractor accepts the responsibility for Lift Station #6, they assume the liability of making repairs to it and the liability of back ups in homes with a failure of the Lift Station. He added we may face some problems and the contractor should know this. Hughes asked when the advertising for bids would occur and the turn around time. Adolf said it would be the end of the week and would take 21 days. He said the bid could be considered at the Council Meeting August 15`h d) Utility Superintendent 1. Norling's Re: Revised Proposal Storm Damaged Trees—7/7/05 Goman said this is a revised proposal for the storm damaged trees, it clarified the diameter of the trees and the pricing stays the same. He said another contractor quoted $75 to $100 more. Rockvam verified we do not have insurance for these trees. Goman said the costs would come out of the storm replacement fund. • Council Meeting—7/18/05 6 • Motion by Hughes seconded by Reinhardt to approve Norling's Lake Minnetonka Landscapes, Inc. proposal to remove the storm-damaged trees and plant new trees per the proposal. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. In discussion Widmer asked if the damaged/dead tree in front of the Marina Center is one of these four and was told no. She said sometimes trees are planted in bad places and do not grow well. She asked if we could just eliminate a tree in that area of the shopping center. Goman will check with Norling. Goman said the four trees in other locations are under warranty. Rockvam verified the replacement trees are the same size as the damaged trees. e) Administrator 1. Gambling Contributions—Noted 2. May Financial Status Reports (Cash & Investments, CD's, Revenue, Expenditures) Weeks said June reports would be available for the meeting July 26`h; that would be the six-month mark and a good benchmark. 3. Dock Complaints Reinhardt asked what precipitated this. Weeks said complaints been made and this could be another item for the Police Commission Meeting. 4. August Calendar Widmer noted the Board of Review training is August 23rd from 2:00 p.m. —4:00 p.m. • 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Widmer to approve the claims for payment for July 18, 2005 including the supplement. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -None 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Lakeview Lofts Communications 1. Head, Seifert& Vander Weide Re: Status Report—7/14/05 Reinhardt said the status reports were well done. Rockvam said he would like to see the financial reports done the same way. 2. Frostad Dev. Co. to HCRRA Re: Depot—7/5/05 Reinhardt verified the escrow was with the county. Rockvam said he does not like the idea the money is taken out of the landscape money but it is a county decision. He stated we have concern with how the north side of the building looks and if it is going to cost $8,500 to tear the building down and the escrow amount is $12,500, that does not leave much for landscaping. Williamson said Frostad's creative writing raises credibility. 3. Head, Seifert& Vander Weide to Allied Adjusters—7/8/05 4. Head, Seifert&Vander Weide to Frostad Re: TIF Request—7/11/05 5. LMC Re: Claim Frostad—7/11/05 • Council Meeting—7/18/05 7 • b) Mist Lofts Communications 1. Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: Status Report—7/14/05 2. NAC Re: Fence &Retaining Wall Setback—7/7/05 3. E-Mails Re: Dust—7/7/05 4. E-Mails Re: Hourly Restrictions for Construction Activities—7/12/05 c) Planning Commission Minutes—7/13/05 1. Requests for Further Info Re: Norling's Proposal a) Norling's Re: Revised Proposal 6/14/05 Hughes said the Planning Commission raised good questions and one of their concerns is how is the beautification is funded, what is the amount of last year's donations, etc. Rockvam stated it is funded out of the levy. He said approval for the gardens along the sidewalk never came before the City Council and they require a lot of maintenance. Hughes said the Planning Commission was concerned with maintenance. He said Norling stated the Mayor has always said he does a nice job and he wanted Norling to keep giving beautification recommendations to the City. Widmer reminded Hughes that when the Planning Commission looks at the budget the figure includes a portion of Goman's salary. d) Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: Closed Meetings—7/11/05 e) Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: Council Committees/Public Meeting Law— 7/13/05 Reinhardt said the attorney is suggesting if a quorum is present at a committee meeting • the person not on the committee must remain silent or not attend. She said if this is the case, she would no longer attend the committee meetings of which she is not a member. Reinhardt added it is difficult not to participate if one is not on the particular committee. Williamson said he is against not attending if not on the committee. Rockvam felt anyone could attend meeting,just not participate. Williamson gave his history of when he started serving on the Council and attending committee meetings. He said by attending the meetings he was kept more informed of issues. He said the attorney's advice is good advice and it is hard to attend a meeting and not say anything. He added the question is what constitutes deliberation and he does not think it is appropriate to make any rule about not attending any meeting. Reinhardt said she does not want the City at risk for violating any clause. Beck said she recommends the Council make a policy of not participating and just being an observer at a committee meeting. Rockvam said committees were set up as a liaison for the Council and the attorney's recommendation is a good recommendation. He added an exception would be a quorum of Council Persons attend a meeting regarding the proposed trailhead in Spring Park, a discussion could ensue because it would be a posted meeting. Williamson said all City meetings are duly posted. Beck said a special work session requires a notice posted in City Hall three days before the meeting. Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Widmer to approve a policy that if a Council Person is not on a committee and attends, they will not participate in the discussion. • All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Council Meeting—7/18/05 8 • f) E-Mail to OPD Re: Crosswalks—7/7/05 Williamson said the Marina Center is a natural spot to have crosswalks. Weeks stated he sent the request to the police department and there has been no further communication. He added this could be further discussed at the Police Commission Meeting. The resurfacing of CSAH 15 being an appropriate time to install crosswalks was briefly discussed. g) Henn. Co. Trans. Dept. Re: Traffic Count 2004—6/29/05 Traffic study—2002 is reconstruction of county road 110 h) AMM News— 7/14/05 i) Council &Planning Commission Updated List j) Letter to Henn. Co. Assessor Re: Local Equalization Board Training—7/13/05 k) Letter to R. Swart Re: Shoreline Place Landscaping—7/12/05 Rockvam stated the arborvitae trees were removed and are supposed to be replaced with trees the same size. He added the green space is part of the agreement when the building was approved. 1) Henn. Co. Trans. Re: CSAH 15 Closure—7/7/05 m)Mediacom Re: Rate Increase—6/29/05 n) Newsletter Summer 2005 o) 2004 Audit (Previously Distributed) • 11. MISCELLANEOUS Rockvam read a statement regarding the Council action when they met in a non-public meeting on July 11, 2005 to review the performance of the Administrator. 12. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Hughes seconded by Reinhardt to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 pm. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. — JIbIL--te) L SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK 41LYLL�ZkM�(A. WEEKS ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER Council Meeting—7/18/05 9 CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 1, 2005 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) Council Minutes—July 18, 2005 b) Special Meeting—July 26, 2005 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS a) Tom Scanlon, LMCD 1. Henn. Co. Sheriff's Water Patrol Report—5/12 to 7/20 2. Future of the Lake Day—8/13/05 • b) Construction Update, Mist Lofts c) Shoreline Place Re: Parking Plans d) Dan Petrik, NAC Streetscape Recommendation (Motion tabled is on page 2 of 7/18/05 Council Minutes.) 1. Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: Lakeview Lofts Lighting Requirements— 7/29/05 e) Marcia Wilda Re: Management of Unauthorized Uses on HCRRA Corridor— 7/26/05 f) Three Rivers Park District Re: Regional Trail Master Plan—7/25/05 g) Miscellaneous 6. ORDINANCES &RESOLUTIONS a) Resolution 05-23 —Adopting National Incident Management System 1. Head, Seifert & Vander Weide—7/26/05 b) Resolution 05-24—Regarding Mutual Assistance With Other Political Subdivisions 1. Head, Seifert & Vander Weide—7/27/05 c) Resolution 05-25 —National Marina Day 7. ORDINANCES &RESOLUTIONS a) Mayor 1. Police Commission Minutes&Reports—7/19/05 • a) E-Mail from Chief Good Council Agenda—8/1/05 1 r b) Council—Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer • c) Engineer d) Utility Superintendent 1. Maguire Iron Re: Revised Schedule Water Tank— 7/15/05 e) Administrator 1. Channels 8 &20 Schedules 2. Fire Commission Report a) Recap of Costs &Budget b) Spring Park Calls 2004 3. Miscellaneous 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS a) D &R II (Shoreline Place)Re: Removal of Shrubs—7/26/05 b) LMCD Executive Director Newsletter—7/15/05 c) Head, Seifert &Vander Weide Re: Status Report Lakeview Lofts—7/29/05 d) Head, Seifert &Vander Weide Re: Status Report Mist Lofts— 7/29/05 1. Head, Seifert& Vander Weide Re: Reimbursement Request#6 e) Thank You Jan Haugen f) City's Investment Policy • g) Natl. Night Out Block Party's—8/2/05 h) Head, Seifert &Vander Weide Re: Lewin Building Permit—7/29/05 11. MISCELLANEOUS 12. ADJOURNMENT • Council Agenda—8/1/05 2 • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING JULY 26, 2005 11:00 A.M.—CITY HALL (2-Hour Limit) 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Rockvam called the meeting to order at 11:00 a.m. 2. ROLL CALL Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam were present. Staff present: Administrator Weeks, Utility Superintendent Goman, and Deputy Clerk Corl. Others present: Jesse Hart, Springsted; Gary Groen, City Accountant; Tom Seifert, City Attorney. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Widmer to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. • Motion declared carried. 4. FUND DISCUSSION a) City Funds Policy b) End of June Reports 1. Expenditure Guideline YTD 2. Expenditure Guideline By Dept. 3. Cash Balances YTD 4. Cash& Investment Summary 5. Revenue Guideline YTD c) July Highlights The above communications were noted throughout the following discussion. Rockvam stated he thought the City Funds Policy was adopted in March. He referred to page 6 and the Propriety Funds. Hart explained the enterprise funds and said she would provide an example. She said we do not have Internal Service Funds now and she would also provide examples of Fiduciary Funds. Rockvam said the last time the Council met to discuss this City Funds Policy was in November. He said the Council should move faster than this to approve a policy. Hart asked if the Council would like to take the Housing Development Project Fund out of the policy. Rockvam said it could be put in the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) but now the TIF • is now "pay as you go". He concluded the Housing Development Project Fund should be Spec. Council Meet.—7/26/05 1 • left in the policy. Groen stated, from an accounting point of view, transfers have been made to implement the policy. He pointed out the policy was implemented on the YTD Cash Balances (4.b)3.) as of June 30, 2005. He said $370,000 was transferred from the General Fund (101) and included in the Public Improvement Revolving Fund (201). Rockvam asked if the I" quarter tax statement as of June 30`h was included and was told it was not. He also asked if it included money out of the TIF District. Groen said the TIF money was sent to the county and a portion to the City and was included in(201). Rockvam asked if the $690,000 was transferred also. Hart said it was transferred to the General Fund in 2000 out of the TIF District and initially in (101). She said a portion could be in the General Fund (101) and in Public Improvement Revolving Fund (210). Rockvam said these items should be highlighted so we can keep track of them. Rockvam said a new fund (603) could be established and the excess from the TIF could go in that fund and we would know exactly where the money is from. Hart said of the $690,000, $39,000 was reimbursed for Administrative Fees and it should stay in the General Fund. She asked if the Council would like an Economic Development Fund. Rockvam said that would be a Council decision, he is not looking for such a fund, and would like to see excess from the TIF in a fund. It was pointed out $651,000 is the interest. Weeks asked where the reimbursement from the decertification should be located. Hart said we could put it where we wanted. Rockvam said we should have it in a fund and know where it came from to keep track of it. He pointed out $40,000 has already been put • back in the General Fund. Hughes pointed out the percentage of the expenditures in the budget thru 6/30 are about 50% and on target. Groen pointed out the payments to Maguire Iron for the water tower are in the Water Fund and these costs will be added to the cost of the infrastructure system. Rockvam said we should let the budget run a normal course and have a line item that shows the expenditures of the water tower improvement on a separate line. Seifert said we should have a spreadsheet showing month-by-month. Groen said the software he uses has an option to use month to month versus an annual budget and he uses the annual budget format. Seifert said expenses vary and it is hard to know the status of them and if a large expense incurs there is no way of knowing it is coming. He said a month-by-month budget should be done and then a year to date. Seifert said the report just states what was spent for that particular month. Hughes pointed out some items are paid out monthly and some are quarterly. Seifert said he would like to see what major items are coming up and there should be a column showing what was spent for that month and what should have been spent for that month. Hughes stated anytime we have major outgoing dollars, that item(s) needs to be singled out as a line item. Rockvam said this was a good idea for budget purposes. He asked if that could be done for next month. Groen said he is not looking to put together the reports month by month. Seifert said he could rename the columns and add a new column to show the status of each item for that month. Groen pointed out the Expenditure • Guideline by Dept. (4.b)2.) is the detail that supports the schedule. Spec. Council Meet.—7/26/05 2 • Hughes referred to page 6 and stated it still does not show what we are charging back to the developers for the various projects i.e. legal expenses, etc. Groen said those costs are being accounted for in separate accounts. He said the developers also have an escrow account that provides for that money. Seifert pointed out only outside vendors are in those line items. Rockvam clarified the City cannot charge the developers for any overtime acquired by the Utility Superintendent. Seifert said this is not in the Developer's Agreements and it is something to think about if/when there is another project. Rockvam noted the Developer's Agreement for Lakeview Lofts states Frostad agreed to pay for the streetlights on Spring Street. He requested the verification of this. Seifert pointed out there is nothing in the budget for the water tower in 2005. Rockvam said the City is going to make an inter fund loan and we have not decided what to call the fund or the amount of interest to charge on the loan. Seifert pointed out if the City had a capital budget you would not see these things in the operating budget. Groen said he is keeping track of those expenses. Groen pointed out item 4.b)4. is the Cash and Investment Summary and 4.c) is the July activity. Rockvam asked for the average interest percentage of those funds. Groen pointed out the rate of maturity can be seen as the figure increases. Reinhardt asked if we know what the amount of interest is we have earned thus far. Rockvam thought this should be on the revenue part of the budget. Weeks asked Groen to separate this out. Groen said he would but it was not detailed enough in the packet received today. Seifert asked if the • interest rates are updated. Groen said it is for Prime Security and the general savings account. Hart said it is hard to average the interest rate. Seifert said the City should request to receive information every month from the institutions. Rockvam verified the Council is in agreement to have Wells Fargo manage our brokerage CD's. Groen pointed out there are two parts on the investment schedule, Wells Fargo and the others. He said Wells Fargo has less than half of the investments. Rockvam said as the CD's are maturing we are using the money for the water tower. He pointed out Council Person Williamson did not want to spend money on a broker fee. Reinhardt asked what services a broker provide. Weeks said they shop for CD's. Seifert verified someone actually calls Weeks versus just doing it without checking with Weeks first. He also said the City should check on the fee Wells Fargo charges. Weeks will check on this. Hart explain various types of service fees for a broker. Hart said the City's original Investment Policy has not been changed. She pointed out the last page refers to policy regarding CD's. The Council briefly discussed the laddering of CD's, investing money in local institutions and what comprises a local institution. Rockvam asked if we should redo the Investment Policy. Hart said the broker at Wells Fargo should have a copy of our Investment Policy. Rockvam said he would like a print out on water tower expenses. Widmer said there is a line on the Expenditure Guidelines and she verified it included a portion of Goman's salary. She also asked if there was staff time under Beautification. Groen said staff time is included Spec. Council Meet.—7/26/05 3 • in the total YTD. Hughes asked how the checks that come in from gambling earmarked for beautification are tracked independently from the budget. Groen said it is not reflected as a separate line item and part of the fund balance. Widmer stated those check lower the amount we are taxing the residents. Rockvam said in reality the difference is made up in the General fund. Reinhardt asked when the new accounting standards were put in place for the audit a Capital Improvement Plan was included. Groen said the two are not tied together. Hart said to use the CIP process we have to have a CIP in place. 5. UTILITY RATES DISCUSSION a) Yearly Summary of Operating Revenues &Expenses 2000—2004 1. Water Fund Chart 2000—2004 2. Sewer Fund Chart 2000—2004 b) Water Sold Summary&Breakdown 2000—2004 c) Proposed Rate Increase d) Proposed Rates as Revenue e) Neighboring Community's Rates f) Capital Requirements 2005 —2014 g) Estimated Water Tower Costs The above communications were noted throughout the following discussion. Groen said 5.a) was a Summary of Operating Revenues and Expenses for water and sewer and 5.a) 1 & 2 were charts displaying the same. Rockvam referred to the revenue on the • water and sewer and stated we rely on the interest for our operating fund. The Council briefly discussed capital requirements for water and sewer utilities (5.f). Goman said the figures were based on estimates. Groen said the intention of the Capital Requirements is getting to the point that we need to start addressing major expenses. Goman said preliminary failures are occurring indicating structures for lift stations will need to be replaced. Rockvam said we have been depreciating every year for this. Groen said the water/sewer rates imposed have provided the moneys to take care of repairs now and we have to look at the rates and see if they are enough to continue or increase them. Hughes asked if the estimated revenue is based on the new construction projects in the City. Groen pointed out the estimate is on the projected increase in the number of users. Rockvam stated the Council has not increased water sewer rates since 1996 and there was a decrease in 1998. He suggested increasing the rates slightly and review it every couple of years. He said some maintenance items might go down because of new equipment. Rockvam added he feels we should be making money on our water sales so we have some money in reserve. Goman said the DNR is going to charge $20 per million gallons pumped per the state legislature. He said it is not going to be a large amount for the City, but nonetheless it is an added expense. Groen pointed out 5.e), Neighboring Communities Rates, is a list of rate information from other cities. Rockvam said this is informational and does not make much difference when in • comes to Spring Park funds. Groen stated some cities are starting to charge residents a Spec. Council Meet.—7/26/05 4 • storm water fee. Hart noted some cities are charging storm water fees to the people/business causing a storm water run off problem with their impervious surface. The Council briefly discussed what the City is doing regarding catch basins. Goman said parts are being replaced as needed; curb and gutter areas are starting to show areas in need of repair. Rockvam asked if this should be considered street maintenance. Goman said it is being categorized under storm water run off. Hughes commented the Developer's Agreements state the developments have to maintain their catch basins, etc. Rockvam noted run off coming from the railroad property is flowing to West Arm Drive and nothing has ever been done to the retention pond by Presbyterian Homes. Rockvam asked if the Council should be looking as the possibility of creating another fund and if they want to increase water and sewer rates. Hart said a good guide to help determine if an increase is needed is to look at your home bills, even though those companies are for profit. She said those rates go up every year and the City has to continue to support increasing costs of expenses. Hart pointed out the City is going to continue to pay increases in other goods and services in that area. Rockvam suggested increasing the rates now, review everything after we are on line with the new water tower and review water/sewer rates every two years. Goman suggested doing an annual increase every year using a certain percentage. Rockvam asked the Council for a recommendation. Groen pointed out there is money in the water and sewer funds to cover costs and the Council should look at how fast they want to • build back the funds borrowed for the water tower. Rockvam said the City spent $250,000 cash and would be borrowing $550,000 from a City fund for 10 years. Groen said an example would be to build back to replenish $55,000 back every year. Rockvam said the transaction to borrow money should be treated no differently than a bond sale. Hughes asked at what point do we need a second tower, another well or other improvements in projects in the next 10 years. Goman said a second water tower would be needed in about 20 years along with a water plant upgrade and/or an additional well. Rockvam said if we depreciate all of this, it would take care of those costs. He asked what the Council has to increase the rates by to recover the funds ($550,000). Reinhardt asked how the water plant acquired extra cash over the years. Rockvam said one has to look at the entire City and past frugal councils that have managed to build reserves in the budget and maybe charging more than what was needed. Seifert pointed out the systems are getting old and will need replacing and the charges would have to be more than costs to acquire reserves to pay for unexpected costs. Groen asked the Council if they want to collect the amount over ten years or build it back at a lesser amount. He added whatever they decide would determine what the rate increase would be. Seifert said the City is not keeping up with inflation and the Council has to keep in mind what needs replacing in the next ten years. Hughes said regarding a rate increase, he would like to see more actual figures on water • usage and how much income is over the base rate. Rockvam said all users should be Spec. Council Meet.—7/26/05 5 • affected with a rate increase. Hughes stated he would like a complete understanding of what income is coming in. Groen said he would get the information from the billing system. He pointed out the breakdown of usage (5.b) and where the decline is resulting in decline in revenue. Rockvam said we should implement an increase on the next billing(October). Groen recommended adding back $550,000 over ten years and see what generates. Hughes referred to Council action last fall denying a sewer credit to Boomerang and for filling pools. He asked how much money that involved and was told it was not a lot. The revenue the new condos and businesses would be generating was discussed. Groen said he would factor this in with his recommendation. Rockvam said he is concerned about operating costs. Widmer said we should review what we are losing this year and again next year. Rockvam pointed out we lost $27,000 in water sales last year and thru June of this year lost another $14,000. He said that should give us an idea of what we are losing. Groen pointed out the sewer lost was last year was $270,000 and so far this year it is $138,000. Rockvam asked Groen if he could have a recommendation in a couple of weeks to present at another meeting. He requested the water tower be a separate item. He asked how much was spent on the water tower so far. Groen said the difference is about $600,000. Rockvam requested the exact figure and the TIF on a separate line, along with what has been spent on water and sewer compared to the budget. The next meeting will be held August 26, 2005 at 11:00 am to 1:00 pm with a 2-hour limit at City Hall. 6. MISCELLANEOUS • Seifert stated he received a letter from the Mist Lofts that stated they are going to apply for an environmental grant for ($90,000). He requested them to revise their letter and said the Council would not be interested. He added he has not heard anything since then. 7. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Hughes seconded by Reinhardt to adjourn the meeting at 1:24 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. SHARON QORL DE CLERK 'WILL D. WEEK ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER Spec. Council Meet. —7/26/05 6 CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA • MINUTES COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 1, 2005 7:30P.M. - CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Rockvam called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam were present. Staff present: Administrator Weeks, Utility Superintendent Goman, Deputy Clerk Corl and Recorder Angela Darst. Others present: Ken Adolf, City Engineer; Nancy Beck and Tom Seifert, City Attorney's; Dan Petrik, City Planners and Planning Commissioner Mason. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to amend the agenda and put 10) H Lewin Building Permit to after 5) B Construction Update, Mist Lofts and • adopt the amended agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) Council Minutes—July 18, 2005 Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to approve the minutes for the Council Meeting July 18, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. b) Special Meeting—July 26, 2005 Motion by Rockvam seconded by Williamson to approve the minutes for the Special Council Meeting July 26, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Mayor Rockvam introduced the Council and Staff to the viewing public. 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS a) Tom Scanlon, LMCD 1. Henn. Co. Sheriffs Water Patrol Activity Report- 5/12 to 7/20 Tom Scanlon was present for the report. He stated that Lt. Jeff Storms gave a report about the Water Patrol. The Water Patrol has 10 full time staff present and during the summer months he has 3 extra deputies. Also the DNR will have • Council—8/1/05 1 staff occasionally present. Currently between Thursday and Sunday, the • Deputies work four 10-hour shifts. They also have a full time detective on staff • for 40 hours a week during the summer months. He concentrates on boat theft and items stolen out of boats. He also does undercover work for underage consumption. Lt. Storms talked about the fire departments being a great asset helping with major accidents on the lake. They had roughly 19 DWI's this year and that is a similar number to years past. Scanlon said that as of today the new legal limit went into effect, changing the legal limit from .10 to .08 statewide. There were a similar number of accidents as in years past. However, he mentioned some high-profile cases that were in the news. Scanlon also mention the fact that boats are not stopped for safety checks. They are stopped for an infraction, and then checked for safety. He mentioned that the Mayor as well as others has asked him about the winter speed limit, and that Lt. Storms was not in favor of changing it. They suggested that it might cause more accidents. They get about 20 reports of snowmobiles falling through the ice, but that around 40-50% go unreported. They are in favor of maintaining the current 15 MPH speed limit. Scanlon talked about the de-icing ordinance that will soon be coming in front of the board. They had a public hearing about the ordinance. They were given input on how to improve the ordinance. It will be enacted at one of the next two meetings. There was talk about how to enforce the ordinance. Scanlon said • there are about 30 installations being de-iced, the majority residential. • Scanlon reported that the milfoil harvesting is proceeding. They have cut more this year that past years. He stated that they are not sure if it has become worse or if the equipment has become quicker so they are able to account for it faster. DNR said they have reported a more than normal amount of calls of complaints. They have started a GPS program to monitor growth and spreading. 2. Future of the Lake Day- 8/13/05 LMCD and Crystal Piers Marine are coordinating a special event called Future of the Lake Day. It will be on Saturday, August 13, 2005, from 9:00 a.m. until 12:00 p.m. The event will be held at the Excelsior Commons. Some of the activities will feature fishing pros and ranger pro-bass fisherman. It will be geared toward the local youth to teach them boat basics and safety. As a reward for the youth who participate, they will be able to board a large charter boat to tour Lake Minnetonka. Ron Schara will be giving a fishing seminar. They are trying to promote healthy lake use, boater courtesy, environmental protection and water safety. All are welcome to attend. c) Construction Update, Mist Lofts Brad Ridgeway, Construction Manager, was present for report. He stated that Lift Station #3 would be done in 15 to 20 working days. Concrete foundation . walls will be 50% done by mid-August. The column piers are being • Council—8/1/05 2 waterproofed. Ongoing currently are the finishing of the plumbing rough in, the • environmental vapor patch and the pumps/wells. Future events they have • planned are to have the lower parking level of the north building done by mid- August. The completion of the storm line under Shoreline Drive will also be coming up; there is currently a revision to plans being done by Hennepin County. Ridgeway reported that they do not believe that they will need to have any roads shut down. The other utilities will be coming up at a later time. A new fire hydrant and a fire access lane on Northern Avenue have been planned. Next week Qwest will be relocating the phone lines. He stated that he was not sure of what the interruption will be. The earliest the interruption could take place is August 5th. Ridgeway asked if they could request some consideration for future work. They would like to have several pump trucks on-site before 7:00 a.m. They will also need use of a hydraulic arm crane going over the roadway. Mason asked how many days they thought they would need to do this for. Ridgeway said that they had 24 pours and that it should take 7 working days. There was some concern over the noise that would cause. Mason also asked why the street sweeping had stopped. Ridgeway said that they are sweeping at the end of everyday. It was also mentioned that there was a resident that was complaining about a boom being at the peak of someone's dock. Goman informed the Council that the City was dealing with the • complaint. Mayor Rockvam asked if it was possible to have the trucks on-site the day before they were needed. Ridgeway explained that the trucks are being • used at other locations as well, and that was not an option for them. He also asked for the possibility of being able to change the hours of work until the project ends in October 2006. Hughes verified that the water was being pumped was from offsite and not from Spring Park. The Council said that they would look at the requests for earlier start times and make a decision at a later time. Valerie Sandler, tenant of Shoreline Place, asked if she could comment on the noise level of the construction. She said that she does not hear any noise and that as of now it has not been a disturbance. Mayor Rockvam asked if they had been getting complaints from any other tenants. Sandler said that they have not been receiving complaints and that they want to compliment how well things have been going. C) Shoreline Place Re: Parking Plans Valerie Sandler, Shoreline Place Homeowners Association, requested to speak to the Council about parking plans. The association would like to add up to 8 additional parking spaces for tenants and guests. This would increase parking 10-15%. Mayor Rockvam stated that maybe when construction was complete they could again discuss adding additional parking space. He stated that 4 spots • might be possible, but not likely 8 spots. Sandler suggested parallel parking, • Council—8/1/05 3 c where tenants could back up or back into spots. Sandler also mentioned a • possibility of 'grass mats', which would maintain a green space. Williamson • talked about that being a long-term solution or if it would then represent a repeating concern. Mayor Rockvam asked if they had spoken to the Bait Shop about a possible lease of some of their parking area. Sandler stated that they have not yet discussed that arrangement. Williamson also asked if it would be possible to limit parking by installing and enforcing 'No boat trailer parking' signs. Mayor Rockvam stated that the parking could be City parking. He stated that this could maybe be resolved toward the end of the construction. The Council decided to make no decision tonight but would keep the current proposal for a future decision. D) Dan Petrik, NAC Streetscape Recommendation (Motion tabled is on page 2 of 7/18/05 Council Minutes) 1.Head, Seifert&Vander Weide Re: Lakeview Lofts Lighting Requirements 7/29/05 Dan Petrik was present for the meeting. He discussed getting approval for the sidewalk paving for the public portion of both developments. They would like to pave with decorative paving blocks two feet behind the curb for downtown. Total width would be 2 feet and would run on the east and west side of Sunset on the north side of Shoreline. The Mist has not yet agreed to pay, but liked the plan. Hughes stated that he would like to see a signed agreement in advance that the City will not be paying for the paving. • Motion by Mayor Rockvam seconded by Widmer to approve the • streetscape recommendations from NAC and Range #1 of the paver colors and that the City of Spring Park would not be paying for the paving. Mayor Rockvam asked about the possibility of the Rail Authority participating at their crossing and maybe we could propose what we would like to see happen. Williamson asked if they could question Beck on the design as presented. Nancy stated that is was up to the city to work it out with the developer. It was decided the motion would include the developer paying for the work. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Petric brought up discussion of the possible light fixtures. The Council requested to see visuals of light fixtures. Mayor Rockvam said that he would like to see 2 light fixtures on Spring Street. The lights were removed for construction. Williamson said he did not like the light fixtures and that he would like to see fixtures similar to those of the City of Mound. Hughes stated that he would like to see more types of light fixtures. Mayor Rockvam stated that the Council could vote on light fixture style later when they saw different types of fixtures. Petrik said that he would provide pictures and samples for the next meeting. Goman pointed out that although the Mound street lamps were • similar in style, the Mound street lamps were cement and not the aluminum that • Council—8/1/05 4 Spring Park is looking at. The Council has concerns over safety about cars • coming in and out of the parking ramp, and being able to see them. The Council • discussed having an extra light for safety. Motion by Hughes seconded to approach the developer for Lakeview Lofts to provide 4 streetlights on Sunset Drive and 2 lights on Spring Street. The Council discussed moving one of the streetlights to the northwest side of the building. Williamson asked for a light in the parking area for buildings. The Council discussed the look of the streetlights in continuing the look of the downtown area. Rockvam asked if it is reasonable or unreasonable to assume that the streetlights would be part of the Lakeview Lofts development. Williamson pointed out the City is providing a significant part for his public parking and he should be willing to pay for it. Rockvam added that Frostad should get a substantial benefit from the lighting. Motion by Rockvam seconded by Hughes to amend the motion for 7 streetlights. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. Rockvam noted the lights on the Mist Lofts project they have requested and are paying for. He said the residents on the north and south side of Del Otero would benefit substantially from the lights and also from the lights on Bayview Place. He said the lights on Shoreline Drive would not benefit the residents. • Petrik clarified the Council pointed out the lights are considered municipal improvements. Left undetermined is the decision of the actual light fixture style • and the exact placement of the streetlights. There are also other lights that have not been discussed. Motion by Rockvam seconded by Williamson to approve five lights on Bayview Place and three lights on the south side of Del Otero. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. g) Miscellaneous (10 h.) Head, Seifert& Vander Weide Re: Lewin Building Permit- 7/29/05 Wendy and Paul Lewin, 3880 Sunset Drive, were present for the meeting. In 2002, they came into city hall to find out about adding an addition to their home. Later in 2002, they had a survey done of their property. In 2003, they meet with an architect to draw up plans for the house. In September 2004, they submitted an application with all the necessary documents. In December 2004 the Lewin's picked up their permit. In May 2005 they started construction, but in June 2005 their construction was red tagged. Rockvam pointed out that the application was never signed by applicant but by the builder. The addition was to be 10 feet by 36 feet. The roof over the existing non-conforming deck was flagged. There was 18 inches added to the deck not in the permit plans. Mrs. Lewin mentioned that the permit was for a proposed plan not an exact plan. • • Council—8/1/05 5 • She talked about there being no security for their home. They have an open area of wall, 14 feet by 7 feet that they can't finish. They have bugs and weather • coming into the home. The roof was tagged and they received a memo stating that the permit was given in error (memo in packet). All work was stopped. Beck stated that a letter was requested from her last week. Rockvam stated that the owners acted in good faith and that he understood that they would like a resolution. Reinhardt asked Beck if the Council is allowed to grant a continuance of the project. Beck stated that yes they could if the Lewin's revised their plans and asked for a variance. Williamson asked Beck if there is a possibility of legal ramifications to the Council if they are allowing them to continue work on their home. Beck said that there was a case in Minnesota, John Molar vs. City of St Louis Park 2002, in which a city gave information in error. The neighbor sued the city and won the case, however it was later overturned. Rockvam said that he saw three options for the Council. First, the Council could allow the Lewin's to go ahead with the work. Second, the Council could tell them they could not continue with their compliant construction and remove the deck roof. And third, to allow continue with the compliant portion and apply for a variance for a roof on the deck. Reinhardt asked if the Council was able to remove the red tag on the permit. Beck stated that she would not recommend doing so. Rockvam stated that the • City was admitting fault and should allow them to continue. Williamson asked Beck what liability the City had if they had made a mistake. Beck stated that the • City had discretionary immunity, so they were not liable. Rockvam said that if the Council lets them continue, the Lewin's would need to apply for a variance. Widmer stated that the Council had done that before but had not asked the owner to tear down the addition. Williamson stated that the City must examine the issue or after 60 days the permit is automatically approved. Beck said that the Council could let them build but have them apply for a variance then have them not finish the deck until it is approved or denied. Williamson again stated that the City had 60 days to examine permit plans and did not deny them. Motion by Williamson seconded by Widmer to allow the Lewin's to continue working, the stop work order be removed and finish per the submitted plans. Reinhardt said that she has concerns over future lawsuits. Williamson stated that it has been over 180 days since the permit was issued and the Lewin's had already spent money on the addition, therefore it should be approved. Hughes said that he has visited the residence, and the original plan had changed and had come before the City several times. The city did not catch any problems and had approved the permit plans. He also asked how long of an inconvenience would waiting for the roof be. Mrs. Lewin said that if they continue but lose on • the variance, the roof is gone and it would spoil their designs. Council is saying • Council—8/1/05 6 that they feel the Lewin's should be allowed to continue, but they must apply for • the variance. • Williamson withdrew his motion and the seconded agreed. Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to lift the stop order on all but the deck roof and that the city will accept the application for variance and waive the fee. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. e) Marcia Wilda Re: management of Unauthorized Uses on HCRRA Corridor- 7/26/05 Marcia Wilda would like to meet with Council about rail authority and use of the corridor. She would answer any questions the Council would have. Mayor Rockvam suggested the next Council Meeting and give her a half an hour limit. The Council agreed. f) Three Rivers Park District Re: Regional Trail Master Plan- 7/25/05 Doug Bryant will meet individually with the Council. He wants to discuss trailhead and parking area. The Council currently has not chosen a master plan but is interested. Weeks will set up a workshop session. • 6. ORDINANCES &RESOLUTIONS • a) Resolution 05-23 - Adopting National Incident Management System 1. Head, Seifert & Vander Weide - 7/26/05 Goman is halfway through training at this time. Only one person needs to go through training. Training involves 7 hours of online training. This will add a network of resources for the City. Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes. Upon roll call Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam voted aye. Motion declared carried. b) Resolution 05-24 -Regarding Mutual Assistance With Other Political Subdivisions 1. Head, Seifert & Vander Weide - 7/27/05 Motion by Williamson seconded by Mayor Rockvam to approve Resolution 05-24, regarding mutual assistance with other political subdivision. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. c)Resolution 05-25 -National Marina Day • • Council—8/1/05 7 Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Hughes to approve Resolution 05-25, • National Marina Day. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • d) Resolution 05-26—World Baton Competition Motion by Rockvam seconded by Hughes to approve Resolution 05-26, World Baton Competition. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES a)Mayor 1. Police Commission Minutes &Reports - 7/19/05 a) E-Mail from Chief Good Council talked about issuing citations for construction work starting early. There will be an executive meeting on August 3, 2005. Motion by Rockvam seconded by Reinhardt to approve the Council Meeting in an executive session to discuss personnel issues Wednesday August 3, 2005 at 2:00 p.m. All Votes were aye. Motion declared carried. b) Council -Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer • Hughes stated that there is parking east and west on Spring Street that is illegal parking. Hughes also wanted to know the estimated time for the completion of • the tennis courts. The courts should be finished within the next few weeks. Reinhardt would like to verify that Excel is assuring that they will be working on the power poles on West Arm Road. Widmer asked what the regulations are for outdoor recreational burning. Citizens are allowed to burn anywhere with permit or zoned. Hughes stated that the Council is waiting for Mound to adopt the new policy and until then we cannot enforce anything regarding this. c) Engineer—No Report d)Utility Superintendent 1. Maguire Iron Re: Revised Schedule Water Tank - 7/15/05 Goman stated the schedule has been revised. There will be a needed extension of time,but it will start next week. e) Administrator The following was noted: 1.Channels 8 &20 Schedules • • Council—8/1/05 8 2. Fire Commission Report • a)Recap of Costs and Budget b) Spring Park Calls 2004 • 3. Miscellaneous -None 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Widmer to approve the claims for payment for August 1, 2005 including the supplement. All votes aye. Motion declared carried. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -None 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) D &R II (Shoreline Place) Re: Removal of Shrubs - 7/26/05 Rockvam would to see the plantings done now rather than later. b) LMCD Executive Director Newsletter- 7/15/05 c) Head, Seifert &Vander Weide Re: Status Report Lakeview Lots - 7/29/05 d) Head, Seifert& Vander Weide Re: Status Report Mist Lofts - 7/29/05 e) Thank You From Jan Haugen f) City's Investment Policy April 2003 adopted. Williamson noted it is not signed or dated. Weeks will • verify the correct policy has been adopted. G)National Night Out Block Party's - 8/2/05 • 11. MISCELLANEOUS -None 12. ADJOURMENT Motion by Williamson seconded by Widmer to adjourn the meeting at 11:10 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. ANGELA DARST RECORDER ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER • Council—8/1/05 9 • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 15, 2005 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —August 1, 2005 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & APPLICATIONS a) Mist Lofts Request Re: Early Start Times for Construction 1. Head, Seifert & Vander Weide—8/11/05 b) Construction Update - Lakeview Lofts c) Approval of City Funds Policy d) Planning Commission Minutes—August 10, 2005 • 1) Discussion Re: Outdoor Sales/Storage a) NAC—7/25/05 b) Ordinance Amendment Recommendation e) Miscellaneous 6. ORDINANCES &RESOLUTIONS a) Resolution 25-27—Approving Settlement Agreement&Authorize Mayor& Administrator to Execute Settlement(Bayview Apartments) 1. Head, Seifert &Vander Weide Re: Bayview Apartments Agreement— 8/11/05 2. Settlement Agreement b) Resolution 25-28 —Approving& Supporting An Application For A Environmental Grant For The Mist Lofts LLC c) Resolution 25-29—In Support of Demolition and Removal of Railway Depot 1) E-Mail From Frostad to Wilda HCRRA(c.c. City) Re: Depot Removal 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES a) Mayor 1. Administrative Committee Minutes (With Attachments)— 8/10/05 b) Council—Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer c) Engineer 1. NAC (Petrik) E-Mail Re: Lighting &Paving For Lofts' Projects—8/3/05 is 2. Light Fixtures Designs Council Agenda—8/15/05 1 d) Utility Superintendent • e) Administrator 1. September Calendar 2. Building & Sign Report—July 3. Volunteer Appreciation Dinner— 8/29/05 4. Reminder Board of Appeals Training 8/23/05 2:00 pm to 4:00 pm 5. End of July Reports a) Cash Balance YTD b) Cash& Investment Summary c) Revenue Guidelines d) Expenditure Guidelines 6. Miscellaneous 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS a) Greg Pederson, Fire Chief E-Mail Re: Fire Contract& Code Responsibilities— 8/1/05 b) Letter to Scott Bader Re: Equalization Connection Fee Bayview Apts. — 8/3/05 c) Letter to Tonka Ventures & Tenants Re: Lakeview Lofts Update—8/3/05 d) Gambling Donations from Pull Tabs Synopsis • e) Letter to Vertnik, 4333 Channel Road Re: Rental of— 8/2/05 f) LMCC Open House on 8/16/05 g) Council Approval of Investment Policy—4/7/03 h) Letter to Residents &Businesses Adjacent to HCRRA Property— 8/10/05 i) Head, Seifert& Vander Weide—8/10/05 (2) Status Reports 1. Lakeview Lofts 2. Mist Lofts 11. MISCELLANEOUS 12. ADJOURNMENT • Council Agenda—8/15/05 2 CITY OF SPRING PARK RECEIVED SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA SEP - 6 20 MINUTES HEAD, SEIFERT COUNCIL MEETING do VANDER WEIDE AUGUST 15, 2005 7:30 P.M. - CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Rockvam called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam were present. Staff present: Administrator Weeks, Utility Superintendent Goman, Deputy Clerk Corl, and Recorder Angela Darst. Others present: Ken Adolf, City Engineer; Tom Seifert, City Attorney and Planning Commissioner Mason. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —August 1, 2005 Motion by Hughes seconded by Widmer to approve the amended minutes for the Council Meeting August 1, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Mayor Rockvam introduced the Council and Staff to the viewing public. 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS a) Mist Lofts Request Re: Early Start Times for Construction 1. Head, Seifert and Vander Weide—8/11/05 Brad Ridgeway was present for the report. He stated they are asking for an exemption to the hour's restriction for construction. Ridgeway stated that they would like to have an earlier start time. Rockvam asked if they would like the exemption until the completion of the project and Ridgeway stated yes. He said it would help to have flexibility for some of the longer concrete pours. Rockvam said he has seen the crews not working during some of the afternoon hours and they could be using that time. Ridgeway said that it depends on what operation they are doing and also on the contractor. Council Meeting—8/15/05 1 • He stated level one would be a longer pour. They will be doing the sub-level one, the parking and retail level. Rockvam asked if on one of the larger pours they would be going late into the evening. Ridgeway stated this is why they would like to start earlier in the morning. They could have the pump truck there at 6:00 a.m. and the concrete truck could come at 7:00 a.m. Reinhardt asked if they started early, what time would they finish. Ridgeway stated some of long pours would finish around 5 or 6:00 p.m. Reinhardt verified they could finish within the hours of the current code. Ridgeway said yes, but they want the flexibility to start at an earlier time. Hughes asked if they could alter the time the company started so they could work until 8:00 pm. Ridgeway stated they couldn't because they would be dealing with the worker's union. The worker's hours are between 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Reinhardt stated that she looked at the codes for other cities online and that Orono is the same, Minnetonka and Plymouth are 7.:00 am to 10:00 pm, Minnetrista is 7:00 am to 7:00 pm and Excelsior is 7:30 am to 9:30 pm. She also stated it would be hard for the City to monitor for infractions. Ridgeway stated we should look at the codes for a larger city like Minneapolis. Reinhardt stated she looked at cities that were larger, such as Minnetonka and Plymouth, as well as cities that were smaller. Reinhardt also pointed out Spring Park is a smaller,city and this work is being done in a residential area. Ridgeway said the hours they want are for infrequent occasional light duty vehicles. Reinhardt asked if the City knew what the decibel level was based on the noise • ordinance. Rockvam stated he was not sure. Williamson stated a noise could be sporadic but bothersome. He said people have a right to enjoy the community. He also stated the City code was available to the developer and the construction company beforehand, and it is unusual for them to ask after the fact. Rockvam stated it would affect people mostly in the Shoreline Condos, but they stated they keep their windows closed anyway because of the noise from County Road 15. He stated maybe if they have no problem with a 5:00 a.m. start time it might be okay. Ridgeway pointed out most of the work would be done inside the structure. Williamson stated this is not just affecting Spring Park and that the construction trucks pass other areas on their way to the site. Widmer stated the City couldn't limit traffic on the highways. Ridgeway said they could put down some construction grates to help with the noise. Mayor Rockvam stated the decibels are hard to monitor. Hughes said they would have to monitor for a period of time. He also said if someone got out of a truck and slammed the door that could be disturbing people. Rockvam stated they could ask people that live in that area what they think. Hughes said he thought the City should keep the time the same at this point and maybe the company can ask for exceptions for specific pours. He stated he would not be okay with granting it for one year. Council Meeting—8/15/05 2 • Rockvam stated he would be okay with the company asking for a large pour exception. He said he was in favor of it with specific dates and times. Hughes stated he would be okay with that if the City knew ahead of time and it was only for limited exceptions. Mason stated if the construction company had stuck to their schedule during the past month and a half there might be some leniency. He stated there could have been things discussed with the City before the project instead of an after thought. Widmer stated she had no problem with allowing the hours for a major pour if the City knew ahead of time. Ridgeway asked if the Council was opposed to asking the public about starting early. Hughes asked how far in advance they would know when the concrete pours would be. Ridgeway stated he would know about two weeks before but he could be more accurate the closer it was. Williamson said he doesn't have a problem with specific requests for long pours. He said this might set a precedent for dealing with the ordinance. He also stated they should have discussed this earlier and not after the fact. Williamson stated they have ignored the ordinance before and in one instance the police had to go back to the site three times to tell the workers to stop. Ridgeway stated they did address that with the worker's. He stated there are about 14 large pours on the north building. Williamson asked how many there would be altogether. Ridgeway stated there would be between 17 to 20 pours. Hughes asked what the intervals would be. Ridgeway stated they would be about every 14 days. Rockvam asked if they were going to be done by the middle of December. Ridgeway stated yes. Rockvam pointed out between now and the fall people are going to be starting to move inside more and would not hear the noise as much. Widmer asked when the next large pour was. Ridgeway stated that it would be on August 24`h. Widmer suggested approving the next two pours and then checking with the neighbors to see what kind of reaction there is. Ridgeway stated that would be okay. Hughes said it would be a good idea to call it a trial and asked if they would all be done before 2006. Ridgeway stated they would be. Adolf pointed out if they had at least 17 pours that would be one pour a week, not one every 14 days. Ridgeway confirmed this to be correct. Hughes asked how many large pours are there going to be before September 15th, 2005. Ridgeway said there would be one on August 24th and one on August 3 1" Reinhardt asked what time they thought it would take. Ridgeway stated not every pour would take the same amount of time. He said the largest pour would be in mid- September, and that pour would be the slowest process. Rockvam asked why there is a difference in the amount of time it takes. Ridgeway stated the mid-September pour they have to make the walls 12" thick, start on one end and go all the way around the building. Council Meeting—8/15/05 3 Widmer stated that she wants the Council to check with the neighbors to see if there • are any complaints. Rockvam stated that was agreeable. Reinhardt said the City could send out a letter to the residents and inform them of what would be happening and ask them to call the office with feedback. Hughes said they should send notices up to 350 feet. Reinhardt asked Seifert if they could accept this on a 2-pour basis. Seifert said that the City could agree to it on a 2-pour trial. Motion made by Williamson seconded by Hughes to allow the J E Dunn, contractor for the Mist Lofts, to start one hour earlier on a trial basis for construction for concrete pours on August 24th and August 31", 2005. In discussion Williamson stated the City should contact the Police Department and inform them of the waiver for the two pours. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. b) Construction Update—Lakeview Lofts Todd Frostad was present for the report. He stated the roofing and doors were done and the brick would be done within the next few weeks. Frostad said within the next four weeks the siding would be finished. He stated the installation of the waterlines was progressing. Frostad said they were moving quickly with all the outdoor projects. Frostad said they were hoping to get authorization to clear the depot site. He said the Council has to take action on the choice for streetlight fixtures, the selection of where any other lights might be placed, and what the City's sidewalk plans were. He stated he didn't get any information about a selection for the sidewalk and how they want it put in. He said he needed to request official action from the Council. Rockvam stated the Council had already taken action on the lights and the pavers. Also he stated the Council had adopted a light plan. Frostad stated he had not gotten anything in writing about what had been discussed. Seifert stated there was an e-mail sent out adopting a light plan. The City had also specified a paver color and type. Rockvam stated the Council did not know how the pavers should be put in. Frostad said that was a small detail. Hughes said the City Planner could decide on that. Frostad asked the Council to specify the areas of the lights and how they were going to be funded. Rockvam stated it was talked about at the last meeting and it was in the minutes. Seifert stated that Petrik had sent out an e-mail about that. Frostad stated he hadn't seen the e-mail. Seifert said it had been sent on August 3rd, and specified the pavers and the number of lights. Frostad again asked how it was going to be paid for. Seifert said these were the developer's responsibility. Frostad said they had not even had the discussion about that yet, so he can't respond. Rockvam stated they would finish the discussion of what needed to be done. He stated the only thing left to do was decide on a light fixture. Frostad asked if there were any more questions. The Council had no further questions. Council Meeting—8/15/05 4 c) Approval of City Funds Policy . Rockvam questioned the value of the funds. Reinhardt stated the policy was introduced if the City needed it or wanted it. Williamson stated that was correct. Williamson said he was not aware of anything being in it. It was there if the City needed it. He stated it doesn't hurt to have it set up. Rockvam stated the reason was for an internal loan to go from fund to fund. He stated he had no clue about the water tower money for 2004-2005. He stated he didn't know the amount spent and the amount owed. Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to adopt City Fund Policy. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. In discussion Goman said he was only sure of the amount we would have in 2005. Weeks stated we had talked about that at the last meeting. Rockvam stated one sheet said $815,000. He said it is a simple thing to know how much has been spent this far. He stated the Council wanted to know. Williamson said there were no loans and no interest. He stated the money came from the reserve fund. Rockvam stated they had talked about borrowing from the fund and then replenishing it. Widmer stated the water tower improvements up to date were $405,000. Rockvam asked to get a statement about money spent on the water tower from 2004 through 2005 as soon as possible. Williamson stated the original reason was to explore funding then use the City's own money to fund tower. Widmer said they reviewed this and the interest rates were to be 4%. Williamson stated they had always planned to take it from another City fund. Reinhardt stated the Council could talk to the accountant on Thursday about it. Rockvam stated the funds were not for the tower, but for long-range development. Williamson said it was for the water tower. Rockvam asked what would happen if other things go out, or if the City needed to expand the system. He stated he would like to see the minutes on this. Reinhardt stated that everyone could go online and look at the minutes. d) Planning Commission Minutes—August 10, 2005 1) Discussion Re: Outdoor Sales/Storage a) NAC—7/25/05 b) Ordinance Amendment Discussion The above communications were noted. Rockvam stated he was under the impression there would be a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and discuss this. He expressed concern with the businesses already in place and questioned if they would be grandfathered in. Reinhardt stated that would be a good question for the City Planner. Hughes said there was a high level of frustration because the Planner was not present, they did not know any history and it is hard for any minutes to reflect that. Rockvam stated looking at the workload of the Staff, the Planning Commission should meet with the Planner first and then have a joint meeting. Council Meeting—8/15/05 5 e) Miscellaneous -None 6. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS a) Resolution 05-27—Approving Settlement Agreement &Authorize Mayor &Administrator to Execute Settlement(Bayview Apartments) 1. Head, Seifert and Vander Weide Re: Bayview Apartments Agreement—8/11/05 2. Settlement Agreement Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Widmer to adopt Resolution 05-27, approving settlement agreement and authorizing the Mayor and Administrator to execute the settlement. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. b)Resolution 05-28 —Approving & Supporting an Application for an Environmental Grant for The Mist Lofts LLC Motion by Rockvam seconded by Reinhardt to approve Resolution 05-28, approving & supporting an application for an environmental grant for the Mist Lofts. Rockvam stated he would like to add on to the last paragraph under "Resolved. . ." the City is not financially responsible for the grant. Seifert stated it had been read and revised. Hughes said he couldn't support it. Reinhardt stated she agrees and it falsely represents the City. Seifert said Cornerstone would change anything; they just need to • know about it. He said the grant is also for Cornerstone to clean up contaminants on the property. Williamson stated they would still have to do that. Rockvam stated Penny Steele, Hennepin County Commissioner, was concerned our area was not receiving funds that were available and wanted money coming into this part of the district. Rockvam stated as long as the City has no obligation to it, it should not be a problem. Williamson said the fund was originally created to help with funding if a developer couldn't afford to. He said it was intended to be an aid, and this is a misuse of funds. Reinhardt stated that anyone who wanted to make changes to the resolution could e-mail those changes to Seifert. Rockvam said he wanted to see the discussion back for the next meeting. Motion made by Williamson seconded by Hughes to table this discussion until the September 6th Council Meeting. All votes were aye. c) Resolution 05-29—In Support of Demolition and Removal of Railway Depot 1) E-Mail From Frostad to Wilda HCRRA(c.c. City) Re: Depot Removal Rockvam stated he was under the impression Frostad was going to pay for this. Frostad stated yes for right now. He said at some point he might ask for reimbursement, but the HCRRA is in no way obligated to refund the escrow money. Rockvam stated the landscaping is very important to the City. Frostad stated the landscaping plans wouldn't change. . Council Meeting—8/15/05 6 Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Hughes to approve Resolution 05-29, supporting the demolition and removal of the depot. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES a)Mayor 1. Administrative Committee Minutes (With Attachments)—8/10/05 Hughes asked if the Council needed to take formal action about the emergency vehicle action plan. Weeks stated no formal action was needed. He stated that the police department recommended it and the county would pay for it. Williamson said that he would like it to be on record that the county supports putting the emergency vehicle pre-emption's (EVP) on the lights. Motion by Hughes seconded by Williamson to inform the county the City is in favor of placing the emergency pre-emption units on the traffic lights at no cost to the City. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Weeks also wanted to make an attachment for a pedestrian crossing at Island Drive and Shoreline Drive. Williamson stated the Council had already stated they would be in favor of it but they need to find out the cost from the City Engineer. Weeks stated they could have the concrete sidewalk installer do it at any time, and the cost was going to be between $1,50042,000. Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to support the crosswalk and authorize the expenditure of$1,500.00 to $2,000.00 for the curb modification at Island Drive and Shoreline Drive. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Goman stated at the Police Commission Meeting they discussed the safety of the crosswalk at Lord Fletcher's and that Xcel will modify the light with a better bulb and fixture. It is being done but they are not putting in a second light. Widmer said they should instruct people to use the crosswalk and when they jaywalk they are not safe. Rockvam stated the Police Commission Meeting needed to be moved from Tuesday to Wednesday at 1:00 pm. Also the meeting with the accountant is on Thursday the 18th at 11:00 am. Williamson stated that he would not be available for that meeting. b) Council—Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer—No Reports c) Engineer 1. NAC (Petrie) E-Mail Re: Lighting &Paving For Lofts'Projects— 8/3/05 2. Light Fixtures Designs Adolf gave an overview of the streetscape. He stated the County approved the geometric plan of the location of the curbs; work recently has been on the pavers behind the curbs; • Council Meeting—8/15/05 7 and they are working on the final plans to submit to the county. He stated that the balance of the street improvements would wait until the Mist project approaches completion. He stated the curb gets moved in the 2006 street construction project. Williamson asked when they are planning to do that, if it was in August or early September. Goman stated they have no set date to finish. He stated they have not received a notice from Hennepin County yet, but it does not include County Road 51 (Sunset Drive). He added on Sunset Drive they would do the curb, the turn lane and the overlay. Rockvam asked if we do the work would they reimburse us. Adolf stated these are 3 separate parts not one, and it would be hard to coordinate. Rockvam said he doesn't want to dispute the cost later. Seifert stated the escrow does not include municipal improvements; it is for the City's cost of administering. Rockvam asked when we would get the money back. Seifert stated that it is a requirement for the developer to do the work on the traveled portion of the roadway. Seifert said the City has a letter of credit, and we should not draw on it without the work being completed. Williamson stated he did not want to spend money than dispute who owes what. Seifert stated the street is not part of the agreement. Frostad stated that their obligation ends at the curb lines on Sunset. Adolf stated that the county would go along with project but they did not agree to pay for it. Rockvam asked if the municipal improvements include the lights. Adolf stated it is for all roadway improvements, but he is not sure about the lights. Rockvam said the City is not a loan company or a bank, and he wanted to know how long it would take to get the money back. Hughes asked how they would be able to know each developer's estimated cost for their portion. Adolf stated they would know that from the developer's agreement. Williamson said he thought the road surface should not be done until the trucks would be done using the street. Adolf stated that only the west side would be done this year, the rest after the Mist completion. Rockvam talked about concern over the trucks driving over the curbs. Adolf said the Council still has to pick out a fixture. Rockvam asked if the aluminum light pole was going to be used. Goman said it would be and added the pole would have two arms. Reinhardt stated she liked the original fixture proposed and it would work with both developments. Motion made by Reinhardt seconded by Hughes to approve the original light fixture proposed with the aluminum pole. Four votes were aye and Williamson voted no. Motion declared carried. In discussion Williamson commented he does not like the fixture design. Rockvam asked about illumines on the street we are trying to propose. Goman stated out that those fixtures mount from the bottom and we have the standard pole. Adolf stated those lights shine downward onto the street, not outward. He said that it lights up the area more if • Council Meeting—8/15/05 8 • they are downward lights. Rockvam said a map is needed to show where the lights are going to be placed and show illumines. Hughes said the light on Bayview Place is in the middle of the street. Adolf said the intention is for two lights on Bayview Place. He said he would have a revised plan for the next meeting. Seifert said he would like the Council to adopt a formal resolution adopting the plan of where the lights are to be located. Adolf said he would detail the paver installation. He stated the council still has to specify the plan. He pointed out lights are needed, two of which are on Sunset Drive north of Spring Street, two on Sunset Drive south of Spring Street, one on the north south side of Spring Street in the middle on the east side, three are needed near the rail authority area. Rockvam asked who was going to pay for all of those lights. Adolf stated that the lights he knew of were the seven lights for Lakeview Lofts area. Rockvam said they were uncertain of the lights needed for the west side. He said the light going north might light up the trail area. Adolf stated there could be one light on the north south section of Spring Street, on the middle of the east side. Rockvam asked who would pay for that light. Rockvam said there are thirteen parking spaces on that street and two property owners would benefit from that and we could charge them for the streetlights. Williamson pointed out the parking lot already has light on it. Williamson suggested adopting the plan but have the possibility of having up to three more lights. Adolf asked for a clarification for that area, Shoreline Drive is not included in the plan because they are additional lights. Rockvam stated the lights in front of the Mist project are still on the • plan. Adolf stated that there was no commitment on any lights not on plan. He stated that there are three on the south side of Del Otero Avenue, two on Bayview Place, and two for the proposed trail and we would see who was going to pay for the ones by the proposed trail. Williamson stated leaving lights on the plan doesn't constitute a commitment to have those lights. Reinhardt stated that the plan should document the four optional lights unfunded. Rockvam verified there would be a resolution for the next meeting for the lighting plan and the pavers. Reinhardt confirmed the lighting plan is communicated to Frostad, Lakeview Lofts. Assessments for the lights were briefly discussed. d) Utility Superintendent Adolf referred to the summary of the bids for Lift Station #6. He stated they were lower than the previous bids but the cost savings anticipated were not achieved. Goman stated that on the lift station the lowest bid was $514,852.00. He said the Council could accept that or not. Goman stated that the repairs would be less than that cost. Rockvam stated the original bid was almost$597,000.00. Goman said from the first to second bid and the cost went up by$30,000.00. Adolf said the major difference the second time around was the contractor was made aware of the actual situation, and they determined that it was more of a challenge for the contractor to perform. • Council Meeting—8/15/05 9 Williamson said that the first bid contained 3 pumps but now it is only for two pumps. Goman stated the bid is still for 3 pumps. He added that if the City approved the bid the Lift Station would be operational by December 31st, with it being finished in spring 2006. Rockvam stated that they could go ahead and spend $30,000 and replace the elbows, but that wouldn't help for the future or we could move forward. Rockvam stated that the Council needed to take action on this. Goman said if there was a decision tonight they could get things started by the end of the month. Williamson asked the timeframe for this decision. Adolf said a decision should be made very soon if the work is to be done by the end of the year. Williamson asked how much money was in the sewer fund. Reinhardt stated that there was $1.3 million dollars in the fund. Hughes asked how much the cleaning, pumping, and service would cost on lift station #6. Goman stated that it would cost $20,000. Hughes asked how much had already been spent this year on Lift Station #6. Goman stated that so far it has been $5,000. He stated that that was down from last year. Rockvam stated that any repair would be a temporary solution and if they fixed it the cost would be $514,000 with the landscaping costing around $9,000. Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Rockvam to accept the base bid of $514,852 for Lift Station #6. In discussion Rockvam stated that the Council needed to look at the balances of the fund • and plan how to replenish it. Reinhardt stated her reason for the motion is the City has no Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and we need to have something. Rockvam stated that this was an expense that the Council did not know would have to be done right way. Rockvam stated that if the City put in more high trees it might help hide the station. Goman stated that they would do that. Goman also stated that as of today, the water tower is working on it's own. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. e) Administrator 1. September Calendar Weeks noted Marcia Wilda, HCRRA, will meet with the Council for a workshop 9/7/05 at 2:00 pm at the depot to discuss trail examples and designs. 2. Building & Sign Report—July-Noted 3. Volunteer Appreciation Dinner— 8/29/05 -Noted 4. Reminder Board of Appeals Training 8/23/05 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. -Noted 5. End of July Reports—All noted a) Cash Balance YTD b) Cash& Investment Statement c) Revenue Guidelines d) Expenditure Guidelines 6. Miscellaneous -None • Council Meeting—8/15/05 10 • 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT Motion by Hughes seconded by Reinhardt to approve the claims for payment for August 15, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS-None 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Greg Pederson, Fire Chief E-Mail Re: Fire Contract & Code Responsibilities— 8/l/05 b) Letter To Scott Bader Re: Equalization Connection Fee Bayview Apartments— 8/3/05 Rockvam stated that he would like to have the archives checked. He wants to know how the Council could not know that someone owes money that they haven't paid. c) Letter To Tonka Ventures & Tenants Re: Lakeview Lofts Update - 8/3/05 d) Gambling Donations from Pull Tabs Synopsis e) Letter To Vertnik, 4333 Channel Road Re: Rental of— 8/2/05 f) LMCC Open House on 8/16/05 g) Council Approval of Investment Policy h) Letter To Residents &Businesses Adjacent to HCRRA Property —8/10/05 i) Head, Seifert & Vander Weide— 8/10/05 (2) Status Reports 1. Lakeview Lofts 2. Mist Lofts • 11. MISCELLANEOUS-None 12. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. ANGELA DARST RECORDER - LLIAM D. WEEKS ADMNISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER • Council Meeting—8/15/05 11 RECEIVED SEP - g 2p5 • CITY OF SPRING PARK HEAD, SEIFERT SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA VANDER WEI(* SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (Utility Rate Discussion) AUGUST 18,2005 11:00 A.M. - CITY HALL Present: Mayor Rockvam, Council Persons Hughes, Reinhardt, Widmer; Staff present: Administrator Weeks, Utility Superintendent Goman; Others present: Tom Seifert, City Attorney; Recorder Darst; Gary Groen, Accountant Rockvam stated when the budget was done the projected revenue was $161,000, the expenses were $201,930, the shortfall is $41,000. The sewer revenue was $286,000, the expenses were $298,190, and the shortfall is $12,000. The money for the water tower is $819,000. He said the money that is paying for repairs and improvements is coming out of the reserve fund. Groen explained page 1 is a summary of the different rates that the City can use to generate revenue; Page 2 is what the current rates are. On page 1 the rate is based on current 2004 base unit charges. Hughes asked how the commercial number of units is projected to remain at 52 because the City has lost The Mist, a meat market, Joan's Log Cabin, and the Laundromat. • Groen stated this would balance out with the addition of the new commercial units in the condo buildings. Rockvam said he wasn't sure if they would have a different charge for the business units. Goman said he thought there would be two commercial units in Lakeview Lofts. Seifert said new residential units wouldn't change the amounts. Groen assumed that all new residential units would use 5,000 gallons per unit. Rockvam verified the residential units are all being charged the minimum usage. Groen pointed on page 1 the variable minimum usage changed from 5,000 down to 3,000 gallons. Groen stated the projected income is all summarized. He said he included projected operating expenses at the bottom of the page. Seifert asked why the projected revenue dropped on page 1, line 1 for 2008. Groen stated the figure should be $146,684. Reinhardt stated they would not recover the reserve unless the maximum approach was used. She said her bill is now $45.15 for 22,000 gallons of water usage, and in 2008, using the larger base usage, her bill would be $65.45. Rockvam stated that the City had actually lowered the sewer minimum rate in 1998. Hughes said then the City had gone back to the previous sewer rate. Rockvam stated the Council thought they were charging too much. Seifert stated the Council should look back in 10 years and find the averages and use that as a way to look forward into the future. Groen stated he had been speaking to Goman and he said it had been more than 20 years since there was a major renovation and the system had been installed in 1963/1964. He added there were some minor repairs in 1992 and 2001. Hughes asked where the water access charges Special Council- 8/18/05 1 • r • (Equalization Connection Fee) went. Weeks stated those charges went into the sewer and water fund. Reinhardt asked how much had been paid out. Mr. Seifert stated that none had. Groen said at the beginning of 2004 there was $1.3 million in the water fund. There was $815,000 going to the water tower and $500,000 for the panel sometime in the next few years. Groen said they have to look forward and look at what the City needs to charge to cover the operating expenses. He stated the Council has to determine how much they want to add back to the fund. Seifert stated in the fall of 2004, the City did not know that the water tower or Lift Station #6 were going to need to be replaced. Reinhardt stated the shortfall for the city was $40,000. She asked what it would take to recoup that money this year. Groen stated the charges would have to be really significant. Rockvam said in the general fund the levy was such the Council wouldn't have to raise rates. When the City did the audit, the found out that they were losing money. He added the Council made an adjustment. Weeks stated with a levy the City taxpayers could deduct that from their income taxes, if it is coming from the water bills they cannot. Hughes asked if the figures are based on usage. Groen stated that it is based on water use. Rockvam said the Council had chosen the larger water tower because the cost was not much more than the smaller tower. He said the City should have paid $250,000 and then borrowed the $650,000 to pay back. He stated that the reserve fund is very important and that the Council needed to decide what to do with that is left. Rockvam stated since Goman started working for • the City there have been multiple improvements made. He said the system is now being maintained and that was never done before. He stated Goman had gone through everything and has done a great job. Seifert stated there is $800,000 in the water fund and $1.3 million in the sewer fund. He stated $500,000 could come out of that fund. Groen said in the next few years the fund would be emptied from all the pending improvements. Seifert asked about the control panel. Goman stated that the control panel needs to be replaced and the cost would be about $500,000. Seifert stated that would take about a million dollars out of the fund,but there would still be a balance of a half a million dollars. Groen pointed out you have to look ahead at future improvements. He said the five lift stations would need repairs of around $100,000 each. Goman said there has to be some education about the water rates. He added there is a combination of things that made up the amount charged and there is a misconception of why the rates are what they are and where the money goes. Rockvam stated the other lift stations would have to be replaced over the years. He asked if it is just Lift Station#6 that looks bad. Goman stated that 46 is really bad and station #1 is showing signs of rust. He stated the stations were put in 1963 and 1964. He said the panels and pumps were redone in the 1980's. Goman stated after 20 years, lift station#1 is wearing the worst. Rockvam said that there would be more depreciation by the end of this year. Groen stated the depreciation numbers show the repair and maintenance from 2004 was around $40,000. Goman stated, for example, in 2005 the City had $20,000 in the budget. He said there were four water main breaks and the City has spent $23,000 to date. • Special Council- 8/18/05 2 • Rockvam stated the Council could replenish the money to the fund or let that money stay low. He said the Council has to make a decision looking into the future. Hughes stated he wasn't sure this was a good idea and he said for ten years they should look at the average of the fund. Siefert stated some of the pipes just break and the City should see what kind of studies are out there. Hughes stated he thinks there is an appropriate level in the reserves. Seifert said you have to anticipate what might happen. Rockvam stated the City has to separate the operating expenses from the reserves. He said he would like to see the fund replenished to half a million dollars in the next five years and he would like to keep costs down. Reinhardt stated property tax is used for public property and asked how much is used for the water plant. Groen stated that none of it is used. Reinhardt stated she did not want the City to be making a huge amount on the water rate. Weeks stated they wanted to raise the amount to cover the current expenses. Rockvam stated the City should back-budget for the next four to five years. Seifert asked what that meant. Rockvam stated that it would be adding back the amount used into the budget for the future four or five years. Goman stated the pump systems in other cities in the area are older the Spring Park's and they are spending a lot of money on improvements. Rockvam stated the Mound system is older than Spring Park's. Seifert asked if the City had sent a camera down to look at the system. Goman stated the cameras had gone down, and they had looked at approximately 90% of the system. He stated the City has a good handle on the condition of the system. He added there have been more main breaks under the street at Lord Fletcher's than in the entire system. He stated they should look • ahead for how they can fix that. Hughes asked about the shape of the mains under County Road 15. Goman stated the roadbed is in good shape and there is more shifting in other parts of the City than on County Road 15. Rockvam asked the Council to look over the charts. He stated the July income needs to be $13,400 but it is $12,887 currently. Groen stated the income for the quarter thru June is estimate for July. Rockvam pointed out there is still a shortfall. He stated the expenses have been going up but the income from the rates has been going down. He stated the City could do a mid-year increase for this year and make another adjustment in the rates for next year. Widmer said it would be good to adjust the rates now and then look at them again. Rockvam said they should study the first half of 2006 and then change the rates starting in March. He stated it will not fix the shortfall now but it would still help. Groen said the Council should meet in the end of January or early February, and then they could make adjustments to change the billing for that next quarter. Weeks pointed out they would be making two rates changes back to back. Widmer stated then there would be an idea of what the units will generate and also what the commercial units would use. She said the Council could do an increase now making the rate increase next year not so large. Hughes stated it should be put on the tax levy and the balance should go to the reserve. He added it would be easier to pay something now but deduct it later. Groen stated the tax rate would be different for each person. Rockvam stated that part should go for operating expenses and the rest should go to the reserve. • Special Council- 8/18/05 3 • Groen stated based on the 2004 usage, a 20-cent increase would generate $9,000. Rockvam asked what that would do to the average bill. Reinhardt stated her bill is $50.05 and with a 20- cent increase it would be $53.55. She said if it were a 40-cent increase it would raise her bill to $56.00. Groen said there are not many people falling under the minimum usage. He said it is around 30 people. Rockvam stated the new units would all be minimum users. Groen stated it would not affect a huge group to lower the minimum usage. Weeks stated they should leave it at the 5,000-gallon minimum usage and raise the base rate. Widmer said it would be better to raise the rate on usage over 5,000 gallons. Rockvam stated it would affect places like restaurants with a larger usage. Groen stated they could use the plan on page 1, with a base rate of $13.50 and a 20-cent per unit increase. Rockvam stated for an average water user, a 40-cent raise would make their bill go up $6.00. He stated it would generate $9,000 for this year and would start building up the reserves next year. Reinhardt stated she had checked out the water usage in other cities and that Spring Park fell in the middle for fees. Seifert asked what percent of an increase it would be if the City raised the rate by 40 cents. Reinhardt stated that if her bill were $45.15, a 20-cent raise with the $13.50 base would raise her bill to $50.05. Groen stated it would be a 10% increase for her bill. He said if you used 6,000 gallons your bill would go up about 13%. He said it would have a larger effect on the low end user. Hughes stated it wasn't fair to charge the large user less and the low user more. Widmer said they could also use the third scenario of increasing the usage over 5,000 gallons. Hughes asked • how many gallons the average homeowner uses. He stated that if you are using more, than you should get charged more. Goman stated that it could be a tiered structure for charging. Rockvam stated this increase would be a catch up till the end of the year. Groen stated if they added a $1.50 increase in the base that would generate $1,000 per quarter. He said 10 cents would raise $4,500 and a 20-cent increase would raise $9,000. Rockvam stated he would suggest that they should increase 20 cents for the next three months. He asked what the Council would like to do for the sewer rates. Goman asked what the resident standpoint would be. Rockvam stated they have to look at the impact on people. He also stated no one likes to pay more money but we need to cover the operating expenses. He added there has not been an increase since 1997-98. Reinhardt said the City is losing money already. Hughes stated in the last ten-year history the Council has been able to maintain reserves. He said the residents have seen the benefit of a new water tower and now there has to be a raise to replenish what was spent. Widmer stated we should tell the residents the adjustment is needed to keep up with the operating expenses. Seifert asked if there should be a public hearing. Rockvam stated the City could send out a notice with bill for the mid-year adjustment. Seifert asked if they could change the rate in September for the prior usage. Rockvam stated the City should send out something to explain the rate change. He asked if the Council should raise the sewer rates. Rockvam stated that the city is losing $12,000. He said they should dissect expenses for the year and then replenish the budget from the reserves. Reinhardt suggested they could reduce the base rate like in the third • scenario from the accountant. Goman stated then people complain about the change in the bill Special Council- 8/18/05 4 • and claim the meters must be wrong and he has to explain that the meters are new and it is an accurate reading but the rates have increased. Groen stated this increase was not as urgent. Rockvam said the Council should make an adjustment and it is easier now to add to the rate than it is later. Reinhardt stated it is a good time to increase the rate because people can see the new water tower. Rockvam stated the Council would need to review the rates more often. Rockvam said the Council should review the rates in February. He asked if the Council wants to go with the third scenario from the accountant to help with the shortfall right now. Rockvam stated the revenue from the end of the year quarter would be $9,000 for water and $9,000 for sewer. Reinhardt said they should do a public hearing after they review the rates for the next quarter. She mentioned the City could put a small notation about the increase in the Laker that people could come to the next meeting to discuss the increase. Rockvam stated they should have this increase down before they do that. Hughes stated it would raise the average bill about $4.00 a month. Rockvam said they should send out a statement that this is a mid-year partial raise. Widmer stated they should put the explanation in with the bills. Reinhardt stated if it was in the Laker then people could be invited to comment if they want to. Rockvam stated they should be cautious about that and this is a temporary correction. Hughes stated the budget is hard to understand and he wanted to know more about the budget. Rockvam said the Council could wait with the increase until next year but the City will already have a • problem. He stated the Council has to do something the raise could be smaller and not so large. Rockvam said the revenue from the increase would be $18,000 for the last two quarters of 2005. Reinhardt stated she was comfortable with the increase now. The Council determined the water base rate increase to $13.50 and the sewer base rate to $11.50 with the 5,000 gallon usage then a 20-cent increase on any additional usage was the scenario the City should go with that. The Council thought there should be a notification in the bill for the mid-year increase. The Council requested a resolution stating this to approve at the September 6, 2005 Council meeting. ANGELA DARST RECORDER ILL D. WEE KS ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER • Special Council - 8/18/05 5 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES R V V COUNCIL MEETING SEP 19 SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 SEiFERN 7:30 P.M. - CITY HALL HEAD, &SANDER WEIDE 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Rockvam called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam were present. Staff present: Utility Superintendent Goman, Deputy Clerk Corl, and Recorder Angela Darst. Others present: Ken Adolf, City Engineer; Tom Seifert, City Attorney and Planning Commissioner Mason. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Williamson seconded by Widmer to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) Council Meeting— 8/15/05 Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Widmer to approve the minutes for the Council Meeting August 15, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. b) Special Council Meeting (Utility Rates)—8/18/05 Motion by Widmer seconded by Reinhardt to approve the minutes for the Special Council Meeting August 18, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. c) Special Council Meeting (Office Help)—8/29/05 Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Williamson to approve the minutes for the Special Council Meeting August 29, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. d) Special Council Meeting (Trailhead &Depot)—9/1/06 Council—9/6/05 1 a Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to approve the minutes for the Special Council Meeting September 1, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. Mayor Rockvam introduced the Council & Staff to the viewing public. 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS a) Hennepin County Railroad Authority(HCRRA) Re: Unauthorized Use of Right of Way Marcia Wilda and Jessica Galatz were present for the meeting. Rockvam stated there would be time to answer questions after the presentation. Galatz handed out an outline highlighting parts of the presentation. There was a 12-minute video audio presentation. Wilda stated that any unauthorized uses might not continue without a written agreement with the HCRRA. She said any other uses must be terminated. Wilda pointed out that the HCRRA would be consistent throughout all 57 miles of trails. There was a question from West Arm Road resident, C.J. Lunning, about the time frame for getting a lease agreement. Wilda stated that right now HCRRA is having meetings in all 18 communities. They are looking for input on what residents think about the separation from trail to properties. Wilda said the HCRRA needs to clarify this and then they will set up leases as soon as possible. Lunning asked if the residents could get an estimate of when HCRRA will be ready to start setting up the leases. Wilda stated HCRRA would hopefully be ready by this time next year. She pointed out this is a long time to wait but if residents want to consider use of that property they should call the • HCRRA. Lunning asked what number residents should call. Wilda stated you can reach her at 612-348-8537 or you could also reach Galatz at 612-348-2691. Rockvam asked if prior leases for the property are able to continue. Wilda stated the HCRRA would honor previous or grandfathered leases. Rockvam asked what the next steps in the process were. She stated they would have information at the community meetings, allow cities to make recommendations, conduct public hearings and then get approval of an updated policy. Lunning asked how the HCRRA would communicate with the residents. Wilda stated the HCRRA will alert the communities and they are hoping the City will pass information on to the residents. Rockvam stated that the City would do that. b) Construction Update—Mist Lofts Brad Ridgeway, Patty St. Pierre and Ken Haberman were present. Ridgeway distributed a list about the construction updates. He said Lift Station No. 3 is operating, dewatering pumps and wells have been removed and work is continuing on the north and south buildings. Ridgeway discussed future activities for the north and south buildings. He stated they have two large concrete pours coming up. One would take place on September 13th and the other on September 20th. Council—9/6/05 2 • Rockvam pointed out there were two large pours in the last two weeks. Residents were notified that the construction crew would be starting at an earlier time. Rockvam said the City did not receive any complaints. Ridgeway stated the normal union worker's hours were from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. He said the earlier start time is helping the work to move faster. Rockvam asked if they are asking permission to have earlier start times for the next two pours. Ridgeway stated they would like to get permission to do that. St. Pierre asked if they could get permission for dates ahead of time. She stated they would be continuing to have pours through December. St. Pierre asked if they could give the City notice of the weeks they will be having pours and this could become a general permission. Rockvam stated the advantage was with the target date to notify residents. He said the City would like more specific dates. St. Pierre pointed out their schedule allowed for some flexibility. She stated the dates might be off by one or two days but they could give the City a schedule of when they anticipate pours. Hughes said the Council could give them permission for the next two pours and then wait until October's Council meeting to look at a more definite schedule. Ridgeway pointed out they would have more than those 2 pours in the next month. Williamson stated they could give the Council a schedule with anticipated dates. Widmer asked if they had a pour in the last week of September and was told yes. Motion by Hughes seconded by Widmer to allow all pours to start earlier during the month of September with the construction company coming back to the Council in October with a definite pouring schedule. All votes were aye. Motion declared • carried. c) Miscellaneous—None 6. ORDINANCES &RESOLUTIONS a) Resolution 05-28 — Approving & Supporting Application of Mist Lofts for Environmental Grant Rockvam asked Siefert if he had reviewed the resolution and was told yes. Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Hughes to approve Resolution 05-28, approving and supporting the application of the Mist Lofts for an environmental grant. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. b) Resolution 05-30—Approving New Utility Rates Williamson stated he was not able to attend the special meeting. He said he looked over the $30,000 loss in interest and suggested the Council wait and watch the earnings over a period of time. Williamson pointed out with the new developments there might be restitution. He said he would like to see the water tower up and running before there is a raise in the rates. Williamson stated there are currently six ways to charge rates and he is not satisfied enough to vote on this resolution. He asked the Council to wait for one more • Council—9/6/05 3 • meeting before making a decision. Hughes stated he would like to go through the budget process to feel more comfortable deciding on if there is a need for new rates. Rockvam stated there is a current deficit on the water and the sewer. He said the City has to make an adjustment. Rockvam pointed out it would be a small increase for the 3Td and 4th quarter with a larger increase in 2006. He stated they have to keep working on keeping the system healthy. Rockvam said the budget process does not have a lot to do with the rates. He pointed out this resolution is to cover the operating costs. He stated he is fine with looking at this more but he would like to see something done to make this move forward. Reinhardt asked if they increase the rates now is the City still losing money. Rockvam stated they believe so. Williamson said he would like to use the rates over the past 10 years to review normal changes from heat, rainfall, etc. He stated the City would be able to better predict the average. Williamson pointed out the City has a half million dollars in the reserve fund and money in the sewer fund. He stated they needed to look at the numbers in the long run. Williamson said he is not comfortable with rate proposal. Reinhardt asked when the 3 d quarter bill goes out. Corl stated it is the first week of October. Reinhardt stated the Council could wait until then for statements of the deficit to approve the resolution. She said she is in approval of this resolution if it is to replace the loss in the operating costs. Widmer asked what other information was needed to decide. Williamson stated he would like to see where this puts the City financially with • the deficit. He said this resolution seems to put the burden on the low end users. Motion made by Williamson seconded by Hughes to lay Resolution 05-30 to the Council Meeting on September 19, 2005. Rockvam asked if the Council wanted to change the wording on the resolution. He stated Seifert could redraft the resolution. He said the funds were getting to a reduced level but they are not depleted. Seifert stated this increase was to try to catch up for the loss of this year, not to replenish the funds. Widmer asked what was a reasonable waiting time. Williamson stated he has a problem with the fees. Rockvam pointed out the increase worked out to be 26 cents a day. Williamson stated he would like to go over these rates with a calculator and give it a sensitivity analysis. He stated he wants to make sure this is done right. Williamson said last time there was a rate increase, the City over charged. Rockvam stated the increase was a mistake but this is 8 years later. He said the Council should address this situation annually. Hughes said he looked at the budget session secondary agenda and he was disturbed at percentages. He stated this was a high increase for the low end users. Widmer pointed out the normal 5,000-gallon minimum usage is staying the same. She said the people who are using more would pay more and that is where the increase should be. Goman stated the 5,000-gallon minimum usage stayed the • Council—9/6/05 4 • same and the base charge increased. Rockvam stated the Council should have a work session on this. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. c) Resolution 05-31 —2006 Proposed Levy 1. TNT (Truth-In-Taxation) 2. Memo Re: General Fund Highlights Rockvam stated there is a memo on the General Fund. He said the City does not know how much everything will cost and if they adopt the proposed levy they cannot go any higher than the proposed figure later. Rockvam pointed out the need to make a decision by September 15, 2005 or they will get penalized. He said the Council has to review this, adopt something that will be in compliance and schedule a special meeting to resolve this issue. He stated that the budget is pretty accurate but that the Council should look at closer to make sure they are not shorting themselves. He stated that once this is adopted we couldn't go higher then that amount. Rockvam asked if there was a preference by the Council for a date and time. Hughes stated he would prefer an evening. Reinhardt said a day would work out better for her. Rockvam stated the meeting would not last for more than two hours. Williamson stated that an evening would work better for him. He suggested the following week September 12-14th. Seifert stated the Council could announce this meeting for the public on only this topic. • Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to hold a special meeting on September 13, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. with a 2-hour limit to discuss Resolution 05-31, proposed tax levy. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. d) Resolution 05-32— Streetscape Rockvam stated this resolution was approved in mid August. Adolf said there were some adjustments to the plan. Rockvam pointed out people would cross from the Mist Lofts to the Lakeview Lofts. He stated the divider should be raised. Williamson asked if the current divider was extended. Adolf said the existing divider is raised but if the Council proposes a raised divider that is fine. He said they have not yet submitted the plan. Rockvam stated it should be raised four or five inches. Williamson said if the dividers are just painted, would eventually wear off. Hughes pointed out if they are all raised it would look more uniform. He said if the City increases one, he is in favor of raising them all. Motion made by Hughes seconded by Williamson to propose to the county to raise the medians on Sunset Drive. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. • Council—9/6/05 5 Adolf stated the concept plans were worked out in March. He said the county did not • want an entry onto Sunset Drive but they worked out a compromise. General geometry was established back then. Adolf said the plan was to get the Council to approve the plan and then submit it to Hennepin County. He pointed out the City is running out of time because of near completion of one of the condo projects. Rockvam stated the contractor for Lakeview Lofts was putting the sidewalks in. He said there was some resistance with the developers. Rockvam stated the plan would be developed later and it would then be determined who would pay for the last four streetlights. Goman stated the construction company is required to install what was there before (the sidewalk) and that is all they will do. Williamson stated it is an issue for the attorneys to state where the City stands and implement it. He said they would need to determine from the Developer's Agreement what the plans support or does not support. Seifert stated the streetscape is indicated in the Agreement as a later plan. He said this is the plan that both parties were involved in meetings to help plan. Seifert pointed out Petrik had argued to have pavers. He stated they did not agree or disagree. Seifert stated he is not sure of their position. He said step one is for the City to approve the plan. Frostad has told the Council that he does not know what the City wants. Seifert stated the Council has to make clarification and adopt the plan without the mediators. Williamson stated if the City completes the plan they have a letter of credit to draw on. He said the City could implement this. Seifert stated he is not sure the City can do that. Adolf said to this recollection, the estimate had the lights, sidewalk and pavers included • for Sunset Drive in the agreement. Rockvam stated the lights are on the building on Spring Street not on the street. He said he was under the impression there were going to be two lights on the north side of Sunset. Rockvam pointed out the City could go to the HCRRA with the other lights. He stated that it would make the area look connected. He said he thought that there would be two lights on the building, two lights on the street, two lights on Sunset Drive and one light on the north side of Spring Street. Rockvam said the light from one fixture should light the area. Adolf stated he was not sure of this and they are anticipating getting a composite. He said they would have the plan by next week. Rockvam said when the City approved the plan that they knew the other spaces would be used. He said it is better to have enough lights then regret not having enough later. Rockvam stated he is concerned about lights from the Mist Lofts on the east. Williamson pointed out on page 10 they are coded as optional lights. Hughes stated there are five of them on Shoreline Drive plus three on Sunset Drive. They are not sure who will pay for them. Adolf said the lights on Shoreline would be on the 2nd level. Williamson pointed out the lights could potentially be shining inside someone's home. Rockvam stated that the City's original plan was they wanted to carry the theme throughout the entire area. Williamson said the only issue is to get a plan for Hennepin County and make sure Frostad (Lakeview Lofts) has an idea of what the plan is. • Council—9/6/05 6 • Williamson stated they could amend the motion to incorporate those lights in it. Rockvam stated he is concerned about the lights for the 13 parking spots on Spring Street. He said they need at least one more light in that area. Rockvam said on the street itself there are three spots they need to make sure are lit. Hughes asked what the light level is when coming out of the parking lot on Spring Street. Adolf stated they would have the composite plan next week. He said in the most critical area they proposed that a downcast light is centered there. Rockvam asked when the curb would be put in. Goman stated that would be done per the developer when the City proposes a plan. Rockvam stated the Council has to approve a plan tonight. Goman stated there are several areas that have to be done and he is on the verge of shutting the project down. He said Frostad wants everything done by the end of the project. Rockvam asked if once the plan is adopted they are able to go on. Goman stated yes. Rockvam asked about the light in the parking area. Adolf stated he has a composite plan in progress but he will have to wait and see it next week. Motion made by Williamson and seconded by Hughes to adopt Resolution 05-32, the streetscape plan supporting the stipulation that the prior motion pertaining to the medians be incorporated including the additional light. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES . a) Mayor I. Police Commission Meeting &Reports— 8/17/05 (Motion for approval) Motion made by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to approve the minutes from the Police Commission Meeting 8/14/05. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Williamson pointed out this was not a special meeting but was the monthly Police Commission Meeting. Hughes asked if any action was taken. Williamson stated that a citation was issued. Rockvam complimented Darst on the minutes taken for the Police Commission Meeting. a) Mound Fire Dept. Re: Lord Fletcher's Deck Capacity—8/05 -Noted b) Mound Fire Dept. Re: Fire Inspection 8/25/05 -Noted c) Orono Police Dept. Re: Citation—8/19/05 -Noted Rockvam stated the fire department needs to keep having meetings with Fletcher's and the fire chief should be present. He stated the Mound Fire Department has been more than willing to help. Rockvam said he would like to know if anything is being done about the trees for Shoreline Place at the east end of the building. Goman stated the City had written a • Council—9/6/05 7 Rockvam said he would like to stay informed on this and to make sure that it is done • before winter. b) Council—Widmer, Williamson, Reinhardt, Hughes Widmer said she is glad to see the light is up on the flagpole. Williamson said there is a tree on the park property that is dying and he would like to see an effort made to preserve it. Goman stated the tree would be trimmed and taken care of. Reinhardt said the State Fair is over and there were three youths from Spring Park that won ribbons, Hannah Seeley, Kyrie Maloney and Jack Reinhardt. She stated she wanted to see the City congratulate them, and it was great to see that there were 3 students with winning entries from this City. Rockvam stated that the City should send each of them a letter. Reinhardt also stated the City should send flowers to Weeks. Motion by Rockvam seconded by Reinhardt to send flowers to Weeks. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Williamson asked if there was something the Council has to take action so the Deputy Clerk could get things done because Weeks will be out for some time. Corl stated it wasn't necessary at this time. Rockvam stated that there might be things that have to be done and extra help would be needed. • Motion made by Williamson seconded by Hughes to authorize the Deputy Clerk to take any necessary administrative actions required in the Administrator's absence. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. c) Engineer 1. Schoell &Madson, Inc Re: Lift Station#6 Pay Request No. 1 - 8/31/05 Adolf stated this first pay request is to cover bonds and etc. Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Widmer to approve Pay Request No. 1 for Lift Station #6 to Carl Bolander & Sons. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 2. Schoell &Madson, Inc Re: Water Tower Pay Request No 10 - 8/31/05 Rockvam stated he was glad to see the report on the costs on the water tower. Adolf stated there is more work to do. He said the $811,000 includes the engineer fees and the leasing the property to the south. Adolf stated Pay Request No. 10 is for the water tower to Maguire Iron and 5% is being retained. Williamson asked if the City is being charged to take to the tower down and restoration. Adolf stated that it would cost around$10,000. . Council—9/6/05 8 Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Widmer to approve Pay Request No. 10 to • Maguire Iron for the water tower. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. d) Utility Superintendent 1. Street Light Banner Design Goman stated the pedestrian sidewalk at Island and Shoreline Drives is being installed and painted this week. Goman mentioned the Council has to decide where the brackets on the light poles should go. Goman stated they would be on the sidewalk side on the back of the pole. Williamson asked if the Council could add on the brackets later. Goman stated they could not. Williamson asked if the flag placement was to scale. Goman stated this was for illustration only but that people would not be able to reach banners. Hughes asked about the current size versus the proposed banners. Goman stated they are 30" by 80". Williamson asked if this would add to the current expenses. Goman stated it was already factored in. Seifert stated the Council has to decide which of the three lights they want. Goman pointed out that the streetlight is the same on all three banner configurations. Rockvam said that people like the banners and it gives the City a small town atmosphere. Williamson stated because of all the landscaping, the City looks better and the banners were just decorative. Williamson asked if the City was going to throw out all of the old banners. Goman stated yes. Williamson said he is against it. Hughes asked where the holiday banners would go. Goman stated they go on the other side of the pole. Rockvam stated he liked the Holiday decorations but not the banners. • Motion by Hughes seconded by Reinhardt to use the far right illustration, include the bracket for holiday decorations and include the bracket for potential future use with a banner. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. e) Administrator The following items were noted: 1. Memo Re: Real Estate Tax Implications— 8/23/05 2. September calendar Updated 3. Channels 8 &20 Schedules 4. Building & Sign Report—August 5. Miscellaneous 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT Motion made by Williamson seconded by Widmer to approve the claims for payment for September 6, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS-None 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: • Council—9/6/05 9 a) Seton Village to Three Rivers Park Dist. Re: Dakota Rail Bridge— 8/11/05 • b) Al Lehman, West Arm Road, Re: Proposed Trail &Motorized Vehicles— 8/16/05 c) Status Report—Mist Lofts- 8/31/05 1. Pay Request#7— 8/31/05 d) Status Report—Lakeview Lofts— 8/31/05 e) Letter to Neighbors of Mist Lofts Re: Approval of Early Construction Start Times — 8/16/05 f) Debbie Vertnik, 4333 Channel Rd., Re: Neighbors Complaints— 8/10/05 g) Henn. Co. Re: Installation of EVP's—8/16/05 h) Waste Management Re: Acquisition of E-Z Recycling— 8/17/05 i) Letter to Scott Balder Re: Equalization Connection Fee (Bayview Apts.) - 8/23/05 j) Letter to M. Neumann, 4405 Lafayette Ln. Re: Violation of Dock Ordinance - 8/24/05 k) Letter to J. Carroll Re: 4540 West Arm Road(Rosen) &Dock Variance— 8/31/05 11. MISCELLANEOUS-None 12. ADJOURNMENT Motion made by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to adjourn the Council Meeting September 6, 2005 at 10:00 P.M. All vote were aye. Motion declared carried. • ANGELA DARST RECORDER SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK • Council—9/6/05 10 • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA RECEIVED AGENDA SEP - 6 ZW5 COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 HEAD, SEIFERT 7:30 P.M. —CITY HALL &VANDER WEIDE 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) Council Meeting— 8/15/05 b) Special Council Meeting (Utility Rates)— 8/18/05 c) Special Council Meeting (Office Help)— 8/29/05 d) Special Council Meeting (Trailhead & Depot)—9/1/06 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS a) Hennepin County Railroad Authority(HCRRA) Re: Unauthorized Use of Right • of Way b) Construction Update—Mist Lofts c) Miscellaneous 6. ORDINANCES &RESOLUTIONS a) Resolution 05-28 —Approving & Supporting Application of Mist Lofts for Environmental Grant b) Resolution 05-30—Approving New Utility Rates c) Resolution 05-31 —2006 Proposed Levy 1. TNT (Truth-In-Taxation) 2. Memo Re: General Fund Highlights d) Resolution 05-32 - Streetscape 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES a) Mayor 1. Police Commission Meeting &Reports—8/17/05 (Motion For Approval) a) Mound Fire Dept. Re: Lord Fletcher's Deck Capacity—8/05 b) Mound Fire Dept. Re: Fire Inspection 8/25/05 c) Orono Police Dept. Re: Citation—8/19/05 b) Council—Widmer, Williamson, Reinhardt, Hughes c) Engineer 1. Schoell &Madson, Inc Re: Lift Station#6 Pay Request No. 1 —8/31/05 • 2. Schoell &Madson, Inc Re: Water Tower Pay Request No 10— 8/31/05 Council Agenda—9/6/05 1 • d) Utility Superintendent 1. Street Light Banner Design e) Administrator 1. Memo Re: Real Estate Tax Implications— 8/23/05 2. September Calendar Updated 3. Channels 8 &20 Schedules 4. Building& Sign Report - August 5. Miscellaneous 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS a) Seton Village to Three Rivers Park Dist. Re: Dakota Rail Bridge— 8/11/05 b) Al Luehmann, West Arm Road, Re: Proposed Trail &Motorized Vehicles— 8/16/05 c) Status Report—Mist Lofts— 8/31/05 1. Pay Request#7— 8/31/05 d) Status Report - Lakeview Lofts— 8/31/05 e) Letter to Neighbors of Mist Lofts Re: Approval of Early Construction Start is Times— 8/16/05 f) Debbie Vertnik, 4333 Channel Rd.,Re: Neighbors Complaints— 8/10/05 g) Henn. Co. Re: Installation of EVP's— 8/16/05 h) Waste Management Re: Acquisition of E-Z Recycling— 8/17/05 i) Letter to Scott Bader Re: Equalization Connection Fee (Bayview Apts.)— 8/23/05 j) Letter to M. Neumann, 4405 Lafayette Ln., Re: Violation of Dock Ordinance— 8/24/05 k) Letter to J. Carroll Re: 4540 West Arm Road(Rosen) & Deck Variance— 8/31/05 11. MISCELLANEOUS 12. ADJOURNMENT • Council Agenda—9/6/05 2 RECEIVED CITY OF SPRING PARK SEP - 6 20 • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA HEAD, SEIFERT MINUTES &VANDER WEIDE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (Additional Office Help) AUGUST 29, 2005 10:30 A.M.—CITY HALL Present: Rockvam, Widmer, Williamson, Reinhardt, Administrator Weeks, Attorney Beck. At this meeting all discussed the merits of and possible time line for possible hiring of additional office help. Memo from Nancy Beck has stated that advertising the potential job, while not required, would be good policy. After discussion all decided City would advertise position with the title of"office assistant". We will insert in the Laker twice, 9/3 and 9/10 and ask for response by 9/15/05. Widmer suggested the Waconia Patriot and Williamson suggested the Lakeshore Weekly News. Weeks will insure they are also used. Widmer also thought Wendy Lewin, 3880 Sunset Drive, may be interested in the position. • Rockvam suggested staff would narrow down the number of applicants for review and set possible interview later in September. Weeks stated that although Council makes final hiring decision, interviews should be done by sub-group of Council or Administrative Committee. Potential salary was noted as approximately $14 to $17 per hour to start plus overtime. This is based partially on similar position City of Minnetonka is offering. Rockvam asked Weeks to contact Joyce Farness directly and inform her of this schedule. Upcoming meeting 9/1/05 at 2:30 p.m. at the depot site to discuss potential trailhead was noted. (Weeks has also notified Hughes). Meeting adjourned at 11:20 a.m. 4illiaim D. Weeks Administrator/Clerk/Treasurer • CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 7:30 P.M. - CITY HALL Present: Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson and Rockvam; Staff present: Utility Superintendent Goman, Deputy Clerk Corl and Recorder Angela Darst; Others present: Tom Seifert, City Attorney; Gary Groen, Accountant and Mark Kammer, Auditor Rockvam stated the reason for this special meeting was to discuss Resolution 05-31, Proposed Tax Levy. He pointed out the Council needed to review and certify the tax levy before September 15, 2005 or lose the LGA and noted the proposed increase is 27% higher. He said the Council can set an amount for the levy but they could not go any higher than that figure later. Rockvam went over the 2006 Proposed Budget Highlights. He stated there are things the City might be able to take out of the proposal. Williamson stated he could not understand the rational for the $80,000 for the water and sewer reserve fund. Rockvam pointed out it is for replenishing the money taken out of the reserves for the deficit. Williamson stated he would rather use the money in the general • fund rather than burden the taxpayers. Hughes asked about the $400,000 that came from the developers for the water equalization connection fees. Groen said the money went into the water and sewer fund. Rockvam stated we should set those fees up as dedicated funds and use it as capital expenditures in the future. He said we should be trying to replenish those reserves. Rockvam referred to the original $800,000 and said the Council needed to replace that to support and maintain the system for the future. Williamson said the Council could raise rates rather than make the extraction from next year's property taxes. Rockvam stated we are not looking at increasing service fees. Williamson said this is a separate issue. Rockvam said it depends on how you want to replenish the reserves. He said the proposed increase does not include funds used for the construction of the water tower. Seifert mentioned the fact the levy is a tax-deductible way to replenish the money but that raising the rates is not and that was one of the rationales used rather than increase water and sewer rates. Reinhardt said she is more opposed to the amount than how we replenish the funds, we should have a plan and a 26% increase is large. Williamson stated the burden to the taxpayer might end up being higher. Groen stated that Presbyterian Homes would take up part of the levy. He said the amount to the taxpayer would be less. Hughes said we would see the effect of the decertification of the TIF and it would have an impact and those dollars would increase but the tax rate may increase at a smaller percentage. Rockvam said we should be receiving approximately $40,000 from the decertified TIF. Hughes said he does not see any need to replenish the reserve funds when • we have the equalization connection fees. Special Meeting—9/13/05 1 • Groen pointed out another improvement is the control panel, in the water plant, estimated to cost between $500,000 and $600,000. Groen stated that this would deplete most of the remaining balance. Hughes said we would want to pay for those expenditures over a period of time. Seifert stated we would be paying off the water tower costs during the remainder of 2005. Groen said that there would be a $550,000 balance in the funds after the Lofts' projects that would be needed in the next two years for the control panel in the water plant. Rockvam pointed out, at this rate, the City will not have the money and this is why they need to think about ways to replenish the reserve funds. Williamson said he would like to have a long-term plan first. Goman stated that the control panel was done in 1982. He said the panel takes up the entire west wall of the water plant and has had a lot of deterioration. He stated a temporary fix was done four years ago. Goman said well #3 failed in 2004 due to pump failure and burned out part of the controls and the motor starter. He added this was an indication of problems coming up. Williamson stated the upgrade wasn't as important as much as the fact it works. Goman said that they have been looking at the cost and plans for upgrading the control panel for the last three months. Reinhardt stated the City has to make a long term plan anticipating the plans for the future. Rockvam stated the City has to replenish the money coming out of the reserves. He stated that it would cost around $200,000 a piece for the sewer lift stations to be replaced. • Goman stated the wall thickness in Lift Station #1 is wafer thin. He said they would replace it with a concrete wall that will last 40 years. Williamson said the commitments seem high but the City does have the money. Groen pointed out that there is $550,000 left in the fund but with the cost of the lift stations the money would be depleted. He also stated there is a need for more future maintenance. Seifert stated there is currently a deficit in operating expenses for the water and sewer. Williamson pointed out what the reserves are for is important, large costs are pending and we have the money to meet those commitments. Groen said if the water funds are used we would have a zero balance and we basically would have spent the money in the sewer funds and they should be replenished for the future. Seifert noted there would be a 40% increase in water users when the condo projects are completed. He said it is apparent we need a CIP (Capital Improvement Plan) and we need a consultant to help with the plan and $40,000 is not a lot of money to spend for this service. He said as the system gets older, breaks, and wears out costs are incurred. Williamson stated there are lots of unknowns and we are not limited to only one choice of options. Rockvam stated the Council has to decide if they are going to replenish the reserves or not. Williamson stated he would rather have the money come out of the rates. Rockvam said that is fine as long as we look into those. Goman pointed out that there is also street maintenance that the Council has to look at. He stated that every five years they seal coat the roads and at some point they will have to be replaced. Rockvam stated they would have to budget for that but not discuss it today. Williamson stated that has been part • Special Meeting—9/13/05 2 • of the budget every five years and they can deal with that later. Goman stated he just wanted to make the Council aware that it would be an expense coming up. Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to remove the $80,000 for the water and sewer reserve funds from the levy resulting in a 15.229% increase and the amount of$792,359.00. Upon roll call Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson and Rockvam voted aye. Motion declared carried. Hughes asked if the increase we are looking at is about the difference in the salary issues. Rockvam said that is hard to determine. Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Hughes to approve the December 5th as the date for the Truth in Taxation (TNT) public hearing and December 12th as the continuation date if needed. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Rockvam said they have time to discuss water and sewer rates. He stated in October of 2004 the Council had looked at the projected income and expenses in the sewer and water funds. He said the water revenue would be $161,000 with an operating expense of $208,000 leading to a deficit of $39,180. He said that after the 2005 July figures they revisited the rates and for water and there was a deficit of$35,000. He said that the sewer shows a deficit of$30,000. Groen stated these numbers include quarter one and two with an estimate for July. Rockvam stated the Council had already had a meeting with the • accountant discussing these rates. Kammer stated they had looked at a period of time covering the last 3 years. He said the Council has to look at this like a business and it should be self-sustaining. Kammer pointed out in 2004 the revenue went down but the expense went up. He also stated the Council has to look at all the expenses coming up. He said this amount would have to come out of somewhere and the Council has to look at raising rates. Hughes stated that there are some gallons of water not billed for. Goman stated those represent water used for the beautification plan, sewer jetting and water main breaks. Rockvam stated those water losses need to be figured into the costs. Goman said we could get a better idea of monitoring where the water goes with the hydrant meters. He stated that the city has two meters that cost about $800 a piece. Goman stated the industry standard is around a 10% loss of unaccountable. Rockvam asked the accountants what their recommendation is after looking at the past three years of figures for the water and sewer. Kammer stated there is an operating loss this year and the reserves are going to be gone. He said the budget is on the edge and the Council has to consider raising the rates. He stated they could do a small rate increase now and a larger increase later if needed. Kammer stated the Council has to be proactive not reactive. Williamson stated there would be new users with the condos. Groen stated the revenue is going down and the expenses are going up. He stated the Council has to increase the rates to cover the expenses and replenish the funds. Hughes said the information he was given • does not have the same figures. He stated he is frustrated with the lack of receiving correct Special Meeting—9/13/05 3 • information and is concerned about raising the rates without knowing the correct information. Seifert stated that there is a deficit. Rockvam pointed out the audit is certified and those are the figures that should be used. Williamson stated the audit figures show they had healthy profits before. Kammer stated we have to look at going forward not where the City was years back. Williamson said there are new things happening and the Council should watch and see how that affects the expenses. Kammer asked what year they last had an increase. Goman stated it was in 1996 but then in 1998 they decreased the rate. Rockvam stated they have to look at the rates now and take a look at the reserves. He said they have a budget projection and for 2005 it will be on target. He said now is a good time for a nominal increase. He pointed out that the Council could review the rates again. Reinhardt stated they already had a meeting about this and did not feel there was enough solid information to make a decision. Rockvam stated that they have to figure out how much to increase the rates to off set the deficit. He said the figures in the audit are accurate and there will be a water loss of $39,000 and a sewer loss of$36,000. Hughes stated this is based on an estimate. Goman pointed out with one water main break they are over the estimate easily. Rockvam stated if they did an increase it would need to be quickly to help with the deficit. Williamson stated at the last meeting they stated they would hold a decision over until the next Council meeting. Hughes stated he would rather do it right then rush into an increase. Rockvam stated that was fine but they are looking at a $70,000 loss. He pointed out even if that • number comes out to half of that, it is too much. He stated currently the City has the money but we have to start looking ahead. Kammer said the Council has to make sure the operating costs are being covered. Rockvam stated the proposed rate increase would cost 26 cents a day. He added it looked like the Council was not ready to discuss a rate change tonight. Williamson said he would like to make a motion to hold this discussion over until the next meeting. Rockvam stated there are two accountants here and they should come up with a rate increase the Council could vote on at the next Council meeting. Rockvam stated the accountants could come up with an analysis. Reinhardt stated she thought that might help. Williamson said it would be good to see that before making a decision. Rockvam asked the accountants for something showing how much the City is getting in reserves quarterly. Williamson stated he would like to see something showing the different rate options. Hughes stated he looked at the number of users under the 5,000-gallon minimum and it was 25%. He said the Council has to beware of the impact on those users. Williamson stated the raise should be for the usage rate not the base rate. Groen stated that the Council would need to discuss that. Rockvam asked the accountants to bring the information to the next meeting and the Council can vote on it. Hughes stated he would not vote on this until he is convinced there is a need to. Rockvam pointed out two rate increases are better than one large increase. Hughes stated he wanted to justify the reasoning behind the increases. Rockvam stated the reasoning is to cover the operating expenses. • Special Meeting—9/13/05 4 • Hughes asked if the Council could increase the rate for two quarters and then go back to the normal rate. Rockvam stated that they have to look into the deficit and the rates further at a later time. Kammer stated if the Council just wanted to keep debating the rates then there was no point to do the analysis. Rockvam stated that they have to change the rates. He stated they could have the higher usage users pay more than the minimum usage users. He stated the CPA's would come back with information for the next meeting. Groen stated he would bring the rate deficit numbers. Goman stated they should show different kinds of scenarios. Williamson asked if they could show a least two different scenarios. Motion by Hughes seconded by Reinhardt to adjourn the Special Council Meeting at 10:15 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. ANGELA DARST RECORDER SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK • Special Meeting—9/13/05 5 k CITY OF SPRING PARK RECEIVED . SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA SEP 19 M AGENDA HEAD, SEIFERT COUNCIL MEETING &VANDER W IM SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —September 6, 2005 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS a) Construction Update—Lakeview Lofts b) Planning Commission Minutes—9/14/05 1, Recommendation Variance Request, 3880 Sunset Dr, Paul & Wendy Lewin a) NAC Re: Variance— 8/18/05 c) LMCC Budget 2006 d) Miscellaneous • 6. ORDINANCES &RESOLUTIONS a) Resolution 05-30—Approving New Utility Rates 1. Gary Groen, CPA Re: Water& Sewer 2005 Projections 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES a) Mayor b) Council—Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer c) Engineer d) Utility Superintendent e) Administrator 1. October Calendar 2. Fall Clean Up Date (Nov. 5, 2005) 3. Miscellaneous 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENTS 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS a) Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: Status Report—Lakeview Lofts—9/15/05 b) Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: Status Report—Mist Lofts— 9/15/05 • c) Mound Fire Activity Report—August 2005 Council Agenda—9/19/05 1 d) Fire Inspection/Assessment Re: Lord Fletcher's Restaurant • e) Met Council Re: Livable Communities Report—9/8/05 11. MISCELLANEOUS 12. ADJOURNMENT • • Council Agenda—9/19/05 2 CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 19, 2005 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Rockvam called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam were present. Staff present: Utility Superintendent Goman, Deputy Clerk Corl, Recorder Angela Darst; Others present: Ken Adolf, City Engineer; Tom Seifert, City Attorney; Mark Kammer, Auditor; Gary Groen, Accountant; and Planning Commissioner Mason. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Williamson seconded by Widmer to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —September 9, 2005 Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Widmer to approve the Council Minutes for September 6, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Mayor Rockvam introduced the Council and Staff to the viewing public 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS a) Construction Update—Lakeview Lofts Brian Dusek, Frostad Development, gave his report later in the meeting. b) Planning Commission Minutes—9/14/05 1. Recommendation Variance Request, 3880 Sunset Drive, Paul & Wendy Lewin a) NAC Re: Variance— 8/18/05 Motion by Hughes seconded by Reinhardt to approve the variance request for 3880 Sunset Drive to construct a roof over a non conforming deck (within 50 foot lakeside setback), the encroachment of the roof on the side yard setback of 3 feet 4 inches and the extension of the non conforming deck of 25 inches per the Planner's recommendation that the deck shall not be altered in any way to enclose it and this condition shall be recorded with the property. • Council—9/19/05 1 • In discussion Rockvam said they should address hardship and he said the hardship is the City failed to inform the Property owner of the problem until the project was 75% completed. He added neither the City nor the Lewin's ever signed the application. He said the application clearly states the Building Inspector signs. Rockvam stated the reason for the hardship should be in the motion to show the City is not setting a precedent. It was agreed to add the following to the motion: The hardship was created by the City and not by the property owner. Williamson said it was enough that statement is in the record and the motion is to approve the request. He said the public hearing record is to show circumstances are unique. Rockvam said it makes sense to incorporate the hardship, in this case, in the motion. Upon roll call Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam voted aye. Motion declared carried. In another matter in the Planning Commission Minutes, Reinhardt asked if the Planner was going to be present for the discussion on the proposed ordinance change regarding outdoor storage and sales. Hughes agreed and we should check with the Planner. c) LMCC Budget 2006 • Williamson (City representative for LMCC) stated this was self explanatory in the cover sheet accompanying the budget. He said the LMCC is a body that has been established between 16 cities on Lake Minnetonka with no authority to tax. The LMCC is obligated to inform the cities of their budget. Williamson stated the cities must approve the budget in order for it to go into effect. Motion by Williamson seconded by Widmer to approve the LMCC Budget for 2006. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Rockvam noted the franchise fee has increased by 9% over last year. Williamson said monies generated by the subscribers provide all of the public access channels. d) Miscellaneous -None 6) ORDINANCES &RESOLUTIONS a) Resolution 05-30—Approving New Utility Rates 1. Gary Groen, CPA Re: Water& Sewer 2005 Projections Rockvam stated the Council had the CPA's come up with the projections for 2005 water and sewer revenue. He read the deficit and income figures from their report. He noted the motion made at the previous Council meeting was to lay this resolution on the table to this meeting. • Council—9/19/05 2 • Motion by Hughes seconded by Widmer to put the motion back on the table. Upon roll call Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam voted aye. Motion declared carried. Motion by Widmer seconded by Williamson to approve Resolution 05-30, approving new utility rates. In discussion Rockvam stated the City has not had an increase in water and sewer rates since 1996, which was decreased in 1998. He said the Council is imposing a new increase based on the projected shortfall of the income from the remaining water and sewer expenses. Rockvam stated the increase is to cover day-to-day expenses as well as to build the reserves. He added the Council could raise the rates now and then review rates again after the end of the year. Rockvam asked what the average raise would be on the current resident accounts. Goman stated that it would be around a hundred dollars a year for sewer and water. Rockvam stated an amendment should be added to the motion to add a 5% surcharge with the increased rates. Williamson stated that it will take time to build back the reserves and there are more costs than the Council originally thought there would be. He stated that costs are rising and the City needs to adequately protect for future maintenances. Rockvam stated the Council would need to review the rates on a regular basis. Williamson stated the residents have had low rates for the last 10 years and now there is a need for the nominal increase. • Reinhardt stated that she supports this proposal with the understanding the Council will review the rates again next year. Rockvam stated the Council has to review the rates with the accountants every year. Williamson stated the surcharge should come on top of the new water and sewer rates. Kammer stated this would amount to about $7,400.00 a year. Williamson asked for an amendment to the motion to add a 5% surcharge and the maker of the motion agreed. A 5% replacement charge will be added to water and sewer usages. Upon roll call Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam voted aye. Motion declared carried. Hughes noted property owners should see the percentage increase as a replacement fund. Williamson pointed out in prior years we have not spent down those reserve funds and we did not take into account in addition to depreciation we needed more to replace costs. He said costs have increased and an eye opener was the bid for Lift Station #6 and the least painful is "to pay the dime today and save the dollar tomorrow". Rockvam said we would review this and reality is it takes a lot of money and time to replace the money in those funds, the rates are going to go up and continue to go up and we have to review rates on a more frequent basis. Reinhardt said she supports this increase for the end of this year and review it at the end of the year to see if 5% is enough. Hughes verified the 5% is for water and sewer. Seifert verified the 5% is • dedicated to the reserve fund. Council—9/19/05 3 • a) Construction Update—Lakeview Lofts Brian Dusek was present for the meeting. He discussed the current status of the Lakeview Lofts. Dusek stated the exterior of the Lofts was presently 85-90% completed. He said they are starting the interior painting and they would be 60% complete by next week. Dusek stated the exterior work should be completed around October 10`h He asked the Council if they could move the sales trailer onto the parallel parking area for around three weeks. Dusek stated they would be paving the plaza but they still have need for the sales trailer and to have it on the street for visibility for the Parade of Homes. Goman stated no complaints have been received. Williamson voiced some concern over the movement of the trailer to the street. He pointed out there would be no room to get by the area and it is illegal for a vehicle to be going under the boom trucks. Dusek stated that a vehicle in the parallel parking with the boom trucks would be impassible. Rockvam asked if they were going to need the use of the trailer while the plaza was getting paved and if they were going to be landscaping the entrances. Dusek stated he had drawings for the landscaping plan. Rockvam stated that the Council needed to vote on the plans. Dusek stated they were almost ready to start with the plan and the Council needed to give the go ahead quickly. Reinhardt asked how many units they currently have sold. Dusek stated 20 out of 39 units had been sold. He said that they were participating in the Parade Of Homes • through October 9, 2005. He stated they are now focusing on the commercial sites inside the building. Hughes asked when they were planning to move the trailer. Dusek said they were looking to move the trailer Monday. Rockvam pointed out there were disadvantages to having the trailer on the street. He said that it blocked the building and it would not be easy for potential buyers to get in and out. Seifert asked where the people would park that are coming during the Parade Of Homes. Williamson stated they could park where there were available parking spots. Seifert stated that some homes on that route had to arrange a bus for the visitors to get shuttled to and from the homes. Rockvam stated the trailer would stick out too far into the street. Dusek stated they would have to move the trailer regardless because of the paving. Hughes stated it was not okay with him to have the trailer moved to the street. Hughes pointed out the sales trailer is on its downward cycle and asked if they could just get a smaller trailer. Williamson stated he had been inside the trailer and that it had a complete kitchen, TV's and a fireplace. He said it would be hard for them to use a smaller trailer. Rockvam asked if the developer owned the trailer. Dusek stated they did own the trailer. Rockvam asked if they could move the trailer into the center section of the interior of the building. Dusek stated it would not be under the clearance height for the interior. Hughes stated he was opposed to the trailer and stairs being on the street. Reinhardt, Widmer and Williamson were also opposed. Rockvam stated the trailer could not be on . the street. Rockvam asked about any other plans. Dusek stated they had the landscaping Council—9/19/05 4 • plans and lighting designs. Rockvam stated the lighting and landscaping plans were two different things. Dusek stated they were but they go together. Rockvam stated the Council had already made a decision on the landscaping plans. Seifert stated all of that had been part of the Developer's Agreement. He pointed out the resolution was very clear and this was an important issue. Seifert asked if they were proposing to change anything. Dusek stated they were not making any changes but they had a few questions about the planters on the south. Seifert stated there was nothing in writing on this and the two letters to the City were delivered this morning but no one on the Council has had a chance to review them. 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERSS & COMMITTEES a) Mayor Rockvam stated that the Planning Commission Minutes contained a statement referring to how the Lewin's case got brought before the City. He said he had gone by the Lewin house and had noticed the building violations. He stated he had asked the Building Official to look into the situation. b) Council—Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer Reinhardt asked why the sign in front of the bait shop stated they were being forced out of business. Corl stated their current lease is expiring and the proposed new lease contains an increase in the rent that they could no longer stay in business at that location. Widmer asked about the work being done on County Road 15 and the signs for the starts • and delays. Goman stated they would be doing an overlay starting next week on County Road 15 from County Road 125 to County Road 19. He stated the county wants the entire project to be completed by the end of October. Lift Station #6 construction was briefly discussed. Goman said the water main is being moved and a storm sewer is being constructed. He said a letter was sent to residents. Williamson noted fire and police could get in to West Arm Road. In another matter Rockvam said he has not seen a spreadsheet showing pay off s of line items, etc. on this lift station. Goman said Groen is working on this. c) Engineer Adolf talked about a photometric plan that showed the classification of areas and the recommended standards for lights on Sunset and Shoreline Drive. He stated the recommended standards for level of lights is 1.1-foot candles and the minimum to maximum is a 4 to 1 ratio. Hughes stated he was concerned about the quality of lighting at the parking entrances and exits. Adolf pointed out this plan only reflects the streetlights. Rockvam stated there were four streetlights proposed. Rockvam asked if there would be a need for more light in the residential areas. Adolf stated the level of the lights in those areas is good for a residential section. Seifert asked about the lighting for the Cornerstone building. Adolf stated this plan is • only for the City street lights. Williamson stated the lowest lights are in the most Council—9/19/05 5 • important area. Adolf stated he had e-mailed the photometric plan to Hennepin County and they had e-mailed him back today stating the lighting plan was acceptable. Adolf mentioned Hennepin County is doing the overlay on County Road 15 but the section off Sunset Drive between Shoreline and Spring Street are not included on the current project. He assumes the county would pay for this and the City can require this done next year. Adolf said the best comparison of the lights is to note what is there now and compare that to what is proposed. Rockvam asked how the county roadwork would tie in with the sidewalk done from Shoreline up Spring Street. Goman said the county wants the work done by the middle of October otherwise there would be no problem. Rockvam asked if they were doing the curb also and was told yes. Adolf noted with county approval of the plan, Lakeview Lofts can do their side of the street and landscape behind the curb and the roadway could be done next year. Dusek said the final overlay on Spring Street would be done this fall. d) Utility Superintendent Widmer stated the new crosswalk by the Marina Center looks fine but it is so dark at night. Goman pointed out there are street lights out on the south side of Shoreline and the reason is there is a wiring problem for those lights. Goman said he would review the lighting at the crosswalk. He stated the center median signs are on order. e) Administrator Hughes confirmed a spreadsheet is being done for water and sewer replacement costs. • Rockvam referred to the Administrators absence due to an injury and the need to get the budget done. Goman said he and the Administrator are about 50% done with it. The availability of the accountants to work on the budget was briefly discussed. Rockvam said we have to have someone that can devote more time to our needs. Williamson said the issue is if the Administrator can prepare a working draft, and if not, and then look at the Mayor's suggestion of outside help. He said this should not be discussed in a public forum; we do not want to put undue hardship on the Administrator while he is recouping. 1. October Calendar—Noted 2. Fall Clean Up Date (Nov. 5, 2005) Motion by Hughes seconded by Reinhardt to approve November 5th as the date for the City fall clean up. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 3. Miscellaneous -None 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENTS Motion by Hughes seconded by Reinhardt to approve the claims for payment for September 19, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Widmer referred to #3, street sweeping. Goman said this was the third one for the year and • included damage from the recent storm. He added the need for another sweeping will be Council—9/19/05 6 • evaluated later in the fall. Widmer asked if the covers on the storm drains have been moved off the construction area on Sunset Drive. Goman pointed out the contractors are required to check them after each storm. Rockvam asked if the street is being swept regularly for that site because it looks like a dust storm and they do not use any water if they are sweeping. Goman will speak to the contractor. Hughes referred to #25, TIF Reports and asked what it was for. Rockvam said it was for part of the escrow accounts. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS —None 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: Status Report—Lakeview Lofts— 9/15/05 b) Head, Seifert& Vander Weide Re: Status Report—Mist Lofts—9/15/05 c) Mound Fire Activity Report—Augusts 2005 d) Fire Inspection/Assessment Re: Lord Fletcher's Restaurant e) Met Council Re: Livable Communities Report—9/8/05 11. MISCELLANEOUS -None • 12. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. ANGELA DARST RECORDER SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK • Council—9/19/05 7 • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 3,2005 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) Special Council Meeting— September 13, 2005 b) Council Meeting—September 19, 2005 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS a) Construction Update—Mist Lofts b) Northwest Tonka Lions Re: Thor Thompson Park c) Miscellaneous • 6. ORDINANCES &RESOLUTITONS 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES a) Mayor 1. Police Commission Meeting & Reports—9/20/05 b) Council—Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer c) Engineer 1. Schoell & Madson Re: Pay Request#11 Water Tank—9/26/05 2. Schoell & Madson Re: Pay Request#2 Lift Station 6—9/27/05 d) Utility Superintendent e) Administrator 1. Channels 8 & 20 Schedules 2. Building & Sign Report— September 3. Budget Workshop 10/24/05 (2 Hr Limit) 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS • Council— 10/3/05 1 • 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS a) NAC 1. To Geib, 4550 West Arm Re: Rosen Deck(4540 West Arm)—9/12/05 2. Satellite Dish Adjoining Property (4452 West Arm Road)—9/29/05 b) Lakeview Lofts 1. Frostad Development Re: Streetscape &Resolution—9/14/05 2. Head, Seifert & Vander Weide to Todd Frostad Re: Streetscape Plan— 9/21/05 3. From B. Dusek to City Re: Streetscape—9/22/05 4. Tom Seifert to B. Dusek Re: Meeting 9/28/05 5. Status Report/Escrow Summary—9/29/05 c) Mist Lofts 1. Status Report/Escrow—9/29/05 2. Pay Request#8—9/30/05 3. Street Sweeping 11. MISCELLANEOUS 12. ADJOURNMENT • • Council— 10/3/05 2 • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 3, 2005 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Rockvam called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Upon roll call Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam were present. Staff present: Administrator Weeks, Utility Superintendent Goman, Deputy Clerk Corl; Angela Darst, Recorder; Others present: Tom Seifert, Attorney; Ken Adolf, Engineer; and Planning Commissioner Mason. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Widmer to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) Special Council Meeting—September 13, 2005 Williamson noted the following corrections in the minutes for the Special Council Meeting September 13, 2005: Page one, second paragraph, third sentence, "Williamson stated he would rather use the money . . . ... Change the word "use" to "keep"; Page one, fourth paragraph, third sentence, "Rockvam stated we are not looking at increasing service fees." That sentence will be removed per Rockvam; Page two, third paragraph, sixth sentence, "Groen pointed out there is $550,000 . . .etc. will be changed to read "Groen pointed out there is $550,000 left in the water fund but the cost of the lift stations will come from the sewer fund"; Page four, third paragraph, 8"}' sentence, the word "then" should be changed to "than". Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to approve the minutes for the Special Council Meeting September 13, 2005 as amended. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. b) Council Meeting— September 19, 2005 Williamson noted the following correction in the minutes for the Council Meeting September 19, 2005: Page two, c) after the motion, "Rockvam noted . . . etc." will be changed to "Rockvam asked how much LMCC revenue had increased over last year and was told by Williamson approximately 9%"; Page three, second paragraph after the • motions, second sentence, the word "protect" should be "project" and the word "maintenances" should be singular; Page three, second to the last paragraph, second Council Meeting— 10/3/05 1 • sentence, the word "not" should be removed; The end of the same sentence should read " in addition to depreciation we needed more "money for replacement" costs. Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to approve the amended minutes for the Council Meeting September 19, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Todd Frostad, Lakeview Lofts, requested to address the Council regarding streetscape costs and modification of paint color on his building. Rockvam stated this could be 5.c) on the agenda. Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to approve the placement of Todd Frostad, Lakeview Lofts, under 5.c) Miscellaneous on the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Mayor Rockvam introduced the Council and Staff to the viewing public. 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS a) Construction Update—Mist Lofts Rockvam noted a handout that J E Dunn Construction had given to the Council. He stated that he wanted to discuss the roads going in and out of the construction and he asked if they are using a wet sweeper. Rockvam stated Sunset Drive looked better however Del Otero Avenue looked like it could use a better cleaning. Rockvam verified no one was • present for the meeting. Rockvam referred to the previous request for early starting hours for concrete pours and the City approved specific dates. Goman said we have not received any complaints from residents regarding the roadways or early start times. Goman stated they had leased a sweeper, but he believed it was a dry sweeper. He said they assured him they will be keeping the street cleaned and he will talk to them to verify if it is a wet sweeper or a dry sweeper. Goman stated he believed they had leased a sweeper that attaches to the front of a bobcat. Rockvam said when Hennepin County cleans the street they use a wet sweeper. He pointed out there was no dust and they had done a very complete job. Rockvam stated the City has to address this with them. Goman said Hennepin County had talked to J E Dunn and had informed them they would shut them down if the streets were not cleaned regularly. Rockvam again stated this was a strong concern and the winds blow the dust toward the residents. Hughes asked about their request in the last paragraph of their handout. Corl stated that she had talked to Brad Ridgeway and he said they could not start early with the pours because it is dark. Williamson said the approval for this should be on a month- to-month basis. Goman stated they had a tentative pour on Friday. Reinhardt stated she is not in favor of approving an entire month, even without any complaints. Widmer stated she would not mind if it were just for large pours. Hughes stated they were only given permission to have one piece of equipment. Rockvam said they were allowed to have the pump truck there. Council Meeting— 10/3/05 2 • Motion by Hughes seconded by Williamson to grant J E Dunn early start times for pours only for the pump truck with the request that Goman is notified of the specific dates. Williamson pointed out it is important the police are notified. Rockvam stated they hire a police officer to assist with traffic control and this should be included in the motion. Hughes and Williamson accepted the amendment. In addition J E Dunn would be asked to continue to hire a police officer to assist with traffic control. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Hughes stated he would like to see communication to them about the wet sweeper. Rockvam stated it was in the best interest of J E Dunn to have someone present for the next Council meeting. c) Miscellaneous Todd Frostad, Lakeview Lofts Todd Frostad was present for the meeting. He stated the painting on the north side of the building has been started and the color hue of the brick was different than in the brick from the samples. He said the architect and contractor changed the hue of the paint in the middle of the north building because of the color of the brick without amending the Developers Agreement. Frostad stated he wanted to bring this to the Council's attention • and he wanted to make sure this was agreeable with them. He said he needs direction from the Council regarding this. Rockvam stated one concern was they wanted to make sure the coloring blended in with the surrounding buildings and community. He said the red on the building now looks like a barn red and should be toned down. Williamson stated the color application above the brick appears to have a shiny surface versus the rest has a matte appearance. Reinhardt stated before she makes a decision she has to look at the building first. Williamson stated Rockvam had mentioned that it was like a barn red with no earth tones. He added he thought it was a correct description of how it looks. Reinhardt stated she was not on the Council when the original decision was made, but she said she could not say yes or no tonight. She stated she would need to look at the building before making any decisions. Widmer stated she had not seen the building and would also like to have a chance to look at it first. Frostad stated he is wondering if the Council could look at the building and then give him a decision soon. He stated this was all based on a time line for finishing the building. Rockvam asked him if he wanted them to look at the building and then have a phone vote. Hughes asked about the yellow color. Frostad stated it was exactly the same as the yellow paint chip. Seifert stated perhaps the Council could look over the building as individuals and then hold a special meeting to approve the colors. • Widmer stated the Council could all go and look at the building in the next few days. Rockvam asked if the Council would have enough time to do so. Seifert stated they have Council Meeting— 10/3/05 3 • to give three days notice to hold a special meeting. Hughes stated one way or another they can decide and then hold the special meeting. Williamson stated they could schedule a special meeting and then cancel it if it is not needed. Seifert stated the Council can go look at the building without a meeting but they needed to hold a special meeting to vote. Widmer said if the Council did not like the color then they should have the special meeting. Seifert suggested setting up a meeting and then canceling it if they decide they do not need one. Frostad said the only color that has changed is the red. The Council agreed to meet on Thursday October 6`h at 3:00 p.m. on the north side of the building at Lakeview Lofts. Frostad stated that the other point that he needed to discuss was the interpretation of the Developers Agreement and who is responsible for what. He said the original landscape plan called for three streetlights and they were marked on the plan where they would be placed. Frostad added since then the City has added the pavers and five more streetlights. He said his staff has not physically received the lighting plan. He referred to the 20-foot height of the poles and said they would be 6 feet above the decks and flooding into the units and he would like to see them lowered. Frostad stated there is a large difference in the overall costs of the additional lights. He said $9,000 for the pavers that would not be that big of a deal. He added the light poles are $7,000 a piece plus another $7,000 to put the lights in. He stated this was not in the • Developer's Agreement and amounts to a $50,000 difference. Frostad stated he doesn't want to argue but he wanted to address the height issue of the lights and the additional costs. Rockvam stated this was the light style that Frostad and Cornerstone had agreed upon and they had already discussed the height of the poles. Frostad stated in the original plan there were three lights and now there were eight lights. Rockvam stated Frostad has signed the Developer's Agreement and even though it was not approved at the time the agreement stated Frostad would agree to additional lights. Rockvam also stated Frostad had asked the Council to move on the plan in September. Frostad said they were not informed of the cost or the count at this time. Rockvam stated the improvements were based on previous street lighting and they did not want the street to be as dark as it was before. He said the lights on the building were not enough to cover the lighting for the area. He stated the City was favorable to guest parking spaces for his project and gave him 13 parking spaces on the street to count towards that. He said the Council felt guests and commercial space should have adequate lighting. Rockvam stated this was very important due to public safety. Frostad stated he could not discuss the plan because he had just received the plans. He stated the Council was under the impression that Frostad had looked at the plans and had approved them. Frostad stated he thought the lights looked good, but they had only budgeted for three of them. Williamson stated the lights are for public safety and illumination. He said they • have a downward direction and provide a shading affect and he thought Frostad agreed with the selection. Frostad stated they had. Goman said the fixture height is 20 feet but Council Meeting— 10/3/05 4 • the light height is at 17 feet. Williamson asked if the previous lights had been at 35 feet. Goman stated the previous lights were in fact at 35 feet. Rockvam asked what height Frostad wanted the lights. Frostad stated they would like the lights to be a height of 14 feet. Goman said the electrical engineer is looking at the shroud first and a stronger bulb and lowering the height of all the lights. He stated they had decided to leave the lights at this height for now due to maintenance and other issues. Rockvam asked if a 14-foot height was unusual. Adolf said the standard Xcel residential light is at about 14 feet. Goman stated they had talked about lowing the lights but they had wanted to standardize all the lights to be the same. He said again they could look into a stronger bulb. Frostad stated they could keep discussing the height and it sounded like the Council would be okay with a change. Frostad stated the costs are a problem for him. Williamson stated they had adopted a plan and sent it to Hennepin County and then to the developers. Frostad stated he had reviewed the plan at a meeting but he had still not yet been given a plan. Williamson asked the engineer why this had not yet occurred. Adolf stated the plan Frostad has is the one they have been talking about. It had not included the lights on the building and the plan would be sent out. He stated he only had one copy. Frostad stated he thought Spring Street would be over lighted. Williamson pointed out . the lights on the building did not offer enough light and there was a need to cover the entire street. Frostad stated from the illumination plan it looked like there would be too much light. Adolf stated Hennepin County had approved the plan. Rockvam said the Council had been more than accommodating for Frostad's project and have met most of Frostad's requests. He added there does not seem to be communication with the contractor. He stated on the plans the street did not look over lighted. He pointed out the building lights were not going to light very much of an area. Frostad stated the building lights do project out but he is not sure how far the light extends. He said his concern is the cost of the lights and the fact they are going to over light the streets. Seifert said the only set of plans the Council has approved is the Streetscape Plan and that was approved September 6th. He said the Streetscape Plan includes the lighting but it does not include the illumines, the locations and selections. He added we do not know if this is too much light and the illumine study we had was the light on the building on Spring Street. Seifert said it seemed clear there was a need for some additional lighting and it is a judgment call if too much lighting is proposed. Rockvam pointed out at the previous Council meeting we looked at a photometric study on Del Otero, Sunset and Shoreline Drives and we asked the engineer what this meant in realistic terms. Rockvam said the Council was told to look at what is there now compared to what is proposed. Frostad stated they know where the conduit needs to go and they need to get the curb in before winter. Frostad stated Xcel might tear up the curb next spring to run power • through. Goman said they would be tearing up the sidewalk by the building. He stated they had that set up for next spring. He added Hennepin County requires the curb and Council Meeting— 10/3/05 5 • gutter replaced. Rockvam asked why they can't back up the time they need to lay the concrete. Frostad stated concrete rates increase sharply after October 15`h Williamson asked what happens if the completion date of December 15`h for the project is missed. Rockvam stated the City could use the existing letter of credit until December 27`h. Frostad said if the letter of credit expires he would issue another one. Williamson suggested everyone is at the mercy of Xcel, Hennepin County, and the environment. He stated immediate action should be taken. Williamson said the work gets delayed with future discussions. He said the work might not get done until next spring and the City has to make sure they are covered. Seifert pointed out the street overlay would not be done until next summer. Frostad stated that was not part of their deal. Seifert stated each developer would be paying for half of the costs. Adolf stated that was in the Developer's Agreement and it also included the overlay for the portion on Sunset Drive. Rockvam asked how the developer could not be aware of these things. Frostad stated he was aware of paying for three streetlights but not for eight of them. Williamson stated they had been talking about streetlights since July and that someone from their office had been at the meeting. He asked why they had not raised any objection until now. Frostad stated they had urged the Council to make a decision but they were not told nor had they expected anything in the amount of$50,000 more. Williamson stated it was in • the agreement and they knew since then and wanted the City to move on the plan. Frostad stated he did not have an open checkbook. Williamson stated the City had not tried to get the most expensive lights and they picked these lights after consultation with their company. Rockvam said the decision on the lights was a matter of safety for the City. He pointed out the Council was not going to change their mind. Frostad stated he didn't think the Council knew how much the cost would be. Williamson pointed out the lights will benefit anyone going by or through this area. He stated Frostad had also known about the guest parking. Frostad stated he believed the use of those spots would be very light. Hughes stated the Council had been provided with a cost and they had come to these decisions based on safety. Frostad asked if the height of the lights was still up for discussion. Hughes stated the 20- foot height was agreed upon with the Mist Lofts as well and the Council was not going to revisit the subject. Seifert stated they had never reported to Council they would like a height of 14 feet. He said that the Mist Lofts had approved 20-foot lights. He stated that last week they had asked about having 14-foot lights. Frostad stated it was from the illumination perspective. Goman stated a delivery truck would hit the light if it were less than 17 feet. Rockvam asked if the lights hang out into the roadway. Goman stated it was dependent on placement. Williamson asked how soon the sidewalk would be done. Frostad stated they would finish it in the next two weeks and before October 15`h. Rockvam verified there would • be a representative from Lakeview Lofts at the next Council meeting. Council Meeting—10/3/05 6 • b) Northwest Tonka Lions Re: Thor Thompson park John Moonen, president of the Northwest Tonka Lions, was present for the meeting. Rockvam stated the Lions would like to donate $2500 to the City for the improvement of the ball field at Thor Thompson Park. Moonen stated they plan to use the donation money as well as volunteer labor to redo the field. He said they would bring in dirt for the outfield, scrape the infield, scrape the sod, and re-sod the infield. He said they had a concern about the drainage ditch along the road because it did not drain. Moonen asked if the City could look at it. Rockvam stated the drainage is an ongoing issue because the drain is lower than the lake level and it goes out to the lake. He verified the Lions were doing the infield themselves. Hughes asked when they were going to do the work. Moonen stated they were going to try to do it this fall if they could. Rockvam verified Goman was recommending this be done. Goman stated he is in favor of this but he had some questions about future maintenance. He asked if the City would be paying any of the costs. Moonen stated the Upper Tonka Little League would be responsible for the maintenance. Rockvam said the field would look very nice when it was done. Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to approve the proposal by the Northwest Tonka Lions to redo the ball field at Thor Thompson Park using the $2,500 donated by the Lions to the City. All votes were aye. Motion declared • carried unanimously. Williamson stated there is no down side to this and it is a great effort by the Lions. It was noted future maintenance would occur anyway. Deb Bennyhoff, president of the Little League, asked if she could speak to the Council. She stated she wanted to thank the Lions for offering to do this for the Little League. She added the Little League would be responsible for the maintenance of the field and they particularly did not want it to fall into disrepair. Bennyhoff stated the Little Leagues only concern was where to keep rakes and other equipment for the care of the field. Williamson stated a storage area would be appropriate. Goman said the City should be able to come up with something. Bennyhoff stated their program is growing each year and they are at their limit as far as having enough facilities for games. She said they would like to ask if they could use Thor Thompson for playing games as well as for practice because Wolner Field is full. Williamson asked if they would be putting up a scoreboard. Bennyhoff stated the starting age is five and they do not keep score. Reinhardt stated she would be in support of the request if the park were well run. Rockvam said he thought it was a good idea but he was concerned about parking and the City has had that issue before. 6. ORDINANCES &RESOLUTIONS—None • Council Meeting— 10/3/05 7 • 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERSS &COMMITTEES a) Mayor 1. Police Commission Meeting &Reports—9/20/05 Williamson referred to the "Cop Out"Report attached to the minutes. He stated from August 16 —August 18, 2005, there were officers absent for about an hour and a half. He pointed out they were also gone on August 19"' from 6:45 p.m. until 9:52 p m. Williamson asked if they are assisting another agency or why they left the area when they are supposed to be in the City for 24-hour service. Rockvam stated they might be leaving when there are other officers covering us. He said he understands the mutual aid agreement. Williamson said this pattern did not continue through August, but for just those three days. Hughes asked if they volunteered to assist with a call or they are instructed to do so. Williamson said it is based on request. Hughes said he would like that to be followed up on. Hughes inquired about and the citation issued to Lord Fletcher's and requested Williamson follow up and if no further issues occur, this would be dropped from the record. Widmer stated she had read a comment in the paper about the burglaries in Orono. Goman said the burglaries were occurring all over the area. Rockvam stated some windows at City Hall were broken. Williamson said the Police indicated the situation was under investigation and they were pursuing the perpetrators. Widmer asked • when the streetlights at the Marina Shopping Center crosswalk were supposed to get fixed. Goman stated hopefully it would be done by Thursday. Widmer also asked if they could put flashers at the new crosswalk. Goman stated the center sign was ordered and flashers could be on that sign. b) Council—Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer Hughes asked if the Council would get the budget information before the meeting on October 24th. Weeks stated the information would be available the middle of the week before. Williamson stated a few meetings ago the Council had talked about the water rates used to bill the City of Orono when the interconnect is used and what we pay when we buy water from Orono. He asked what the measured accounting of the amount was. Goman stated there was a 6 million gallon difference and the rate for each City was an average between each city's rates. Williamson inquired about estimates on water used for beautification and flushing the sewer lines and costs allocated accordingly and if they were placed back in the water fund. Goman said Norling used his own water for beautification this season, not City water and he does not yet have records on the flushing but hopes to have it for the budget discussion. • Council Meeting— 10/3/05 8 Williamson stated he would also like to see a statement on the status of the investments. He stated the last one they received was in July from the month of June. Weeks stated Gary Groen has that information and they would have a report by the end of the week. Williamson stated in regard to Lift Station #6, he would like to see a spreadsheet showing the expenses. Rockvam said he would like to see a breakdown of costs with a running total accompanying a pay request. Weeks said any pay requests in the future would include a spreadsheet. Seifert stated a report should include what has been spent as well as what is left to pay. Rockvam said the attorney or staff should do this every month. c) Engineer 1. Schoell &Madson Re: Pay Request#11 Water Tank—9/26/05 Adolf stated he has a summary of the contract amount and a list of all the payments made to date and it can be seen what is outstanding on the contract, including change orders and miscellaneous expenses. He stated the amount on the tank is a contract amount. Rockvam stated this was not realistic of actual costs. Adolf stated the amount of$12,160 is for the removal of the existing tank. Williamson asked if there would be additional requests. Adolf stated there is restoration work to be done and the Council had retained 5% until the work is completed. He said the restoration is figured in Maguire Iron's bid, the bid amount was $708,225, after this payment the amount paid would be $648,280, and the amount remaining would be about $60,000. Rockvam asked if the driveway at City Hall would be done this fall. Goman stated at least the upper driveway portion would be done this fall and the rest finished next spring. Williamson stated the parking lot is on the wish list. Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to approve pay request #11 for the water tank for the amount of $12,160.00. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. 2. Schoell &Madson Re: Pay Request#2 Lift Station 6—9/27/05 Adolf said the project is 19% completed. Hughes said this amount is for two different projects, one being for West Arm Road. He was told the portion of West Arm Road is part of the project. Rockvam said he would like a spreadsheet started for this project also. Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Widmer to approve the pay request #11 for Lift Station #6 for the amount of $87,652.21. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. In a miscellaneous matter, Adolf wanted to clarify what transpired at a meeting last week with both developers. He said the intent was to work out issues with the lighting system and he thought they accomplished who was going to pay for what. He stated some things were clearly defined in the developer's agreements and the streetlights were an area not initially defined. Rockvam stated the costs were Council Meeting— 10/3/05 9 • Williamson question what utility base mapping was for the payment to Schoell & Madson. Goman said they are updating the water and sewer maps for the City. Williamson asked the accuracy of the information. Goman said there is a 2-foot variance on each side of a marked line. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS—None 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted if not previously discussed: a) NAC 1. To Geib, 4550 West Arm Re: Rosen Deck(4540 West Arm)—9/12/06 2. Satellite Dish Adjoining Property(4452 West Arm Road)—9/29/05 b) Lakeview Lofts 1. Frostad Development Re: Streetscape &Resolution—9/14/05 2. Head, Seifert & Vander Weide to Todd Frostad Re: Streetscape Plan—9/21/05 3. From B. Dusek to City Re: Streetscape—9/22/05 4. Tom Seifert to B. Dusek Re: Meeting 9/28/05 5. Status Report/Escrow Summary—9/29/05 c) Mist Lofts 1. Status Report/Escrow—9/29/05 2. Pay Request#8—9/30/05 • 3. Street Sweeping 11. MISCELLANEOUS—None 12. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to adjourn the Council Meeting on October 3, 2005 at 10:15 P.M. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. ANtELA VARST RECORDER ILL AM D. W ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER Council Meeting— 10/3/05 11 CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 17, 2005 7:30 P.M. —CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—October 3, 2005 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS a) Tom Scanlon, LMCD 1. LMCD Executive Newsletter— 10/3/05 b) Planning Commission Minutes— 10/12/05 1. Recommendation—CUP Norling's Lake Mtka. Landscapes, 4016 &4032 Shoreline Drive • a) NAC Re: CUP— 10/4/05 b) Schoell &Madson Re: CUP— 10/7/05 c) Construction Update - Lakeview Lofts d) Mist Lofts e) Miscellaneous 6. ORDINANCE &RESOLUTIONS 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES a) Mayor 1. Administrative Committee Minutes— 10/13/05 b) Council—Hughes,Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer c) Engineer 1. Schoell &Madson Re: LS #6—Change Order, Request#8— 10/13/05 2. Head, Seifert&Vander Weide to Schoell &Madson Re: Streetscape Plan 10/7/05 3. Schoell &Madson Re: Streetscape Plan— 10/13/05. d) Utility Superintendent e) Administrator 1. November Calendar(Budget Workshop 10/24) 2. Three Rivers Park District Re: Draft Dakota Rail Master Plan— 10/7/05 3. September Reports a) Cash& Investments & CD's • b) September Cash Balances YTD Claims— 10/17/05 1 • c) Expenditure Guideline By Dept. YTD d) Miscellaneous 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS a) Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: Status Report Lakeview Lofts— 10/13/05 b) Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: Status Report Mist Lofts— 10/13/05 c) Head, Seifert &Vander Weide Re: Notice of Default— 10/4/05 (& Copy of Check) d) E-mail communications from J E Dunn to OPD Re: Traffic Control— 10/5 & 10/6/05 e) E-mail from Weeks to Ridgeway Re: Meeting Attendance— 10/7/05 f) Invoice from Norling's Re: Beautification Breakdown Request from 10/3/05 Claims g) Fire Dept. Monthly Report& September Calls for City h) Overview of Tandem Lots &Driveways 1. Christensen & Laue PA Re: 4492 West Arm Road 2. NAC's Response to Christensen& Laue—9/29/05 3. NAC—Tandem Lots &Driveways— 10/6/05 • i) Newsletter j) Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: MN Gov't. Data Practices Act— 10/13/05 11. MISCELLANEOUS 12. ADJOURNMENT • Claims— 10/17/05 2 CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 17, 2005 7:30 P.M. - CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Rockvam called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam were present. Staff present: Administrator Weeks, Deputy Clerk Corl, Utility Superintendent Goman, and Recorder Angela Darst. Others present: Ken Adolf and Brian Vitek, City Engineers; Tom Seifert, City Attorney; and Planning Commissioner Mason. 3. ADOPT THE AGENDA Motion by Williamson seconded by Widmer to adopt the agenda for the October 17, 2005 Council Meeting. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • 4. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES - October 3, 2005 Williamson stated that he would like the minutes corrected to show the word illumine changed to the correct word lumen. Motion by Hughes seconded by Reinhardt to approve the amended Council Meeting minutes from October 3, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Mayor Rockvam introduced the Council and Staff to the viewing public. 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS a) Tom Scanlon, LMCD 1. LMCD Executive Newsletter— 10/3/05 -Noted Scanlon moved to the next Council agenda in November. b) Planning Commission Minutes— 10/12/05 1. Recommendation—CUP Norling's Lake Mtka. Landscapes, 4016 &4032 Shoreline Drive a)NAC Re: CUP— 10/4/05 b) Schoell &Madson Re: CUP— 10/7/05 George Norling was present. Rockvam read the Planning Commission's unanimous motion for recommendation. He verified this is a CUP and Norling does not have to get a variance for hardcover. Weeks stated the CUP is for outdoor storage of plant material. • Council— 10/17/05 1 Norling stated his business is landscape design, construction and planting of • landscaping materials and he plans to construct an office and shop. He said they would store plants and landscape materials on the site. Widmer asked what kind of landscape material they would store. Norling said it would be nursery stock and hard goods. Norling displayed his site plan and stated he has three plans for the site, a grading, drainage and a planting plan. He said the front of the building facing Shoreline Drive would be a brick faced structure. Rockvam asked if the work area would be asphalt or concrete. Norling stated they were originally thinking asphalt, but now they are going to do limestone that is better for the pervious surface square footage. He said the engineer is going to review the pervious surface calculations but they are well within compliance. Norling said he plans to have a painted fence that resembles black wrought iron, a wood privacy fence and a chain link fence. Hughes asked how much of the area he would be using for storage. Norling stated it would be about 20-25%. Rockvam asked if that area would be screened. Norling stated yes. Reinhardt asked how the existing structure would fit into his business. Norling stated he was concentrating on cleaning up the blight and has not made a decision as to what its use would be. Reinhardt asked if he was planning to combine the two properties. Norling stated he was not. Williamson asked about the building elevation. Norling stated in order to save the trees they have to keep the building elevated. Williamson asked Norling to identify the trees he wanted to save. Norling said there were three maples they were planning to save and he would be planting additional trees. • Rockvam asked where the rain garden and infiltration area is in relation to the water tower. Norling said it is on the Warren Avenue portion of the property. Reinhardt asked for an explanation of this area. Norling said the grade of material on the surface allows the water to pocket and infiltrate in the soil. He added he wants Warren Avenue to have an attractive front and the work area screened. Norling stated calculations were done on storm discharge rates and there would not be anymore runoff than what the City now experiences. Rockvam asked how deep the rain garden is and Norling said it was 1,800 cubic feet. He added he would like to have a fountain but it is best to have the soil soak in. Williamson asked the average elevation in relation to City property. Norling said his property is lower and he may have a small retaining wall. Reinhardt asked what "pave" is. Norling said it would look like limestone. Norling was asked what surfaces he would have on the property. He said there would be gravel behind the existing structure, a bituminous parking lot by the proposed shop, and concrete on Shoreline Drive and he would blend in all three surfaces. Widmer asked if there would be an entrance on Shoreline Drive for the shop. Norling stated he would like a future curb cut that would have to be approved by the county. Widmer verified the entrance would be on Shoreline and the exit off Warren until any future curb cut. Norling stated there would be an entrance on Warren and Shoreline . Drive. Widmer pointed out the entrances would have to be changed appropriately if the lots were divided. Williamson asked if the driveways themselves would be the Council— 10/17/05 2 same materials in the back or if they would be paved. Norling stated they would be • paved. Hughes asked where the well is on the property. Norling stated the well is on the City's right-of-way. Hughes asked where it was in relation to the driveway. Norling stated it was within the traveled area. Norling pointed out this was a test well to monitor leakage coming from the Spur Station and it would be pulled out soon. Goman stated the PCA might not be taking it out for 5 to 10 years. He stated the well could be moved to a different location, but he was not sure to where. Williamson asked who paid for the expense of having it moved. Goman stated the firm in charge of the Spur Station was responsible. Rockvam asked if there was a possibility of moving the driveway location. Goman stated it was accessed once a month and the well was around 30 feet deep. Motion made by Hughes seconded by Reinhardt to approve the CUP for outdoor storage for Norling's Lake Mtka. Landscapes at 4316 and 4332 Shoreline Drive. In discussion Rockvam verified the Council was approving the CUP only. Hughes stated yes and any other issues could be worked out at a later time. Williamson disagreed and said if the City approved the CUP, Norling would not have to come back to the Council. He said he wanted it to be clear the City was not responsible for any cost for moving the well. Hughes stated he was okay with adding that as a friendly amendment to the motion. Reinhardt stated she was also okay with adding • the amendment to the motion. The City would be held harmless for costs for the well. Upon roll call Hughes, Reinhardt, Widmer and Rockvam voted aye and Williamson voted no. Motion declared carried. c) Construction Update- Lakeview Lofts Todd Frostad, Frostad Development Co., was present. He stated the manhole covers were finished; the front edge of the building is being cleaned up, the final asphalt would be laid on Spring Street October 23`d; conduits are being installed for the electrical plan and are partially under Spring Street. Rockvam asked if the sidewalks were installed. Goman stated Xcel has installed the first transformer but they had not yet done the wiring. Frostad stated the disputes would not impede the ability to finish the sidewalks and pavers. Goman stated the timing was an issue. He stated Spring Street would have to be torn up later and he pointed out this issue was not yet resolved. The conduit for the streetlights was discussed. Weeks asked who would make the decision about what has to be done. Goman stated Xcel would make the decision in the next six weeks. Rockvam asked if they would have to tear up Spring Street. Goman stated they would need to tear up 6 feet in from the north south portion of Spring Street at Sunset Drive. Rockvam asked why Xcel had put in larger conduit for the transformer. Goman stated the customer supplies the conduit. Rockvam asked if the contractors had • met with Xcel. Goman stated they had. Frostad stated they are trying to finish before it snows. He said he was frustrated with the additional cost of having to tear up the street. Council— 10/17/05 3 Frostad stated another issue they had was with the photometric study. He stated he had • meet with Cornerstone and felt the area would be over lit and felt there was a way too manage lighting from a design standpoint. He added the situation could be looked at from a distribution point and let that dictate where the poles are. He said they would like to decrease their costs. Rockvam stated the City had already spent a lot of time discussing the photometric study and the City does not feel the area is excessively lit. Frostad asked if there was a way to position the lights but lower the amount of poles. Rockvam stated the Council was not going to redesign the plans. Frostad argued they were not told of the amount of poles until after the plan was done. He said he is fine about going with the same lighting standards but without such high costs. Rockvam stated Frostad had come to the Council and the fixtures were decided on. He stated Frostad had known what the fixtures were going to cost. He pointed out Frostad had asked the Council to move quickly and decide on the fixtures. Frostad stated the issue was the amount of fixtures being asked for. He said they were not presented with that until after the Council had approved it. He stated they had planned for three in their budget, but now there are eight fixtures proposed. St Pierre, from Cornerstone, stated they went from sixteen to twenty-two lights. She said they had helped pick the fixture but the amount of poles had increased without their knowledge. She stated the Mist Lofts loved the poles but it would increase their budget by $150,000. St Pierre stated this was money they could spend on something else, this was never discussed with them and there should be something else that could be done. She said there has been lack of communication with both developers regarding the streetlights. • Reinhardt pointed out this streetscape issue had been on the Council's agenda at least five times. She asked how the developers had known about the plan. Frostad stated that no one had discussed the number of poles with them until recently. Williamson stated this would hold up the work getting done. He said the developers were present at the meetings when updates were made. Williamson pointed out that the Council had visited this plan over and over again. He said this was all in the Developer's Agreements and he was not ready to discuss this issue again. Frostad stated this was not in the Developer's Agreement. Seifert stated this was left as an open item. He said the Council had already received a lumen study and adopted the plan. Rockvam stated there would be 159 new residential units and this was a public safety issue. Frostad stated they had spoken to a consultant to figure out how they could have the same effect with less lights and locations, while maintaining the safety. Seifert said this was a good effort to tweak the plan but it was almost November and the plan would have to be compared to any new plan. He said it would take weeks to get it worked out. Lisa Chaput from Michaud, Cooly, and Erickson was present. She stated she had been asked by the developers to look at the plan and find a way to make it work with less lights. She stated the rhythm of the lights were different and there were a few areas where the lights overlap. Rockvam asked how multi million dollar projects would break the developers if they pay $150,000 for lights. St Pierre stated she objects to the plans they had never seen until • September 15`h. Seifert stated this plan was not a secret from the developers. Rockvam stated the Council assumed the developers had known about the costs. Seifert pointed Council— 10/17/05 4 out the developer's plan had nothing in it stating the number of poles. Frostad stated on • the original lighting plan they had three poles, but this one has eight poles. Seifert stated the Council wouldn't argue about this any more. Frostad stated both developers' were okay with having the 20-foot poles in public roadways. Chaput stated the developer's were interested in lowering the amount of lights. Reinhardt asked if she had anything to show the Council tonight. Chaput stated she did have a plan to show. Rockvam stated the Council had bent over backwards to make this work and it was very offensive the developer's were coming to the Council with this issue now. He pointed out the Council has accommodated the developers the entire time. He stated there must have been a communication problem between the professional staff and the developers. Goman stated the communications had been coming from Adolf, Vitek, and himself. Chaput displayed the plan and locations of poles in terms of 14-foot poles. She said the locations would stay somewhat constant but some double-headed poles would be changed to single headed poles. Williamson questioned the elimination of foot-candles. Williamson stated the higher poles double the coverage area but it lowers the intensity. He said the lights in the parking area by the garage could not be taken out. Chaput stated there was no reason to have two lights so close to each other and they could shift the lights over. Williamson stated this was a 16-17% decrease in lighting for the parking lot area. Rockvam asked if the Council held a special meeting regarding streetlights what would the developers accomplish. Frostad stated it could be around $200,000. • St Pierre wanted a copy of the current plans. She stated the original plans had no raised medians. Goman stated it was only preliminary pricing on the streetscape plans. St Pierre stated the only plans they currently have are the original plans. Seifert stated the only plan was adopted on August 26"' and that plan was sent to them. Adolf stated the only adjustment to the plan was one light and the raised pavers. Rockvam stated the Council wanted the raised medium. He pointed out the City's main concern was public safety not the cost. Rockvam stated they had been accommodating the developer's the entire time. He said the Council had been rushed for a decision and the developers had not previously complained about the cost. Hughes asked the number of lights the developers were trying to change. Chaput stated for the Lakeview Lofts there were three or four lights plus the wiring. She stated for the Mist Lofts there were around five lights. Rockvam stated if the Council redrafted a plan it would take about a month to finish. Seifert stated the Council should direct its attention to the Lakeview Lofts since it will be done soon. He stated the Mist Lofts would not be finished until next summer. The Council was shown the new proposed lighting plan. After a lengthy discussion, Rockvam stated the Council would be going with the existing lighting plan. Reinhardt stated there might be a possibility to tweak the Mist Lofts plan. Rockvam stated any meetings regarding this the staff needs to have both developers attend. • Williamson stated there was one more issue to deal with for Frostad's project. Seifert stated there was a letter sent to the Council from Frostad regarding the colors on the Council—10/17/05 5 building. He stated the Council had been presented with a drawing for the building • showing a red color and the Council wanted to see more of a brown tone in the color. Seifert said the Council should give Frostad a yes or no on this issue. Rockvam stated the color was not the color that was represented to the Council. He stated the Council would agree to the color if it were more of a brown tone. Frostad stated he needed feedback. Rockvam stated if the developer had gone with the original samples, the color would have looked good. He pointed out this needed to blend with the entire area and the City was looking for more earth tones. Frostad stated he would discuss this issue with this lawyer. Seifert stated the non-production of the invoice requested for the brick is admission the wrong brick is on the building. d) Mist Lofts Brad Ridgeway, J E Dunn, was present for the meeting. He stated progress on the north building was ahead of schedule; the exterior foundation walls are being backfilled; fire protection systems and the elevator have begun; level four is forming up and the pours for that are scheduled for October 6th and 20`h. He stated the south building is above grade and level two has been started; foundations are going up around the outside stairwells. Ridgeway said with the heavy rains there was a lot of mud on the roadway and he apologized for that. Ridgeway said they had rented additional equipment that uses water for sweeping the streets. He stated they would like to ask permission for extra hours for the large pours. Hughes stated in the last Council minutes they had discussed the need for a wet sweeper. • He pointed out this was not getting done. Ridgeway stated the old truck did not have water and they have a new service to do that. Williamson stated he observed the trucks at the site on a windy day and the cement mixer created a cloud of dust that coated the neighboring shrubs. He said he never saw any water used and the sweeper was actually creating more dust. Williamson added the sweeper left debris all over the street. Ridgeway stated they were using a bobcat with a brush that did not have water, but at the end of the day they used a sweeper with water. Rockvam stated he also had not seen any water being used. St. Pierre stated they had asked to have pictures taken of the work being done. Hughes stated cleaning with water at the end of the day is one thing but what about the rest of the day. Ridgeway stated the water trucks are only practical in some situations. St. Pierre stated they would continue to work on fixing the problem and they would get back to the Council about it. Ridgeway stated they would be open to suggestions and would be proactive and address problems more frequently. Mason stated he made a request to St Pierre to have the cement hoppers placed in a different position. Ridgeway stated they do not have any place to move it right now and it exceeds the load for the crane. Rockvam verified they were again requesting the pump trucks to come early. Motion by Widmer seconded by Reinhardt to approve the early start times of October 201h, 25th and 26th for concrete pours for J E Dunn and the police department notified if the dates changed. Upon roll call Reinhardt, Widmer and • Rockvam voted aye and Williamson and Hughes voted no. Motion declared carried. Council— 10/17/05 6 Rockvam asked when they were putting in the walls between the floors. Ridgeway • stated that would be done this week. Rockvam said they have to discuss the exterior colors with the Council especially the brick on the east end and it blending with the existing brick buildings in the area. St Pierre stated they would like to also discuss their schedule board and the change in landscape plan. Weeks stated this would be put on the agenda for the next regular Council meeting. e) Miscellaneous-None 6. ORDINANCES &RESOLUTIONS -None 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES a) Mayor 1. Administrative Committee Minutes— 10/13/05 Widmer said there was a correction in the number of applications reviewed by the Administrative Committee. She said they reviewed two, not five. Rockvam stated he had a request from a resident that the City provides a compost site for residents to use for their leaves. The Council decided to discuss this at the budget meeting. Reinhardt stated she would encourage everyone to look at the "Draft Master Plan" for the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority. She said a trailhead in Spring Park is not mentioned and this could be lack of communication of their part. Weeks will check to see if they could attend a Council meeting. • b) Council—Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer Reinhardt stated the Metropolitan Council would be doing its update on the cities for 2008 and inquired about City costs incurred by this. Williamson asked if the City had checked into Orono's water billing and the 6 million gallon difference. He asked how much money was involved and if Orono had the bill. Goman stated they had not yet had a chance to discuss this with anyone from Orono. Williamson pointed out this is around $12,000 and the Council needs to make sure it is accounted for. Williamson stated he had a conversation with the police chief about the vandalism at the LMCC on Sunset Drive. He stated the LMCC had repaired the window and then another rock was thrown through the window again. Williamson said the police chief had discussed having a reward fund to help catch the people that were vandalizing. He stated he thought the Council might want to think about that. He said the reward could be given out when a conviction for the crime occurred. Rockvam asked if the City had to come up with the money. Williamson stated yes, but he was just mentioning the idea. Widmer asked if the lighting at the Marina Shopping Center was fixed. Goman stated it was repaired. He said one light was still out and it will be repaired. Widmer asked how long it would be until the sign for the middle of the street would arrive. Goman stated it was shipped and should arrive tomorrow. Williamson pointed out there is a light out at the Cornerstone site. Goman stated he would call that in tomorrow and the response time • is within 24 hours. Council—10/17/05 7 Hughes asked if the tennis courts would be finished this year. Goman stated hopefully it • would be done this fall. c) Engineer 1. Schoell &Madison Re: LS #6—Change Order, Request#8 — 10/13/05 Adolf said this is just information not requiring any action and he felt it was important to bring the amount to the Council. Rockvam asked who is doing the soil borings. Adolf stated it is Braun Intertec. Adolf stated that Schoell & Madison did borings a in the 60's and there should not be any change. He added those records no longer exist and the appropriate steps were taken to provide accurate information. Adolf stated that the contractor determined the means and methods. He said they couldn't prevent them from writing a letter like this asking for money. Hughes pointed out this is costing more and more money. Adolf stated that they were investigating this and he will get back to the Council with the facts. He said he reviewed the information and facts do not match up. He said the next step is to have a technical engineer do his own analysis. Goman said there have been problems with hours, materials and equipment. Rockvam stated they had been originally given a bid of$300,000 on the lift station but all of the bids had come back higher. Hughes pointed out the winter rates are not part of the bids. Reinhardt asked if the contractors specify the method of the construction. Adolf stated none of the contractors specify method. Reinhardt asked • if that was normal for them not to. Adolf stated yes it was normal. Seifert asked if they could move the location. Adolf stated they had already committed to that location and it is a restrained area. He stated he feels there are alternatives to what is being proposed and he will try to obtain concrete information. 2. Head, Seifert & Vander Weide to Schoell &Madison Re: Streetscape Plan— 10/7/05 3. Schoell &Madson Re: Streetscape Plan— 10/13/05 Rockvam noted the City does not know anything about lift stations, wells and streetscaping, etc. so we hire professionals to do that work and we have spent too much time on all of this. Adolf said the starting point was the lighting plan the developer put together and submitted and the City tried to improve the coordination of the two developments, made some additions and the plan ended up being the plan the City wanted. He said that attempt was to enhance the coordination. He said the City does not have standards regarding this and that resulted in taking longer time. d) Utility Superintendent - No Report e) Administrator 1. November Calendar(Budget Workshop 10/24/05) -Noted 2. Three Rivers Park District Re: Draft Dakota Rail Master Plan— 10/7/05 -Noted 3. September Reports - Noted a Cash & Investments & CD's is b) September Cash Balances YTD Council—10/17/05 8 c) Expenditure Guidelines By Dept. YTD • d) Miscellaneous -None 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Widmer to approve the claims for payment for October 17, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS —None 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: Status Report Lakeview Lofts - 10/13/05 b) Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: Status Report Mist Lofts— 10/13/05 c) Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: Notice of Default— 10/4/05 (& Copy of Check) d) E-mail Communications from JE Dunn to OPD Re: Traffic Control - 10/5 & 10/6/05 e) E-mail from Weeks to Ridgeway Re: Meeting Attendance— 10/7/05 f) Invoice from Norling's Re: Beautification Breakdown Request from 10/3/05 Claims g) Fire Dept. Monthly Report & September Call for City h) Overview of Tandem Lots &Driveways 1. Christensen & Laue PA Re: 4492 West Arm Rd 2. NAC's Response to Christensen& Laue—9/29/05 3. NAC —Tandem Lots &Driveways— 10/6/05 • Rockvam pointed out tandem lots are prohibited. He verified if this property owner is going to put a driveway on the west side where the easement is they need a variance. He asked who paid for the planner's opinion on this. Weeks said their attorney sent a letter to the City and the City forwarded the inquiry to the planner. i) Newsletter j) Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: MN Gov't Data Practices Act - 10/13/05 11. MISCELLANEOUS Rockvam announced there would be a special meeting to discuss the hiring of the new employee immediately following the Council meeting. 12. ADJOURNMENT Motion made by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to adjourn the Council Meeting for October 17, 2005 at 11:00 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. ANGELA DARST RECORDER • ILLIAM D. VY EEKS ADMEN ISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER Council— 10/17/05 9 CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OCTOBER 17, 2005 CITY HALL 1. Resolution 05-33 —Offer of Employment 2. Employment Contract The meeting commenced at 11:05 p.m. and the Council roll remained the same as for the regular Council Meeting. Others present: Administrator Weeks, Deputy Clerk Corl and City Attorney Tom Seifert. Rockvam stated the purpose of this meeting is to review the recommendation made by staff for hiring an Office Assistant. It was verified both staff were in agreement with the final decision. Seifert recommended a background check done on the applicant. Rockvam verified the staff was in agreement with the final decision. • The Council briefly discussed the applications qualifications for the position. They also discussed a probationary period, when a review should take place and salary. Hughes noted the contract should be changed to state the annual review would occur when the budget was approved. Motion by Hughes seconded by Reinhardt to approve Resolution 05-33, offer of employment to Joyce Farness with the starting salary to be $14.50 per hour, pending the results of the background check. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. The Council was in agreement to remove the last sentence of the contract which read "Upon completion of the six month probationary period, the Employee's salary shall be: per hour". The special meeting was adjournment at 11:38 p.m. SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK c f • ILL D. WEEK ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER a s CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES COUNCIL BUDGET WORKSHOP OCTOBER 24, 2005 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL (2-Hour Limit) 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Rockvam called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam were present. Staff present: Administrator Weeks, Utility Superintendent Goman Deputy Clerk Corl; others present; City Attorney Tom Seifert and Planning Commissioner Mason. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Williamson seconded by Widmer to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • 4. BUDGET DISCUSSSION (2006 Proposed Budget) a) Revenue Pages 1 & 2 of 2 (Dated 10/24/05) b) Expenditures Pages 1 thru 9 of 9 (Dated 10/24/05) (All 2005 YTD column amounts are through September 30, 2005) c) Additional Information d) Snow Plow History e) Proposed 2006 Salary(Proposed Amounts Reflect 8% Increases Over 2005) The above communications were noted in the discussion of the proposed budget. Rockvam stated he would like two columns added to the right side of the budget, one for the difference from the previous year (plus or minus) and the other column indicating the percentage of the difference. It was noted an additional Administrator position (plus the current Administrator) and the Office Assistant position are additional increases in salary; two Administrator salaries is for one year only; in reality the increase in salaries is for this reason. Page 1 (General Fund Revenue) First 2 pages are revenue Noted: In Lieu of Taxes from Presbyterian Homes is the same. Rockvam noted Fiscal Disparities is down to zero. Weeks explained the State of MN gives monies to individual taxpayers and this is a credit given back to cities in two different state payments. • Williamson explained the distribution of credits relating to the tax base. The Council reviewed the revenue budget for licenses. Weeks noted the 2005 amount for 32180, Other Budget Meeting— 10/24/05 1 Licenses/Permits/Mech/Pl, reflects the new developments. He said the revenue for the most • part is `pass through' revenue. Rockvam asked if the City makes any money on permits. Weeks pointed out most of the revenue goes to Orono for inspections. Williamson asked why the budgeted amount for Building Permits is lower than in 2004. Goman pointed out 2004 was a year for storms resulting in building repairs. Hughes asked how the revenue relates to what we are paying out. Weeks referred to 42400, Building Inspection, that shows where the money is spent. Rockvam verified the fees related to building are set by the state. Hughes questioned what we are paying out versus what is coming in and it was determined we make some money on the building permits. Rockvam pointed out we should note the revenue from 33401, Local Government Aid, because we may not get it all. Recycling was noted. Weeks pointed out the amount comes from Hennepin County. Williamson noted 34103, Variance Requests, the fee is impossible to predict. Hughes asked if CUP's are included here. Weeks said it is not in the revenue. Rockvam asked what the money is used for from the variance fee. Hughes referred to page 3, 41910-310, Contracted Services, and the proposed amount of $8,000. Weeks said variance revenue would go against that amount. Rockvam said it does not make sense if we take in $850 and spend $8,000. Williamson requested the average number of variances per year for the next meeting. Dance and Police Fees were noted. Hughes asked if we would be getting more revenue from Lord Fletcher's Restaurant from their bands outside. Weeks said we should not count • on it for income. Rockvam asked the Council if the amount should be left or increased. Williamson said our only sound assumption is to carry over the amount from last year. Reinhardt asked what Apartment Recycling is based on. Weeks said it was per the contract. Court Fines were noted as being proposed at a higher amount. Weeks said the figure was based on the fines for the second half of this year. Rockvam pointed out Interest Earnings are higher than last year. Weeks said the figures are from the accountant. Rockvam said we should earn more than that. Seifert said the average is in the General Fund. Williamson said we have close to one million dollars and the City is required to keep half of that liquid. The Council briefly discussed investing in CD's and the money market. Rockvam said we would not want to reduce the proposed amount in the budget. Weeks said it could be reviewed at the end of the year. Hughes inquired about Contributions & Donations. Williamson said those are non- attributed. Weeks clarified the fund is not for gambling receipts. Rockvam pointed out it is for benefactor funds. Reinhardt asked what Refunds and Abatements category is used for. Weeks said they are used for receipts from insurance claims i.e. new roof for City Hall. He said this differs from the LMCIT Dividend that is money we receive if our insurance claim record is good. It was noted Gambling Revenue is down due in part to the loss of the Mist. Page 2 (Revenue) Tower Antenna Rental is going up. Weeks said there are currently two companies renting • space on the tower and there is room for a third company. Williamson asked if this revenue belongs in the General Fund versus the Water Fund. Weeks said it has always been in the Budget Meeting— 10/24/05 2 General Fund. Rockvam pointed out the water tower is what supports it and theoretically • the Water Fund could charge rent to the General Fund for the antennas. He said we would not be renting the space without the tower. Hughes said the revenue would help replace the reserves in the Water Fund. Williamson said to leave it for budget purposes until we see the effect of the new rates. The proposed total for the General Fund Revenue is $1,047,815. Water Fund Weeks pointed out Water Sales are right on target. Rockvam referred to Replacement Charge and said the word `reserves' should be added to clarify what it is for. Williamson said we should have what is on the water bill in this category. Rockvam pointed out the Water Fund revenue proposed income total is $175,325 and on page 8 the total for Water Fund proposed expenses are $212,186. Williamson said we have raised the rates and the funds generated have yet to be evaluated. Sewer Fund Interest Earnings were noted. Weeks said it is being projected and the fund is going down because of construction. Rockvam said that account is closer to balancing. Page 1 (General Fund Expenditures) Mayor & Council - It was clarified the Recording Service is for the minute taking. Hughes questioned the proposed figure for Other Miscellaneous. Weeks said the expenses were for • seminars, conferences, mileage, etc. Hughes said the amount should be increased for schools. Weeks said more members of the Planning Commission attended conferences. Williamson asked if this should be under Mayor & Council. Hughes said the Planning Commission is more active. The Council agreed to increase the proposed amount to $800. Elections—Rockvam asked who set the salary for Election Judges. Weeks said the City sets an hourly wage. He pointed out the largest increase is in 41410-437, Other Miscellaneous. He said HAVA (Help America Vote Act) requires all cities to have election machines for physically challenged people; the City will be leasing the machines from the county; we are required to have two machines; other costs are for maintenance, etc. of the new and the current voting machine. Administration — Weeks referred to Administrator and the 2006 Salary projection page. Hughes asked if the figures include FICA and PERA, etc. Rockvam said it was just for the base salary. Reinhardt said Deputy Clerk/Office Assistant should be separated because they are separate positions. Weeks will have this done. Rockvam requested this done for the revised copy. Hughes said the salaries do not match the budgeted amount. Rockvam verified it is just the base salary. Weeks said the overtime was estimated for 2005. Hughes said he would like to know how the salary figures were constructed in each case. Weeks said the Administrator's is correct and the others are with estimated overtime. Williamson verified the figures are neither actual nor budgeted. Rockvam said the actual salary might have been different because there was a separate rate for each one. • Budget Meeting— 10/24/05 3 Williamson asked what percentage is assigned to each category for salary. Weeks said it is • different for each employee and he will have a chart for the next meeting. Hughes asked if a long-term disability policy is available as an option for employees to purchase for themselves. This will be checked into. Hughes asked what Contracted Services was for in this category. Weeks said it was for someone working in place of an employee. He said we have never spent money on this category. Rockvam said to check this for further review. The proposed total noted for Administration is $93,533. Page 2 (General Fund Expenditures) Assessing - Rockvam asked what Other Miscellaneous was for. Weeks said it was for publications. Budgeting & Planning - Williamson noted 41560-121, PERA/FICA/Hosp Ins is double the amount. Weeks pointed out it was based on the breakdown of the 2006 Salary Projection. Law/Legal Services — It was noted the proposed total is more than 2005. Rockvam said he would like to see a comparison of the costs of the contracted services the previous year. He added sometimes the rate does not change but the amount of time changes making the costs higher. • Buildings & Grounds - Hughes asked what the Salary was for. It was greed to delete this line. Williamson verified this category is for around City Hall. Rockvam felt it was better off to hire someone as a contracted service to do some of the smaller jobs than to hire someone as an employee of the City. Reinhardt asked what Contracted Services was for. Goman said it was for mowing, trimming. He pointed out a line was added for Storm Damage on page 5, 43100-399. Williamson asked if that category applies to just Building& Grounds. Goman said it applies to everything. Rockvam asked the reasoning for the amount in Utilities/Electric and if it is based on a rate increase. Weeks said it is just an estimate based on the literature they have sent regarding costs. Gas will be added to his line. Rockvam noted Refuse/Garbage Disposal has increased $200. Weeks said BFI sold out and there was a rate increase by the new company. Repairs/Maint Buildings — Rockvam recommended obtaining an estimate on gutters. Reinhardt asked why Repairs/Existing Equip is so high for 2005. Goman said a new furnace and damper were installed. Improvements was questioned as to what it is for. Weeks will check on this. Williamson asked what Replacement Reserve (Depr.) was for. Widmer said it was for something we spent money on not in the budget and put it in the next year. The total for Buildings and Grounds was noted. Page 3 (General Fund Expenditures) Planning&Zoning It was noted the Engineering Fees increased. Hughes said we need a category for Planners Fees. Weeks said Contracted Services is for the Planner. Rockvam said to change it to • Planner. The Council briefly discussed the engineering fees. Weeks said the bills are starting to come in for the streetscape plan. Rockvam mentioned the Stormwater Plan. Budget Meeting— 10/24/05 4 Seifert said this should be in land use planning. Weeks said surface water could be in an • Engineering Department. The change will be made for 41910-310. The total was noted. City Beautification It was noted the amount for the Administrator is determined with a formula. Flags/Banners/Maint — Goman said the proposed cost is for installation and taking them down and for replacement costs. The question of maintaining and keeping the banners was discussed. Hughes said there was a concern of the Planning Commission regarding advertising a business on City property i.e. on the banners. Widmer pointed out there are welcome signs for people to see and several of the current banners are hanging. Williamson asked how much of the cost is for banners and how much is for flags. Goman said they are put up at the same time; there is going to be upcoming maintenance on the flag brackets because of their age. The Council agreed to remove $2,000 from the proposed figure. Landscaping/Gardens/Maint— It was noted this is an estimate. Sunset Drive Improvements — Weeks said we have been putting money in for a couple of years for Sunset Drive for possible sidewalks. Widmer asked what the $5,000 was used for in 2004. Weeks said it was for a portion of the study by Schoell &Madson. The total for Beautification was reduced by$2,000. Public Safety & Welfare Legal Fees/Prosecution — Weeks said the extra costs were due to forfeitures. Hughes said 42000-310, Contracted Services, should be changed to Police. Williamson asked for the reason for an increase in Workhouse Expenses. Weeks said it was an estimate due to the • trend since the first part of the year. A question mark will be placed by this category for further reviewing. Tel/Internet/Cable - Williamson asked what the City is being charged for cable per month. Weeks said it was $45.80 for high-speed Internet service. He will get a breakdown on the phones. Goman pointed out the alarm systems in the water plant use long distance. Williamson said this category should be separate items. The totals were noted for Public Safety& Welfare and for the LMCD at the end of page 3 of 9. The Council agreed to continue the Budget Workshop Tuesday October 25, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. with a 2-hour limit. 5. MISCELLANEOUS Seifert referred to Lakeview Lofts possible violation of their Developer's Agreement regarding the colors of the exterior of the building. Seifert stated he has asked and yet to receive a copy of the invoice for the bricks. He stated Frostad's attorney requested a copy of that part of the contract pertaining to the specs for the colors of the building. He stated to the attorney at that time the Council may be sending a notice of default regarding this situation. Seifert said if Frostad is sent a notice of default telling him he has 30 days to resolve the situation, he is in violation of his CUP and he will not be issued a Certificate of Occupancy until such resolution. • Hughes asked if Seifert remembered if there are supposed to be brick pavers in front of the building instead of scored concrete. Seifert said he would have to check on this. He added Budget Meeting— 10/24/05 5 Petrik said Frostad was under the assumption he was going to use scored concrete and the • use of pavers was suggested. Seifert pointed out Frostad's agreement has a provision that municipal improvements have to be done and the letter of credit does not apply to the painting of the exterior. Rockvam said the City has not been unreasonable; we wanted the red painted on the building toned down; Frostad should have obtained a sample to tone down the red for the Council to review. Seifert said Frostad walked away from this whole thing. Rockvam asked the Council if they wanted to authorize the attorney to send Frostad a letter of default and advise him the City would not issue a Certificate of Occupancy(CO) until the problem is resolved. Hughes verified the City Council had the authority to approve the CO. Seifert said he advised Lyle Oman, Building Inspector, not to give a CO until Council approval. Reinhardt asked if we declare Frostad in default what immediate affect would it have on him. Seifert said it starts the clock ticking for him to get into compliance. Reinhardt confirmed Frostad could continue with construction. Seifert stated ultimately the way the situation would get resolved is money is escrowed for painting at a later date because of the weather. Rockvam said we have to establish credibility on the part of the City. Regarding Frostad's previous claim to LMCIT for reimbursement of part of the Building permit, Rockvam asked if the League of MN Cities insurance would cover the City if a lawsuit from Frostad occurred. Seifert said payment would not be covered by their policy; if Frostad sues they would defend us; their policy excludes repayment of any fee. • Motion by Widmer seconded by Reinhardt to authorize the City Attorney to send a letter of default to Frostad Development, LLC regarding the exterior colors on the building and deny Certificate of Occupancy until the matter is resolved. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. In another miscellaneous matter Rockvam inquired if the arborvitae has been planted on Bayview Place by Shoreline Place Condos. Weeks will follow up on this. Rockvam announced the Council is invited to an award day lunch put on by J E Dunn at 11:30 a.m. on 10/27/05 at the construction site. Seifert reminded the Council of the legality of giving the Council lunch. 6. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Hughes seconded by Reinhardt to adjourn the meeting_at 9:57 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. i SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK f ILLIAM D. WEEKS ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER Budget Meeting—10/24/05 6 R + \ • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA CONTINUATION COUNCIL BUDGET WORKSHOP OCTOBER 25, 2005 2-Hour Limit 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Rockvam called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL The roll for the Council remained the same as October 24, 2005 including staff; others present: Planning Commissioner Mason. BUDGET DISCUSSION (2006 Proposed Budget) Page 4 (General Fund Expenditures) Fire Services — Rockvam stated Contracted Services should state MFD. It was noted fire calls were up. Buildings/Improvements — Rockvam asked the status of the building assessment. Weeks said it was for 20 years. Rockvam stated if Spring Park had contracted fire services with • the Navarre Station, Orono said they would not charge us for rent but they do not have many fire fighters. Hughes said there is merit with having experienced fire fighters. Building Inspection - Contracted Services should state City of Orono. Rockvam asked how the condo projects figure in with inspection services with only $1,440.92 so far for 2005. Weeks will check on this. It was noted the proposed budgeted amount is the same as last year Civil defense — Weeks said this is for the most part a license fee. Rockvam asked whom we paid. Goman stated the lease was with the Hennepin County Sheriff for the new radio system required to be in use in 2004. Rockvam suggested this category be labeled radio lease. Hughes asked when it is paid and noted the cost has doubled in a year. Goman said it was paid at the end of the year and early estimates were for $2,000. Widmer asked if new equipment would be needed and was told no. Animal Control Williamson said the amount could be sporadic depending on complaints and the aggressiveness of the officer. Spring Fall Cleanup — Weeks said the last half of the year was estimated. Rockvam noted we should request residents not to put their junk out more than a few days in advance. Hughes suggested adding an extra percentage for increased cost for next year. Weeks said he added a couple of thousand dollars more. It was concluded the fall cleanup is smaller than in the spring. • Recycling—Weeks said we are in the second year of a three year contract. Budget— 10/25/05 1 • Streets and Sidewalks —Rockvam verified Gas and Oil doubled in anticipation of higher prices. Weeks verified with the Council 43100-224, Street Maint Materials be deleted. Rockvam asked what Sign Repair Materials consisted of. Goman said it was for no parking signs, dead end signs and street light repair. He added the repairs include electrician costs and wiring repairs. Rockvam asked for the percentage breakdown for Administrator for each department the next meeting. Page 5 (General Fund Expenditures) Streets and Sidewalks (Cont.) Snow Removal - Sidewalks — Rockvam expressed concern the proposed budget was down from last year in case we get hit with a lot of snow this year. Williamson noted the year to date is through last spring. He also noted fuel expenses are up. Reinhardt asked if we have sidewalks other than Shoreline Drive. Rockvam pointed out the abutting property owner is supposed to clear the sidewalk at their property but we do it. Goman said state statute says the City is not responsible for clearing sidewalks, only areas that abut public property. Rockvam said the tradeoff for the City doing it is we are allowed to throw the snow onto the abutting private property. Williamson stated there is a sense that sidewalks are a community obligation yet they get dumped on regularly with snow and we continually keep them clean. Street Sweeping— Goman stated other street sweepings are under another category. He said the trucks haul sweepings and dump them behind the fence at City Hall thus we are not paying extra truck hauling charges. (Weeks verified the amount budgeted for snow plowing would remain as • stated.) Snow plowing — Goman stated he requested increased lighting on the trucks used for plowing for better visibility. Hughes asked if Frostad would be charged for snow removal on Spring Street. Goman said only for snow in their area that is hauled away. He said the snow from the street is pushed into the parking stalls on the south side and it is hauled away later. Hughes asked what the procedure would be for the Mists Lofts. It was noted all of their property is private. Weeks pointed out in the winter of 2006/2007 we will have more public sidewalk. Rockvam asked if Concept Landscaping will haul the snow and where to. Goman said they have hauled it and will continue and it is dumped behind the fence at City Hall. The Council agreed to increase the amount to $2,000 for snow plowing. Hughes asked what is Contracted Services. Goman said it would be for an outside agency if Concept were not available. Sidewalk Repair - Widmer asked if this was for repairs after main break. Goman said it was normal maintenance done where sidewalks are shifting and cracking. Williamson asked how the amount was derived. Weeks said it was an estimate. Goman pointed out we are playing catch- up with repairs. He said Hennepin County turned the curbs and sidewalks over to the City, but there is a problem with their manholes in the sidewalks. If they repair the manholes the City has to repair the sidewalk after them. Rockvam asked if the damage to the sidewalk in front of Tonka Ventures has been repaired. He said the damage was done when they remodeled several years ago. Rockvam also asked if the streetlights are repaired in front of their building. Goman said none of the work has been done and the lights will be done when other City lights are done and Tonka Ventures will be charged for their costs. He added some light bases are showing extensive rust and they will be a maintenance problem in the future. Hughes asked the • percentage of streetlights in that category. Goman said about 25% of 39 lights on Shoreline Budget—10/25/05 2 • Drive, but some being taken out on Sunset Drive for the developments can be reused on Shoreline. Hughes said that should be a capital improvement. It was noted Liability/Prop Ins/WC is down; Storm Damage is a new category. Reinhardt verified this is for tree removal, street sweeping, etc. that is a result of a storm. Rockvam asked what Repairs/Existing Equip is for. Goman will check on this. Seal coating— Rockvam noted this amount is accumulating. Goman said we have three (out of five) years left before the entire City is done. Rockvam asked what Improvements are for. Goman will check on this also. Surface Water Management Rockvam noted Repairs and Maint. Goman said this is for ditches and storm sewers. Senior Center—Discussed and noted. Parks—It was noted Gas and Oil stayed the same. Goman said it was for the tractor. Page 6 (General Fund Expenditures) Landscaping-New—Goman said this might be part of the flagpole and part is in New Equipment (45200-580). Rockvam asked if the City would be receiving some money for this from the VFW and was told no, because they were going to buy it tax free and we still had to install it. Sign Repair Materials — Goman said this is for the tennis court sign and hopefully the new skin and lines will be done this fall. Widmer asked what comprises Admin Expenses. Weeks said food, • gas, etc. Williamson noted Auditing and Acct g Services are up. Weeks said a percentage is used to obtain the figure. The Council briefly discussed changing our accounting service. Williamson said the time to do this is in November. Weeks said the turnover should coincide with the audit. Weeks will obtain a proposal for accounting services from Mark Kammer, Froehling Anderson. Rockvam asked about Contracted Services. Goman said they are for mowing, fertilizing and weed control. Weeks will rename this category. Rockvam noted Tree Trimming is up. Goman noted Thor Thompson and Wilkes Parks need trimming. Weeks pointed out branches overhang in the streets in some areas. Refuse/Garbage Disposal— This includes satellites. Improvements — Noted amount was zero. Hughes pointed out the Little League requested a storage container. Rockvam thought this would be New Equipment. Williamson thought they were asking permission to have something there and they will supply it. Rockvam asked if there was any desire of the Beautification Committee to add new equipment in the parks. Goman said nothing has been contemplated, but there was mention of something at Kings Road and Warren Avenue. Suburban Rate Authority total noted. Williamson noted we have not always spent everything budgeted overall. Widmer said the east side of Thor Thompson Park needs improving; it smells from standing water, etc. Goman said someone is coming in next week to remove the culverts and make one central culvert, add riprap and make it look nice. Williamson asked what fund is being used for that. Goman said some money is coming from Surface Water Management. Rockvam said the culvert could be covered with dirt and sod and the water would be inside the culvert. Hughes asked how often we clean • Budget— 10/25/05 3 • out the culverts. Goman said certain areas are done on an annual basis and most areas are done biannually. He added they are checked more often especially after storms. The General Fund Expenditure total was noted with changes. Page 7 (Water Fund Expenditures) Salary (49400-105) will be eliminated. Reinhardt questioned Part Time/Standby reduced to $500 from $5,000 in 2005. Goman said this is based on what Orono is charging us and the category is divided between water and sewer. As Builts on CAD —Rockvam verified this project was being worked on. Goman said Schoell and Madson are in the process of doing this. Hughes asked where the plans were being stored. Goman said the City and Schoell and Madson would each have copies. Shop Supplies — Williamson asked why $3,000 is continually budgeted when it is not spent. Goman said this is for anything that requires repair tools for the water system i.e. level monitor. Williamson said this could be under New Equipment. Hughes said we could footnote that anything under $100 would be under supplies and over $100 would be considered new equipment. Auditing and Acct g Services - Rockvam asked why this was so much. Weeks said part of it was for the rate study. Rockvam verified Weeks codes the bills for the accountant. Hughes said he reviewed this category in the Sewer Fund and we have budgeted about $25,000 total in the two funds. Rockvam said to find out where we spent the money besides on the rate study. He said the only thing we get out of accounting is the monthly report. Williamson asked if we were • subsidizing something else. Hughes recommended this be reviewed. Williamson pointed out some of the amount could go into the levy. Weeks asked if $6,000 would be an appropriate amount to put into the levy. Williamson suggested asking the accountant to suggest changes that would be realistic. Rockvam pointed out the audit for the sewer and water could have incurred this expense. Hughes said the Auditing and Acct g Services should be separated into two categories. Engineering Fees - Williamson asked how the cost was projected. Weeks said he used a percentage. Testing Fees — Goman stated he does two tests a month. Tel/Internet/Cable — Williamson said this category should be separated. Postage and Meter — Noted to be down. Hughes asked if there was a potential to have an automatic pay for water/sewer bills. He was told this would be a software upgrade. Utilities/Electric—Goman said this was for the pumps. Repairs/Maint — Goman said this is to repair the roof. Williamson said this should be in a Capital Improvement category. Rockvam said this is a maintenance expense and asked if it was going to get done before winter. Goman said Westurn Roofing is going to do it before winter. Depreciation — Rockvam asked if this was changed. Weeks said it is in Replacement Reserve (Depr.), 49400-550. It was noted $17,820 was in this category for 2005 and $7,825 proposed in 2006. Rockvam asked if $10,000 was left off the figure. Rockvam noted we should put a question mark by 405, 406 and 550 because something is wrong and the total budget does not show anything. Weeks said the figures came from the auditor but he would check on this. Repairs/Breaks—Rockvam noted the proposed for 2006 is increased. • Budget— 10/25/05 4 • Page 8 (Water Fund Expenditures) Well #3 Repair/Maint—Goman said he is waiting for one invoice on this from the electrician that will make the 2005 YTD amount higher. HS Pumps stands for High Service Pumps. Goman said the amount is for potential maintenance on the pumps. Building/Improvements — Goman said this is part of the new roof. Williamson pointed out Lines 401 and 520 each has $10,000 for a new roof. Rockvam said repairing the roof is not considered an improvement. Williamson asked what was intended when this was put in the budget. Goman said it must have something to do with the water tower. The total for the Water Fund was noted. Widmer reminded staff to check on Replacement Reserve (Depr.) fund. Page 8 (Sewer Fund Expenditures) Rockvam pointed out Salary is going to be deleted. Goman stated 49450-104 will be renamed Standby and 49450-105 would be changed to Part Time and this would be changed in all categories. He added the proposed costs would be divided also. It was noted Gas and Oil are up but not in the Water Fund. This cost is for the generator if needed. It was footnoted again to check on Auditing and Acct g Services. Page 9 (Sewer Fund Expenditures) Rockvam noted categories Depreciation (405) and Depreciation Reserve (406) the uses have to be clarified. LS Repair/Maint — Rockvam noted all of the proposed costs for the lift station are • different. Goman said the amounts are based on capacity and maintenance for each station. Lift Station #7 was discussed. Goman said this station is the newest, is used the least and is a back up for Lift Station#6. The total for the Sewer Fund was noted and also the Grand Total was noted with changes. Rockvam stated another meeting date has to be set. The Council was in agreement to meet November 8, 2005 at City Hall from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. I SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK WILLIAM D. E ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER • Budget— 10/25/05 5 CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 7, 2005 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) Council Minutes—October 17, 2005 b) Council Minutes (Special Meeting)—October 17, 2005 c) Budget Workshop Minutes—October 24, 2005 d) Budget Workshop Minutes—October 25, 2005 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS a) Tom Scanlon, LMCD • b) Presentation to Virginia(Ginger)Kopi 1. Resolution 05-34—Commending &Acknowledging Actions of Virginia (Ginger) Koppi c) Orono Police Dept. Re: No Parking Pattees Lane— 1111105 d) Three Rivers Park Re: Draft Master Plan e) Construction Update—Mist Lofts 1. Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: Reimbursement of Costs— 1111105 f) K. Kalkbrenner, 3800 Northern Avenue Re: Traffic Study— 10/25/05 (E-Mail) g) Miscellaneous 6. ORDINANCES &RESOLUTIONS 7. REPORTS OF OFFICER& COMMITTEES a) Mayor 1. Police Commission Minutes &Reports— 10/18/05 a) Kurt Erickson E-Mail Re: Items of Concern— 10/18/05 b) Council—Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer 1. Williamson a) Development Moratorium b) Special Meeting Fee c) Engineer 1. Lift Station#6 • a) Braun Intertec— 10/19/05 Council Agenda— 11/7/05 1 • b) Schoell &Madson— 10/21/05 c) Schoell &Madson - 10/26/05 d) Bolander— 11/3/05 e) Braun Intertec— 11/3/05 f) Bolander 10/25/05 g) Bolander— 10/26/05 h) Schoell &Madson Summary— 11/4/05 i) Bolander Re: Changer Order Request#9— 1111105 d) Utility Superintendent 1. MDH Re: HAA5 & THM Results— 10/17/05 e) Administrator 1. Channels 8 &20 Calendars 2. December Calendar 3. Budget Meeting Reminder 11/18/05 — 11:00 a.m. (2 Hours) 4. Building & Sign Permit—October 5. Miscellaneous 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS a) Mist Lofts • 1. Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: Status Report— 1111105 b) Lakeview Lofts 1. Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: Status Report— 1111105 2. Request to Increase Deposit $50,000— 10/24/05 3. Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: Notice of Default— 10/26/05 (Mailed) 4. Chadwick &Mertz Re: Response to Default— 11/3/05 5. Tom Seifert Re: Frostad Request for Equalization Fee— 11/4/05 c) Mound Fire Dept. Re: Fire Inspection Procedure— 10/26/05 d) M. Mason to P. St. Pierre Re: Landscape Proposal— 10/28/05 e) M. Mason to P. St. Pierre Re: Cement Hoppers— 10/29/05 f) Letter to P. O'Flanagan, 4388 Shoreline Re: Outside Storage— 10/28/05 g) Letter to P. O'Flanagan, 4388 Shoreline Re: Debris on Sidewalk— 10/28/05 11. MISCELLANEOUS 12. ADJOURNMENT • Council Agenda—11/7/05 2 RECEIVED CITY OF SPRING PARK NOV 2 1 2005 • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA HEAD, SEIFERT MINUTES & VANDER WEIDE COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 7, 2005 7:30 P.M. - CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Rockvam called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Hughes, Reinhardt, Widmer and Rockvam were present. Williamson arrived after the roll was taken. Staff present: Administrator Weeks, Utility Superintendent Goman, Deputy Clerk Corl, Office Assistant Farness and Recorder Angela Darst. Others present: Ken Adolf, City Engineer; Tom Seifert, City Attorney; and Planning Commissioner Mason. 3. ADOPT THE AGENDA Motion by Hughes seconded by Reinhardt to adopt the agenda for the • November 7, 2005 Council Meeting. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES a) Council Meeting— October 17, 2005 Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Widmer to approve the Council minutes on October 17, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. b) Council Minutes (Special Meeting)—October 17, 2005 Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Widmer to approve the Council minutes for the Special Meeting on October 17, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. c) Budget Workshop Minutes—October 24, 2005 Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Widmer to approve the Budget Workshop Minutes on October 24, 2005. All Votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. d) Budget Workshop Minutes—October 25, 2005 • Council Meeting— 11/7/05 1 1 i • Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Widmer to approve the Budget Workshop Minutes on October 25, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. Mayor Rockvam introduced the Council and Staff to the viewing public. 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS a) Tom Scanlon, LMCD Rescheduled for the next regular Council Meeting. b) Presentation to Virginia(Ginger) Koppi 1. Resolution 05-34—Commending &Acknowledging Actions of Virginia (Ginger) Koppi Mayor Rockvam read Resolution 05-34, commending and acknowledging the life saving actions of Koppi and presented her with the resolution honoring her. Sgt. Chris Fischer and Chief Stephany Good, Orono Police Department, also expressed their praise and gratitude to Koppi for her heroic actions. Motion by Hughes seconded by Reinhardt to approve Resolution 05-34, commending and acknowledging actions of Virginia (Ginger) Koppi. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. c) Orono Police Dept. Re: No Parking Pattees Lane— l l/I/05 • Rockvam read the memo requesting Pattees Lane posted no parking and adding "Tow Zone" to the sign. He stated the problem was being addressed because of how narrow Pattees Lane is. Sgt. Fischer stated the police department has been receiving complaints about the long-term parking on Pattees Lane. He added if a problem arises, the police department has to wait four hours before they can tow a vehicle from the area. Sgt. Fischer stated they would like to have this changed by adding "Tow Zone" to a no parking sign in case of an emergency situation or add a short term parking sign. Hughes asked what the short-term parking meant. Sgt. Fischer stated it would mean 15 minutes to half an hour time limit. Reinhardt agreed Pattees Lanes was a very narrow street. Williamson asked if recently there have been any problems. Sgt. Fischer stated there had not. Williamson asked if the police have had any recent access impeded for an emergency. Sgt. Fischer stated they had not. Williamson asked if there had been any residential complaints. Weeks stated the City had received one complaint this year and one last year. He added the complaints were the supply vehicles and garbage trucks cannot get up the street if cars are parked on it. Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to post Pattees Lane with "No Parking, Tow Zone" signs. Upon roll call Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam voted aye. Motion declared carried. d) Three Rivers Park Re: Draft Master Plan • Larry Blackstad, representing Hennepin County, and Don Deveau, representing Council Meeting— 11/7/05 2 • Three Rivers Park, were present to report to the Council. Blackstad said he was part of the Transit Department for Hennepin County. Blackstad stated he understood Spring Park has in interest in part of the depot property and the county also has in interest in the depot property. He said the county has grant money available to help finance the study on this and SRF was creating the Master Plan for the corridor. Blackstad stated he would have the proposal in hand by next week and forward it to the City. Williamson asked if this was a supplement to the Master Plan. Blackstad said they want to come up with a plan the City wants at no planning expense to the City. He stated they were working with the communities to determine the plan and there was community interest and park district interest. Blackstad stated he would be available to come back for a future meeting to discuss the proposed plan. Don Deveau stated Three Rivers Park had held two open houses for public comments. He said the Master Plan is for the development of the potential trail and updates and public comments have been submitted to the board. He said on November 30, 2005 discussion will be closed to public comments. He stated December 15` all comments will be presented to the board and on December 15ch the final plan would be submitted for consideration January 2006. He said if the board accepts and approves the plan in January, it would move to the Metropolitan Council in February or March for final approval; a Development Plan would be done, bids would be obtained and construction could begin in • 2006. Deveau stated the initial cost was around $2.2 million dollars but there were additional modifications such as working with Hennepin County regarding busy crossroads and those costs were not in the original plan. He said those items changed the estimated total cost to between $3.5 to $4 million dollars. He asked if the Council had any questions. Reinhardt asked if the cost included trailheads. She stated Spring Park would be interested in having a trailhead at the depot site. Deveau stated they have to define trailhead and the money is specific to trail development depending on the definition. He understands the funds are not for a building with all the amenities but the plan does include some rest stops and trailheads. Deveau said they would work with communities to have these without having them duplicating each other because of their close locations. Rockvam asked if the start of the trail was in Wayzata. Deveau stated that the trail starts 200 yards east of the bridge that connects County Road 15 and Highway 394. He said Wayzata would like to have this trail connect into their downtown. He stated that in the next few years connections to this trail would be made. Rockvam asked if Deveau could keep the City posted on any developments. Reinhardt asked if the City has prepared a formal response to the draft Master Plan. Weeks stated they have not yet but could do so if the Council would like to see that. Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Hughes to have staff prepare formal written comments in response to Three Rivers Park draft Master Plan. All • votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Council Meeting— 11/7/05 3 • e) Construction Update—Mist Lofts 1. Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: Reimbursement of Costs— 1111105 Patty St. Pierre, Peter Lund, Jeff Schoeneck and Brad Ridgeway were present for the meeting. St. Pierre stated she had several items she would like to discuss with the Council, exterior finishes, a change in the landscape plan, schedule a site tour for Council and Staff on a regular basis, a construction update by Ridgeway and answer any questions the Council might have. Rockvam asked if there was a way to have some formal identification of the exterior finishes for the minutes. He stated there should be something solid for the Council to adopt i.e. names of colors, finishes, etc. Hughes stated they could make small illustrations and take the name and use of product to show identities. Lund stated that plan was submitted on March 28, 2005 and specific products shown. Hughes asked if they had made any changes since then and Lund stated they had not. Rockvam stated he would like documentation of the colors and descriptions. He said it would be nice if the Council could refer to different exhibits. Williamson stated it was hard to get an appreciation for the colors since they were looking at them under florescent lighting at night. Hughes pointed out there was a scheduled Budget Meeting tomorrow (11/8/05) and the Council could look at the finishes in the daytime hours. St Pierre will leave the finishes until tomorrow. Rockvam stated the Council had been through this before and would like to carefully document the colors and finishes. Lund stated he could submit specifications with a picture and description to the Council. Rockvam stated the Council would like that. Seifert cautioned the developer on any changes. He stated they should immediately come to the Council and request changes to the Developer's Agreement. St. Pierre stated that was very clear to them. She said they had a change in the landscaping plan she is bringing before the Council at this time. St Pierre stated this plan shows the landscaping change at the property line on the east side per request from Michael Mason, 3950 Del Otero. She stated Mason requested arborvitae planted along the driveway and the property line. St. Pierre stated the other change is to move a clump of trees and spread them along the property line. Rockvam asked who would maintain the trees. St Pierre stated the Mist Lofts property would maintain the trees. Rockvam asked about the height of the trees and if this would end up being a hedge. St Pierre stated the trees would be around 15 feet high. Rockvam asked if Mason was in agreement with this plan. Mason stated he could not see how they could keep the trees on their side of the property line. St Pierre stated the developer and architect were able to keep the trees on their side of the property line. Lund stated there was a small buffer but the trees would not encroach on Mason's property. Rockvam verified Mason was in . agreement with this plan. Weeks asked about the visibility coming out of the Council Meeting— 11/7/05 4 • driveway. St Pierre stated they had reviewed that and will verify it would not present a problem. Widmer asked if the arborvitae would get trimmed regularly. St. Pierre stated they had decided on this type of tree because it grew quickly. Mason asked about a sprinkling system. St Pierre stated you don't normally water these kind of trees, but there would be an irrigation system. Lund stated the documents state the landscaper does the maintenance for the first couple of years. Reinhardt asked the elevation along Mason's driveway. St. Pierre stated it would have to be at a 10 to 15 foot grade, the front of the building is at grade and the back of the building, the grade is at the first floor. Reinhardt asked if the trees were level with the driveway. Lund stated they were. Seifert said the Council should consider approving a resolution stating the change in the landscape plan. Williamson asked if the Council had all the necessary documents. Lund stated all the original documents were given to the City on March 28, 2005. Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to approve the alteration to the Landscape Plan regarding the arborvitae and wall on the property line at the residential line and moving the clump of trees as presented on the drawing dated 11/7/05 the "proposed landscape revision". All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. • Rockvam verified Seifert would draft the resolution. St. Pierre asked if the Council could schedule a regular site tour for the Council and Staff. She stated she would like to have the tour between 3:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. before dark. She proposed the same Monday they are scheduled to report to the Council Meeting. The Council decided on Monday November 215t at 11:30 a.m. for the tour when the workers are on lunch break. St Pierre stated she needed to ask the Council to wear proper shoes and they would provide the hard hats. Ridgeway distributed a copy of his construction update and read the list. He stated the final large concrete pour would be on November 23rd and they were no longer asking for early start times. Rockvam asked how the water line connection was put in the wrong place and who was going to pay for that. Ridgeway stated the water line was installed a year ago. He said it goes to a hydrant on Shoreline Drive and now they found the line was located too far to the East. Rockvam stated the City should be aware of something like this ahead of time. Goman stated the City had the line installed and it had been moved 6' east away from the proposed site. He stated it was moved due to gas pipes, lights, and power poles. Goman stated when this was decision was made, there was • no proposed plans in the City office for the development. Williamson asked if Council Meeting— 11/7/05 5 • someone made the decision to move the pipe mid-project. Goman stated he and the engineer made the decision a year ago. Seifert confirmed that Frostad's plans were submitted at that time but Cornerstone's final plans were not submitted until March. Williamson pointed out this was done in good faith and the exact development plans were not known. Schoeneck stated the location of the existing valve had something to do with the preliminary design of things that would develop over time and there were preliminary plans in place. Lund stated he wanted to clarify the plans were works in progress. Williamson asked when they became aware of the problem. Ridgeway said they became aware this summer when they went to dig for the footings and they found the pipe. Adolf stated they were not aware the pipe was shifted to the east and that was a lack of communication. Williamson asked who had the lack of communication. Adolf stated it was Lynn Patton, the field inspector for the job site. Rockvam said at this point the Council should have been made aware of this situation. Adolf stated when the decision to move the pipe was made, no one was aware of the retaining wall and the terraces in the plans. St. Pierre stated the City had put in the pipes on their land. She stated their engineers didn't know the pipe was under the footings. She said they had already paid for this once and they did not want to pay for it again. Rockvam stated he brought it • up so everyone would be aware of this. He stated this was something to be brought before the Council again. Goman pointed out when the pipe was laid it was not yet the Mist Lofts property and within the county's right-of-way. Rockvam asked how much this would cost. Goman said he didn't have that amount. Ridgeway stated another item of business was the location of the cement hopper. He said they located it to a more central location to avoid dust in the area. Williamson mentioned a copy of information on the sale of the condos stated the word "dock". St Pierre assured the Council they are not selling docks with the condos. She pointed out, however, dock use comes with the condos. Williamson stated this information did not specify what "dock" meant. St. Pierre stated they would look into that matter. Williamson stated it should be a fair representation for purchasers. f) K. Kalkbrenner, 3800 Northern Avenue Re: Traffic Study— 10/25/05 (e-mail) Rockvam read Kalkbrenner's request for a traffic impact study on Northern Avenue. Rockvam asked Kalkbrenner if he wanted a counter on Northern Avenue. Kalkbrenner stated he wants the Council to be proactive and ready for a change in traffic if necessary. He stated Northern Avenue should not have been left out of the study when the plans for the developments were reviewed. Williamson pointed out the Council did a parking circulation study. Goman stated the Orono Police Department had done a traffic study but he was not sure Council Meeting— 11/7/05 6 • how long ago it was done. Williamson stated the county does the traffic studies on the county roads. Rockvam said we could request the Orono Police Department to do another traffic study with their smart trailer. Seifert stated NAC did a report on traffic and they felt the traffic generated from the condos would be close to the same amount as the businesses the condos are replacing. Rockvam stated they should do a study now and again after the condos are completed. Williamson said baseline numbers of traffic are needed now and reviewed at a later date to determine if we have a problem and have to take action to modify something. Goman pointed out the City needs to consider the time of year the study is done. Rockvam stated it would be done at the same time of year. Williamson said it should be done on a day with no construction activity. Kalkbrenner stated he agreed with this idea. He stated Northern has changed a lot and this is a safety issue. Reinhardt asked if it was busy at rush hour. The Council briefly discussed speed on Northern Avenue. Hughes stated the City should go ahead with the study. g) Miscellaneous—None 6. ORDINANCES &RESOLUTIONS —None at this point in the meeting. 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES a) Mayor L Police Commission Minutes & Reports— 10/18/05 • a) Kurt Erickson E-mail Re: Items of Concern— 10/18/05 Hughes commented on Chief Good's comments regarding police coverage in Spring Park and their performance discussed on camera. She stated, at the Police Commission Meeting, the public could be given the wrong impression on how they are being covered. She pointed out a phone call to the department could possibly answer a question immediately. Williamson stated there should be no out-of-bounds subject. He stated the City should question the job the police are doing but it would be appropriate to call them first before reaching any conclusions. Rockvam pointed out when things used to happen in the City the Chief of Police always knew about it. He stated now the chief is more of an administrator and does not always know what is going on in the City. Williamson referred to the e-mails from Sgt. Erickson. Rockvam said any further violations should be documented for the next Police Commission Meeting. b) Council—Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer 1. Williamson a) Developmental Moratorium b) Special Meeting Fee • Hughes stated he was at the Fire Commission Meeting and the upcoming topic is Council Meeting— 11/7/05 7 • the adoption of the new Fire Code. He noted the Fire Chief would be attending the next Council Meeting to discuss the fire budget and the existing formula used to figure City costs for fire service. Reinhardt stated that she would like to hear Council feedback on adopting a cost project policy. She stated it would give the Council a complete picture of the costs associated with projects including bid costs. Williamson pointed out the distinction is the City would have project costs along with construction costs. Rockvam said this sounds like a good idea. Williamson referred to the first memo he submitted to the Council regarding his proposal for a development moratorium. He stated there are deficiencies in the current standards and a better solution is to update our ordinance. Williamson stated some of these areas with deficiencies are listed in his memo. He suggested the Council should review the issues and update what we do have and adopt what we do not have. He also suggested a deadline of six months for the moratorium and put developers on notice these issues are being considered. Widmer asked if this was meant for residential or commercial and was told it is for both. Hughes stated he agreed but not if it would affect single-family homes. Rockvam said he wanted Williamson to be more specific. He said one concern is the City should be looking at architectural design criteria that would be more upscale. He stated he thinks the Council should be able to work with the . developers and make things work for everyone while meeting the goals. Williamson stated this is why it is time to put standards into place. Reinhardt stated she would like to mull this over before making a decision. She pointed out the Council can limit a moratorium to certain geographical areas. Williamson stated he would ask the Council to keep this in mind for a future Council meeting. Williamson referred to his second memo regarding special meeting fees. He said there have been more special meetings this year than regular meetings. He said his memo outlines the expenses incurred by the City due to a special meeting. Reinhardt stated she agreed with the intent but said developers might feel it works in their favor with no camera and they are out of public view. She said she was apprehensive about charging a fee and having it look like the City would deal with developers without the public's opinion. Williamson stated the Council could have the meeting taped and have it played back on cable. Rockvam stated special meetings are becoming more realistic and it would be good to look into this idea. Reinhardt stated other Councils were shocked that Spring Park does special meetings. Rockvam pointed out larger cities have staff to work with developers. Williamson stated Spring Park is one of multiple clients for some (contracted) staff and a lot of these deadlines stated by developers are superficial and result in a special meeting. He stated he would like the Council to keep his suggestion in mind for future Council meetings. Council Meeting— 11/7/05 8 • Widmer stated the traffic signals on County Road 15 were out of sync and asked if this was going to be fixed. Goman stated the county is working on it. c) Engineer 1. Left Station#6 a) Braun Intertec— 10/19/05 b) Schoell &Madson— 10/21/05 c) Schoell &Madson— 10/26/05 d) Bolander— 11/3/05 e) Braun Intertec— 11/3/05 f) Bolander— 10/25/05 g) Bolander— 10/26/05 h) Schoell &Madson Summary— 11/4/05 i) Bolander Re: Change Order Request#9— 1 111105 The above communications pertained to the following discussion. Fred Dyck, from Bolander was present to answer any questions regarding Lift Station #6. Rockvam reviewed how the project emerged, obtaining the bid, and the current status and problems. He pointed out the contractor for Lift Station #6 was allowed to choose the method of installation of the lift station and now it is not working out and it is a City problem. Adolf said the bid documents include general conditions defining responsibilities and there are some provisions for changes the contractor can • do on his own. He stated often these issues are not specifically stated and the situation ends up with disputes with the owner(City) and contactor. Rockvam pointed out we have a wet well 25 feet in the ground and the contractor is having a problem getting it to the right depth. Rockvam stated Bolander was moving forward but now they are discussing not continuing working on the project. He asked if it was the City's problem they were having trouble with the contract and asked what could be done to move this forward. Adolf stated at the last meeting there was a requested change order for $118,000 for sheeting around the parameter of the lift station and also for soil borings to analyze the soil conditions. It was concluded at that time there should not have been any soil changes but nonetheless the City ordered Braun Intertec to do additional soil borings. Adolf stated Braun Intertec found no change in the soil. He said the City denied Bolander's change order and claim that soil borings were needed. He said he had a meeting with Braun Intertec and the staff determined they should get additional soil borings. Adolf stated they then got a memo from Bolander stating there was another option. He said that option cost around $50,000. He said at this point the City needed to look into the lowest cost option. Adolf stated this last Friday he received a memo from Bolander stating this technique did not work and now they want to go ahead with the $118,000 option. Adolf said he confirmed with the pump supplier said the pumps could be put Council Meeting— 11/7/05 9 • into an 8-foot diameter inside the existing 10-foot diameter to get down an additional 25 feet and confirmed three pumps could be put in an 8-foot structure. Bolander said this was feasible and the costs are currently at $114,000 and that includes some work already done. Adolf stated if the City decided to do this option, Bolander would not guarantee the method. He stated Bolander would like the City to go with the sheet lining method for $118,000 with the understanding the costs would be sorted out at a later date. Adolf stated the City is currently monitoring activities so we have bases for evaluating costs. Rockvam asked what the results were from the last soil boring. Adolf stated they are still waiting for the final results. He said he did get the results but not in a formal statement. He stated they had done a blow count, which is a measure of the stiffness of the soil. Rockvam asked if there was pressure put on the clay and now it is at the point where it is resisting the work. Adolf stated this was why Ron Schaefer, from Braun Intertec, checked the friction around the structure. Dyck stated they had almost lost a worker in the process. He stated the structure had caved in on the outside. Adolf said the City will have to determine what work has been done that has not been the problem compared to what was necessary and look at the differences in costs. Williamson stated the adequacy of the approach relied on the soil borings. He asked how, with all these professionals, the soil borings didn't mean anything. • Dyck stated if the soil borings were correct that meant there was a cheaper and easier method. Williamson asked what the reliability was of the soil borings. Adolf stated there were four or five borings done and the conditions were all different and it just did not work in this case. Williamson asked whether the city needs litigation, arbitration or mediation. Adolf stated any of these could be possible. Rockvam stated the City has to figure this out. He pointed out part of the problem is none of the Council members were knowledgeable about this kind of work. Adolf stated he wanted to keep the Council advised and aware of the situation. He reminded the Council some projects go bad sometimes. Hughes said the contractor was going ahead with the work under protest. He asked if the City should finish this and then deal with the problem. Williamson stated he would like to have the City Attorney review this situation. Seifert stated the City has the obligation to provide water and sewer service to the residents. He stated there is a risk the lines might break resulting in a sewer backup. Williamson stated he is tired of making decisions under a threat of a deadline. He said he wanted to get all the information before the City proceeds. Goman clarified the City hired him to advise the Council of any potential problem with the water and sewer and he feels he would not be doing his job if he did not advise them. Hughes said we have to proceed on the basis that we are • going to make reputable decisions. Rockvam asked if the Council had t4 take Council Meeting— 11/7/05 10 • any formal action. Adolf stated he his still reviewing the change order and just informing the Council of what is going on. Seifert stated there was no need for a resolution at this time. d) Utility Superintendent 1. MDH Re: HAA5 & THM Results— 10/17/05 -Noted e) Administrator 1. Channels 8 &20 Calendars - Noted 2. December Calendar-Noted 3. Budget Meeting Reminder 11/18/05 — 11:00 am (2 Hours) - Noted 4. Building& Sign Permit—October-Noted 5. Miscellaneous -None 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT Motion made by Widmer seconded by Reinhardt to approve the claims for payment on November 7, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Hughes asked about #8 for Phil Johnson. Weeks said this was a partial cost for remodeling plans for City Hall. Williamson noted a correction should be made for #5. "Currier" should be changed to "courier". • 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mayor Rockvam announced the Council would have a special closed meeting not open to the public following the regular Council meeting to discuss personnel. Seifert stated the Council should also discuss the threatened litigation by Frostad Development Co. 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Mist Lofts 1. Head, Seifert &Vander Weide Re: Status Report— 1111105 b) Lakeview Lofts 1. Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: Status Report— 1 l/l/05 2. Request to Increase Deposit$50,000— 10/24/05 3. Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: Notice of Default— 10/26/05 (Mailed) 4. Chadwick& Mertz Re: Response to Default— 11/03/05 5. Tom Seifert Re: Frostad Request for Equalization Fee— 11/4/05 c) Mound Fire Dept. Re: Fire Inspection Procedure— 10/26/05 d) M. Mason to P. St. Pierre Re: Landscape Proposal— 10/28/05 e) M. Mason to P. St. Pierre Re: Cement Hoppers— 10/29/05 f) Letter to P. O'Flanagan, 4388 Shoreline Re: Outdoor Storage— 10/28/05 g) Letter to P. O'Flanagan, 4388 Shoreline Re: Debris on Sidewalk—10/28/05 • Council Meeting— 11/7/05 11 • 11. MISCELLANEOUS Seifert stated he had sent Frostad a notice to re-establish the escrow up to $50,000 with a deadline of 11/8/05. 12. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Widmer to adjourn the Council Meeting at 10:35 pm. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. ANGELA DARST RECORDER ILLIAM D. WEEKS- ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER • Council Meeting— 11/7/05 12 RECEIVED CITY OF SPRING PARK N 0 V 2 12005 • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA HEAP SEIFERT MINUTES &VANDER WEIDE COUNCIL BUDGET MEETING NOVEMBER 8, 2005 11:00 A.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Rockvam called the meeting order at 11:00 a.m. 2. ROLL CALL Hughes, Reinhardt, Widmer and Rockvam were present. Williamson arrived after the roll was taken. Staff present: Administrator Weeks, Deputy Clerk Corl, and Office Assistant Farness. Utility Superintendent Goman arrived later in the meeting. Others present: Gary Groen, City Accountant. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Hughes seconded by Reinhardt to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • 4. BUDGET DISCUSSION The following communications were noted throughout the discussion. a) Proposed Budget Updates b) Major Vendors Review c) Variances (Breakdowns) d) 2006 Salary Projections Incl. Dept. Breakdown e) Tax Capacity 2005 Final f) Tax Capacity 2006 Proposed Page 1 (General Fund Revenue) Rockvam asked if the full amount is going to be left in Local Government Aid (LGA). Hughes suggested leaving in two-thirds of the amount. Rockvam suggested taking out $25,000. The Council decided to leave 75% of the proposed for a total of $66,567. Hughes asked where the figure came from for #33640, Recycling. Weeks said it was our reimbursement from the county. Rockvam referred to 34103, Variance Requests, and asked why there is nothing in for 2006. Weeks said we do not get many requests. Rockvam asked about the amount in 39103, Gambling Revenue. Weeks said it was an estimate. Hughes inquired about the figure for 34401, Recycling Apartments. Weeks said that is the correct amount per the current recycling contract. Page 2 (General Fund Revenue) is Budget Meeting—11/8/05 1 • Weeks asked if some of the amount in 39105, Tower Antennae Rental, should be put in water income. Rockvam agreed it does not have a lot to do with the General Fund. Hughes agreed and stated the total of$26,000 should be moved to the Water Fund. Rockvam said it should be a new line item and this would mean a new total for the General Fund. Weeks said that new total is $987,291. Water Fund & Sewer Fund Rockvam stated we are waiting for Groen to come to report on the Interest Earnings. He said the rates are going to be reviewed after the 4th quarter. They briefly discussed building up the reserves because of funds taken out for Lift Station#6. Page 1 (General Fund Expenditures) Rockvam noted $300 was added in 41100-437, Miscellaneous. Hughes referred to 41500-301, Auditing & Acct g. Services, and pointed out it was decided to separate that category throughout the budget. Weeks pointed out he did that on a separate sheet (4.b). Rockvam asked why the proposed accounting figure is less for 2006. Groen pointed out there are some `one time' expenses i.e. fund accounting and TIF Decertification, GASB #34, etc. that are not going to be in 2006. Groen verified the Council wanted these two categories separated into two accounts. Rockvam said he would also like to see a percent column in each department. Page 1 (Revenue) Rockvam asked Groen about the Interest Earnings. Groen said that is part of the • fund balance policy and we should have at least a 4% return per year. Rockvam verified this is what we have in the General Fund that we are not going to use. Groen said it was based on interest received. He said the Interest Earnings in the Water Fund has been reduced because water tower expenses reduced the principal amount. He said nothing has been proposed to come out of the water or sewer fund for 2006. They briefly discussed salary allocation and percentages out of the water and sewer funds. Page 2 (General Fund Expenditures) Reinhardt suggested putting more money in 41600-351,Legal Notices Publishing for publications for ordinance changes. Groen recommended adding more money to 41600-304, Legal Fees. Rockvam pointed out the City Attorney is attending meetings regularly. Groen thought the amount should be increased to $30,000 for 2006. Page 3 Planning & Zoning — Rockvam stated he preferred working with Brixius. On the major Vendor's Attachment it was noted $8,000 is proposed for Planning Services. Rockvam recommended changing that to $12,000 and increasing the Attorney to $30,000. The Council discussed architectural exteriors and future redevelopment. Williamson stated there would be fixture issues and we will have to address costs for the planner and attorney. The Council agreed to both increases. • Budget Meeting— 11/8/05 2 • City Beautification — Reinhardt questioned $70,000 on the Major Vendors Attachment for Beautification. It should be $20,000. Widmer verified the YTD does not include October. Hughes asked if publications should be increased speculating ordinance changes. Weeks stated it is not being increased. It was noted 41940-431, Flags/Banners/Maint was reduced by $2,000. Rockvam pointed out 42000-312, Workhouse Expenses, proposed for 2006 compares to the last highest year. Reinhardt asked for an explanation of 42000-321, Tel/Internet/Cable. Weeks said he did an analysis and that category includes web posting, Qwest, Mediacom, phone maintenance agreement. Weeks explained the phone agreement is with our phone system and includes upgrades and maintenance and it is a necessary service. Williamson noted the alarm systems for the lift stations go thru the phone system. He requested this category separated into four separate items in the budget. It was noted again to add a percentage by department in the next budget. Page 4 Rockvam thought 42400-310, Bldg — Orono was low for 2006. Williamson stated most of the amount has been billed to the developers. Hughes said a certain amount goes to the inspector. Weeks said some is for inspections in the City. Williamson pointed out the figures are driven by activity. Reinhardt noted there was no money in 43100-104, Standby. Rockvam pointed we have to be careful with extra help and outsourcing the help would result in greater productivity. Rockvam noted the • increase in 43100-309, Snow Plowing—Streets was increased by$2,000. Page 5 Rockvam asked what 43100-404, Repairs/Existing Equip is. The question could not be answered. Rockvam noted 43100-520, Improvements did not have anything in it and about $1,800 was spent last year. This will be checked on also. Rockvam verified with Groen that Auditing &Acct g Services would be separated to two lines throughout the budget for the final budget printing. Page 6 Widmer asked the difference between 45200-400, Repairs/Maint. and 45200-404 Repairs/Existing Equip. and what the New Equipment was for 45200-580. Groen pointed out the "500" series of numbers is for new equipment only and this was for the new storage bin for the Little League. Widmer asked what the money in Replacement Reserve was for. Groen said this is money set aside this year for next year. Rockvam pointed out this is used instead of depreciation. Williamson said depreciation is for what we already purchased and Replacement Reserves is for purchasing something in the future. Groen said it is money over and above depreciation and is clearly for replacement. The Council briefly discussed what would be in that category and Goman said it was for i.e. lift stations in the sewer fund, etc. • Budget Meeting— 11/8/05 3 • Groen said the numbers would be more reflective of reality next year. Williamson said we should have some sort of evaluation of everything that needs replacing. Rockvam said the Utility Superintendent would be a good choice. Williamson said it should be an independent party that has no future interest in the City. Goman said Repair/Maint would include, for example, sod or a cave in and Repairs/Existing Equip. is overall repairs and maintenance of, for example, playground equipment or a fence. He said the equipment is big ticket items i.e. the tractor and swings, and repair and maintenance would include the use of hand tools use. Groen said Goman could review #400 & #404 (as described above) for a more accurate description. The Council discussed having line items in each department specifically stating what the equipment or improvement is. Williamson asked what 45200-520, Improvements is for. Goman said it is for improvements in addition to what is listed. Rockvam said we should try to get the budget to the point where we know what each line item is. The Council agreed some clarification is needed. Goman mentioned that the crosswalk at Island Drive was an Improvement. Page 7 (Water Fund) Rockvam recommended crossing off 49400-105, Part Time because the amount is zero. Reinhardt said it could be used for someone reading meters, etc. Goman said it could be used for part time summer help. Rockvam pointed out part time help is not the same as contracting help. Weeks asked if a couple thousand dollars should • be placed in each department. It was suggested to divide $2,400 into sewer, water and parks for $800 each. Rockvam said to look and see what happens next year before doing this. Reinhardt verified the funds for Auditing and Acct g Services is going to be divided and allocated appropriately in the water fund. Williamson asked Groen what percentage of his time spent is given to water and to sewer. Groen said this year's figures might be high because of the different projects going on in the City. Rockvam asked if the amount needed should be a levy for reserves for one or two years. Groen said that would be appropriate for the next two years especially with the developments. Rockvam asked what reserve level do we want to achieve. Williamson said that would be driven by appreciation plus replacement. Rockvam suggested building back one million dollars to each fund. Williamson said the point is not just build up to a certain amount but use percentages. Goman pointed out the water mains are in good shape but areas of the mains are not good. He said he is seeing valves starting to fail. Groen asked a percentage for this and Goman said about 2%. Hughes said we should build reserves up to at least cover what we are spending on Lift Station #6. Williamson said we are adding millions of dollars to the tax base with the developments but the levy is not going up, it is going down. Hughes said as the tax capacity goes up, the tax base goes down and a year from now we will be able to build in water and sewer levies. He pointed • out we have already certified the levy for next year. Budget Meeting— 11/8/05 4 • Page 8 (Sewer Fund) Rockvam recommended 49400-215, Shop Supplies be reduced to $2,000. The total Sewer Fund expenses and revenue were noted. Rockvam suggested a meeting with the accountant to study the rate increase. Williamson asked the target for the reserve policy direction. Meeting was adjourned at 1:20 p.m. SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK D. WEEKS ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER • • Budget Meeting— 11/8/05 5 c ._.l c RECEIVED CITY OF SPRING PARK NOV 2 12005 • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA HEAD, SEIFERT COUNCIL MEETING & VANDER WEIDE NOVEMBER 21, 2005 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENGA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) Council Minutes—November 7, 2005 b) Budget Minutes—November 8, 2005 c) Special Closed Meeting Minutes—November 7, 2005 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & APPLICATIONS a) Tom Scanlon, LMCD b) Greg Pederson, Mound Fire Dept. — 11/16/05 1. Operations & Organizations • 2. Staff&Training 3. Apparatus &Equipment 4. Strategic Planning 5. Budget & Cost Controls 6. Misc. Info c) Construction Update Lakeview Lofts d) Bayview Condominium Improvements 1. NAC— 11/15/05 2. Schoell &Madson— 11/17/05 e) Tom Seifert, City Attorney 1. Lakeview Lofts Arbitration 2. Moratorium on Developments a. Head, Seifert &Vander Weide— 11/17/05 b. NAC— 11/16/05 c. (Draft) Resolution on Moratorium f) Miscellaneous 6. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS a) Resolution 05-35 —Approving Gambling Permit for All Stars b) Resolution 05-36—Approving Gambling Permit for Lord Fletcher's Restaurant c) Resolution 05-37 —Approving Landscape Changes for Mist Lofts • Council Agenda— 11/21/05 1 • 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES a) Mayor 1. Administrative Committee Minutes— 11/9/05 2. Police Commission Reports & E-Mail b) Council—Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer c) Engineer 1. Schoell &Madson Re: Pay Request#3 —Lift Station#6 2. Schoell &Madson Re: Updated Equalization Fee— 10/28/05 d) Utility Superintendent 1. Norling's Lk. Mtka. Landscapes, Inc. Re: Estimated Increase Not In Budget— 11/8/05 e) Administrator 1. Cash&Investment Summary& Expenditure YTD Guideline (Oct.2005) 2. Fall Clean Up Costs 3. Holiday Lights Reminder 4. Miscellaneous 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT 9. UNFINISHSED BUSINESS • 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS a) Planning Commission Minutes— 11/9/05 b) Mound Fire Dept. to Three Rivers Park Re: Railroad Bridge at West Arm Rd 11/2/05 c) Letter to Duane McCormick(Shoreline Place Condos) Re: Arborvitae Replacement— 11/10/05 d) Letter to Lyle Oman Re: Lakeview Lofts &Mist Lofts Occupancy— 1111105 e) Head, Seifert& Vander Weide Re: Lakeview Lofts Status Report— 11/17/05 f) Head, Seifert &Vander Weide Re: Mist Lofts Status Report— 11/17/05 11. MISCELLANEOUS 12. ADJOURNMENT • Council Agenda— 11/21/05 2 RECEIVED. CITY OF SPRING PARK DEC 0 8 2005 • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA HEAD, SEIFERT MINUTES & VANDER WM01 COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 2005 7:30 P.M. - CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Rockvam called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Hughes, Reinhardt, Widmer, Williamson, and Rockvam were present. Staff present: Administrator Weeks, Utility Superintendent Goman, Deputy Clerk Corl, and Recorder Darst. Others present: Ken Adolf, City Engineer; Tom Seifert and Nancy Beck, City Attorney's; and Planning Commissioner Mason. 3. ADOPT THE AGENDA Motion by Williamson seconded Widmer by to adopt the agenda for the November 21, 2005 Council Meeting. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • 4. APPROVAL OF THE MLNUTES a) Council Meeting—November 7, 2005 Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Williamson to approve the minutes for the Council Meeting November 7, 2005. In discussion Hughes referred to page 5, first paragraph, third sentence. He stated the minutes did not give an answer to the question of why St. Pierre had decided to go with the arborvitae trees. Williamson stated he had watched the Council meeting on television and the minutes were accurate to what had been said. He pointed out St. Pierre had never answered the question as to why. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. b) Budget Meeting—November 8, 2005 Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Widmer to approve the minutes for the Budget Meeting November 8, 2005. Williamson stated there was wording in the minutes that were incorrect. He stated on page 4, fourth paragraph, seventh sentence the sentence should state, "Williamson said that would be driven by depreciation plus replacement." • Council Meeting— 11/21/05 1 , r All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. c) Special Closed Meeting Minutes—November 7, 2005 Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to approve the statement for the Special Closed Meeting November 7, 2005 made by the City Attorney in a memo dated November 18, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Hughes requested Rockvam read #1 and #2 from the communication from Head, Seifert &Vander Weide regarding closed meetings under MN statute. Mayor Rockvam introduced the Council and Staff to the viewing public. 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS a) Tom Scanlon, LMCD Scanlon distributed a list of LMCD Projects. He reported the current lake level was 928.99 and that it should be at 928.6 before the water turned into ice; the water level had been a foot higher the month prior; the LMCD had passed a new ordinance on safety check ups i.e. life jackets, fire extinguishers, etc; they also had new signs done for the winter rules on the lake and they were less detailed and easier to read; the channel speeds were not changing. • Scanlon also reported there would be new signs for the summer rules that would be easier for the boaters to understand and there was a possibility of a new milfoil pilot program for next summer that would involve chemically treating the lake. He pointed out the objectives of the program were to show the effects of herbicides, determine feasibility of supplemental harvesting, and public support for the program to reduce milfoil. Scanlon said the three areas that would be included in the chemical program were Carmon's Bay, Gray's Bay, and Phelp's Bay. He pointed out these areas have an historical infestation of milfoil. He stated they do not have all the details yet, but this program most likely will be approved. Lastly, Scanlon talked about ongoing projects for the LMCD. He stated they are always trying to determine ways to make the lake a safer place for everyone to use. He said a resident from Shorewood had come to them asking to have ten boat slips in his lagoon area. Scanlon stated there is an ordinance stating the boat slips could not be leased out. He stated this request would be discussed by the LMCD. Rockvam asked if the LMCD was going to notify the fishing groups before they treat the milfoil. Scanlon stated they had talked to the LMA and the DNR, and they had both done studies on this type of treatment. He said there would be public hearings about this and they still need DNR approval and funding. He stated the cost would be approximately $17,000- $28,000. Williamson asked if the DNR had brought this idea to the LMCD. Scanlon stated they . had proposed the idea. Williamson said if this is going to be done for safety reasons Council Meeting— 11/21/05 2 • research should be done so there are no unwelcome secondary effects. Hughes asked if this was a one-time treatment. Scanlon stated there would be with a time frame ranging from late April thru mid May. Hughes asked if signs would be posted for swimmers. Williamson stated they could put out orange flags. Hughes asked if they would do this again the following year. Scanlon stated yes this would be a continuing program. Rockvam asked about getting lighted buoys for the fall. He stated they were a very popular idea. He stated they reduce spot light intrusion on the lake. Scanlon stated they had discussed that but had no specifics yet. Rockvam stated there are lights available look very upscale. Rockvam asked Scanlon to keep the Council updated about the herbicides. b) Greg Pederson, Mound Fire Department- 11/16/05 1. Operations & Organizations 2. Staff& Training 3. Apparatus &Equipment 4. Strategic Planning 5. Budget & Cost Controls 6. Misc. Info Greg Pederson and Dean Mau, Fire Inspector, were present. The above communications were noted in the discussion. Pederson stated he was here to give the Council updates on the Mound Fire Department. He said there are four engine companies and that is a • requirement for their current rating. He pointed out there were 390 years of experience in the department. Hughes asked what the 'Ys" meant on the Required Certification List. Pederson stated there was a year and date for when each person had completed Hazmat training and the 'Ys" marked the next ones to take the training. He pointed out all of the apparatus and equipment owned by the department and no major purchases are planned for 2006. He stated the department's equipment is valued at just under $2 million dollars and all of the equipment is paid for. Pederson discussed department response times. He stated they track these times in two ways, routine calls that are calls without lights and sirens, and Code 3 calls with lights and sirens. He the response time in Spring Park is better than any contract city including Mound. He said in 2002 the average response time was 7.06 minutes and in 2004 the average response time changed to 6.49 minutes. Pederson stated these times were based on the first truck arriving at the scene and the second truck was within one minute of that time. He stated he also had a breakdown by city and the number of calls. He said on average in 2002 there were 19.78 fire fighters that responded to each call. He pointed out in 2004 the average amount of fire fighters that responded was 20.32. Pederson said the firemen must respond to at least 33% of the calls and the Mound Fire Department was having a 50% turnout for calls. Rockvam asked what the response times were for other cities. Pederson stated he did not have that information with him. Hughes asked if this number was from all calls or calls • Council Meeting— 11/21/05 3 where staff was already present. Pederson stated this information was from all calls whether the firemen were in the office or not. Pederson referred to the Strategic Plan for the department. He stated this is the long-term plan and budget. He said they are anticipating a 3% increase over the next five to eight years. Pederson said the mortgage on the current building is 1/3 of their budget and it would remain consistent for the next 16-17 years. He stated Dean Mau would talk about the fire inspections in the City. Mau said he had spent 120-150 hours over the last six months doing inspections, finding and correcting problems. He stated they had prioritized issues by the largest previous violations. Rockvam asked if the issues were minor or major violations. Mau stated the majority of issues were minor. He said the majority of issues were fire extinguishers not being serviced regularly, blocked exits, fire alarms and sprinkler systems, etc. Rockvam asked if they had inspected Spring Park yet. Pederson stated they had been through most of Spring Park. Rockvam asked if they had inspected City Hall yet. Pederson stated they had not. Hughes asked how many of the issues had been corrected. Mau stated most of the businesses were now currently compliant. Hughes asked about how many were left. Mau stated Lord Fletcher's was not yet finished, but he pointed out some of the work has to be completed by a contractor and was very costly. He said they had around 50 issues and they had completed around 40 of those. Mau stated they had completed the issues that were high priorities. Williamson verified a lot of the issues were equipment versus practice and procedures. Pederson said they would be meeting • with Lord Fletcher's this spring and include the police department and the City. Hughes asked when they would be coming back with a presentation of the new fire code. Pederson stated they would be working on it within the month and it has been adopted statewide so the codes could be enforced. Mau said the state adopts the codes with amendments. He stated Spring Park could adopt the codes to fit the City exactly. Hughes stated he was interested in the amendments that Mound makes. Pederson stated Mound is interested in marina areas and boats. Reinhardt asked if Mound has adopted the code yet. Pederson stated Mound would do that next month. Williamson asked with a rooster of 41 people, when do they become pension eligible. Pederson stated they are eligible when they have served 20 years and are at least 50 years old. Williamson asked how many will become eligible in the next 5 years. Pederson stated there are 3 or 4 that are eligible currently, but it would probably be around 5 in the next 5 years. Williamson asked if the pension fund was adjusted. Pederson stated is was and would be. Williamson also asked if there would be an impact on the contribution requirement in the pension fund as people retired. Pederson said the contribution was based on an actuarial done every two years and this is not affected by additional retirements. Williamson asked Pederson if the department is comfortable with the current 800 MHz communication system. Pederson stated the department purchased $100,000 worth of radios and the coverage is better then ever; the radios have 96 channels, GPS, and the Council Meeting— 11/21/05 4 ability to talk between any fire or police department and hospitals. He stated each radio cost around$2500. Rockvam asked if the Mound Fire Department had a self-supporting retirement fund. Pederson stated they did and it was currently around $3.3 million. Rockvam stated some department's funds are not and it was good to hear their fund was doing well. Hughes asked when the last increase in the fund had been. Pederson stated the last increase was before 9/11 when the market was good. Rockvam asked if the City had a three-year contract with Mound Fire Department. Weeks stated they did and the current contract runs through 2006. The City must give notice before the end of 2005; otherwise it is automatically renewed for three years. Reinhardt asked if Mound was having problems with a decreasing number of volunteers, which is a nationwide trend. Pederson stated Mound was doing well, but they also have a contingency plan. Williamson asked how many fire fighters were currently public workers. Pederson stated there were 3 or 4 plus some are self-employed. Hughes asked if the fire fighters could live somewhere else other than Mound. Pederson stated that they could live up to 3.5 miles away. c) Construction Update Lakeview Lofts Tom Frostad was present. He stated the company was close to completion of the landscaping and the homeowner's association would manage this. He said there was no room for a proposed tree because of the placement of an electrical transformer box by • Xcel Energy. Rockvam asked if Frostad had any say over where the box had been placed. Frostad stated they had very little say in the matter and the landscapers pointed out there are limitations in placing the box because of accessibility. Hughes asked if they might be able to use planters instead of trees. Frostad stated he would check on that but that it would have to be extremely large planters. Frostad said they are addressing the utility punch list items; interior is being completed starting with the fourth floor; the flooring, trim, and appliances are finished on the fourth floor. He said the life safety inspections would be complete on December 12th and the elevator by December 13th. He said the final unit completions would be the week of December 19th. Frostad stated the light poles selected by the City had not passed the wind load standards. He said that once they were approved it would take 8-10 weeks for delivery but temporary poles can be used. Frostad stated the poles were fine but with the addition of a banner, lights and flag the poles fail. Goman stated the manufacturer was confused and they thought all three items would be on the pole at the same time. He said they had decreased the size of the banner and flag and are waiting for the new results to come back. Rockvam asked if all projects go like this and stated this has been a big trial and error issue. Goman stated the control panel for the street lighting has to be designed to meet the amount of lights it was going to serve. Seifert pointed out he remembers when NAC met with the architects of both developments in June or July and both developers were in • agreement with the poles and came before the Council and accepted the selection. He Council Meeting— 11/21/05 5 asked how the temporary lights would run without the control panels. Goman said the existing control unit would be used until the new one can be installed. Frostad stated they could install temporary light poles while awaiting the delivery of the poles. He stated they expected to do that in the next few days. He said the cement was scheduled for November 30th followed by the pavers. Rockvam referred to Frostad's memo dated November 8th. Frostad explained the memo pointed out items that were billed to him instead of to the Mist Lofts. He stated Weeks was still checking on this. Rockvam stated the attorney needed to have a copy of the letter. Adolf stated that Weeks had just faxed the letter to him today and he would research it and then respond. Rockvam stated there should be a quicker response then this and a developer should not have to wait. He verified the question is if the Mist Lofts should have paid for the items listed. Frostad stated this was discovered when going through paperwork from the past in his effort to complete his project. He stated a water main had been contaminated and his development should not have been billed for it. He said it was already paid but he felt it was incorrectly attributed to him. Frostad said they also needed a certification of occupancy (CO). He verified the City is the sole entity to approve the CO. He asked what items have to be completed to obtain a CO. Seifert stated wanted a copy of all communications from Frostad. Frostad stated he would do so from now on. Rockvam stated the position of the City is the equalization connection fee is in the ordinance and is part of the Developer's Agreement. Frostad • stated it was like signing an agreement and then finding out $97,000 was due at some later point. Seifert pointed out it is hard to communicate on this because he can only talk to Frostad's lawyer. He stated a memo was sent from the City's insurance company and their position is they have no obligation to pay for this. He said this was communicated to Frostad's attorney about 10 days ago. Frostad said no written communication has been sent to his attorney or him regarding this. Seifert said there would not be any. Williamson reviewed the City's claim was rejected by our insurance company and asked what the next step would be. Rockvam said the punch list has to be completed and a list of what the City wants done before a CO could be issued. Seifert said the letter of credit addresses the municipal improvements to have to be completed and that list includes Sunset Drive repaving. He said costs should be obtained for items not done so the letter of credit could be extended after December 31, 2005. Hughes brought up the color issue the City was having with the developer. Seifert stated this was a separate issue. Hughes stated this should be part of the list of things still needing to be resolved. Frostad stated they were taking this to mediation arbitration. Seifert asked if the permit from the HCRRA was signed for the sidewalk for an emergency escape route on the north side of the building. Frostad stated they had not received anything about that. Rockvam asked where they wanted the sidewalk. Seifert stated it would be parallel to the street and out to the sidewalk on Sunset. Hughes asked how far out from the building it would be. Seifert stated it would be 2 feet away and 5 Council Meeting— 11/21/05 6 • feet wide. Frostad stated Hennepin County had come to the City about this but he would call about it tomorrow. d) Bayview Condominium Improvements I. NAC — 11/15/05 2. Schoell &Madson— 11/17/05 This item has been withdrawn from the agenda per request. Weeks said the buyer and seller could not agree so the sale did not take place. Hughes questioned the costs incurred with the planner and engineer on this. Weeks said we typically ask for their reviews on our behalf in the beginning. Reinhardt stated it is part of our responsibility to answer questions and we do not have the staff on hand to answer questions. Williamson said if we do an expensive background we should have a deposit or a fee for this. Rockvam pointed out NAC gave them a review of the ordinances and highlighted points that apply to this project. Hughes said it was a complete full study. Rockvam said it was premature to make a recommendation when we do not have an application. He said we should obtain the costs so far. Williamson said his point is why the City should spend money prior to receiving an application. Weeks said it was proper to answer questions for an applicant. Williamson disagreed with the engineer and planner giving a full analysis that is normally presented at a public hearing. Rockvam said the developer was asking for conceptual approval. Hughes said we should have a fee for conceptual approval. • e) Tom Seifert, City Attorney 1. Lakeview Lofts Arbitration Rockvam stated the Council should have an executive session on this issue. Reinhardt asked if the attorney recommended this. Seifert suggested a nonpublic session, per the open meeting law, at the end of the Council meeting. 2. Moratorium on Developments a. Head, Seifert &Vander Weide— 11/07/05 b. NAC — 11/16/05 c. (Draft)Resolution on Moratorium Rockvam stated if the Council wants the moratorium they have to make a list, have a meeting with the planner and have him make a recommendation, have a public hearing with the Planning Commission and move to change the ordinance. Reinhardt asked if the draft resolution should have more detail. Rockvam stated we should list two to four items we want to accomplish. Hughes stated Williamson's memo, submitted at the last Council meeting, was focused. Beck said the purpose of the draft resolution was to show options, she included all major points and the Council could limit or extend this in any way and this was just a format to use. Reinhardt stated she did not want this to affect single-family houses. Beck stated Rockvam indicated the City was looking for architectural standards in this. Williamson stated his memo talked about building materials, lighting, setbacks, parking and dense traffic. He stated the Mayor was also interested in exterior design. He said the • Council wanted this moratorium directed to high-density developments. He stated Council Meeting— 11/21/05 7 wording might be "including, but not restricted to..." Seifert asked if a developer came to • the City this spring what would they do. Reinhardt stated this only affects projects without applications pending. Seifert stated the City could put a dollar value on it to show they were talking about large projects. Williamson stated the last time Bayview painted their building the cost was about $30,000 as an example of costs. Seifert stated the moratorium was not to stop people from painting their buildings. Rockvam read Williamson's proposal. Williamson stated he wanted this to be in the ordinances versus in Developer's Agreements. He stated his point was the ordinances are not specific enough. He said if the City had a standard they might not have to deal with these situations again. Williamson stated he would like to take action on this tonight and the Council can change it later. Beck stated the Council could authorize the study of the ordinance by the planner and list what they want to see for changes. Williamson asked if the Council could adopt this resolution tonight and then end the moratorium at any time. Seifert stated the Council could lift the moratorium but not selectively. He asked the Council to not underestimate the amount of effort this would be. Rockvam stated he would like to see structures blend with the environment. He said the draft was too broad and vague. He said six months could go by very fast. Reinhardt stated the planner could fine-tune our list and we could prioritize the top three or four items. Williamson stated the Council should stick to a deadline, make the improvements and move on. Mason stated the Council could look at other cities and their ordinances. • Hughes asked what the attorney's recommendations were. Seifert stated they should discuss the main points. Williamson stated he wanted this to cover a project from beginning to end. Reinhardt stated the Council should start with this and then pick a time frame. Weeks asked what kind of time frame they wanted. Williamson stated he wanted 6 months. Rockvam stated if it wasn't done they could extend the time. Reinhardt stated they should set the maximum amount of time upfront. Beck stated they should set the time frame at the maximum of 12 months and then if they needed to they could extend that. Williamson stated they should state 9 months with the understanding that they should try to move this quicker. Seifert stated it was wiser to have a one-year moratorium and the Council could always end it sooner. Widmer stated she thought they should do 12 months and then end sooner if they finish. Rockvam asked the attorney's to draft something to bring back with a 12-month deadline. Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to have the attorney's draft a new resolution for the moratorium with a period of 12 months referencing the memorandum brought to the Council by Williamson on November 2, 2005. In discussion Reinhardt stated we should list the districts we have. Beck stated the Council could put a dollar limit, footage limit, or whatever they wanted to limit during the moratorium. Rockvam stated they should make the dollar amount in excess of$1 million dollars. Williamson said he would rather make an error on being overly restrictive to make this right. Seifert asked what dollar amount they wanted to go with. • Williamson stated they weren't sure and asked what the attorney's would recommend. Council Meeting— 11/21/05 8 • Seifert stated that he does not have any experience with this. Weeks stated the Council could do this by location. Rockvam stated they wanted this to limit large developments. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. f) Miscellaneous -None 6. ORDINANCES &RESOLUTIONS a) Resolution 05-35—Approving Gambling Permit for All Stars Motion by Widmer seconded by Williamson to approve Resolution 05-35, approving the gambling permit for All Stars. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. b) Resolution 05-36—Approving Gambling Permit for Lord Fletcher's Restaurant Motion by Williamson seconded by Widmer to approve Resolution 05-36, approving the gambling permit for Lord Fletcher's Restaurant. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. c) Resolution 05-37—Approving Landscape Changes for Mist Lofts Motion by Williamson seconded by Widmer to approve Resolution 05-37, approving landscape changes for the Mist Lofts. • Hughes stated he had concerns over the plant material chosen. He asked if Mason wa s as okay with this resolution. He stated the average size of an arborvitae tree is 5 to 6 feet tall. He said he had called Norling's (Lake Mtka. Landscapes) and they said the average root ball size is 44 inches in diameter. Hughes stated he measured where they were planting and it on allows 32 inches per planting. He said these trees would need more space to survive and he has concerns with accuracy of information Cornerstone provided at the previous Council Meeting. Mason stated that he was in agreement with Hughes. Rockvam asked what the alternative was; he stated they could always put up a fence. Mason stated he didn't know why they would plant these if they wouldn't survive and sunlight would also be an issue. Reinhardt stated the developer has an equal interest in the success of the survival of the trees. Rockvam asked who would maintain the trees. Hughes stated this question was not answered at the last meeting. Hughes stated he would be in favor of this if Mason was. Mason stated he was. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Motion by Rockvam seconded by Widmer to have the attorney write a letter to the developer requesting them to have a maintenance agreement with Mason, 3950 Del Otero regarding the plantings on the east property line. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • Council Meeting— 11/21/05 9 7. REPORT OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES a) Mayor l. Administrative Committee Minutes— 11/09/05 —Noted 2. Police Commission Reports &E-Mail Widmer noted the report of police calls is for all of the contract cities,not Spring Park only. Rockvam requested Weeks to have the owner of Shoreline Place attend the next Council meeting to discuss the arborvitae that has not been planted. In another matter, Rockvam discussed the traffic counter on Northern Avenue. Weeks said it is going to be relocated further east for a more accurate measure of speed. Rockvam asked Weeks if the Council would receive the updated budget at the next meeting. Weeks stated they would and that is also the night of the public hearing. Rockvam said we have to balance the budget. Williamson stated we had reduced the amount of state aid and we could expect to receive the full amount stated for LGA. He said we could also redistribute funds from the antennae lease. He added there is more than one way to get the budget in the black. b) Council—Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer Reinhardt stated she was the presiding Ex-Officio for the last Planning Commission Meeting and it was canceled for lack of a quorum. She said O'Flanagan, 4388 Shoreline Drive, was present for the meeting for his sign permit application but only two Planning Commissioners showed up. She stated it was embarrassing to be sending him notices and letters and then make us look like we didn't have all of our `ducks in a row'. Rockvam stated a situation like this should then immediately be brought before the Council. Hughes pointed out a public hearing for a variance would present a problem if there weren't a quorum. Widmer stated the Planning Commissioners should and do make an effort to be present for a variance. Rockvam stated if there was a public hearing and no quorum that could not immediately come to the Council, but anything else could. Hughes agreed that anything without a public hearing should be immediately brought before the Council. Motion by Hughes seconded by Reinhardt to have any items on the Planning Commission agenda requiring a decision by the City brought immediately to the Council if the Planning Commission cancels a meeting. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Williamson stated there was a safety concern talked about at a meeting four or five months ago regarding the fire protection of files. He stated he had discussed the need for fire resistant file cabinets and asked if progress has been made to acquire file cabinets that are fire resistance or finding something else protective for the property files. Weeks stated that he misunderstood what was asked for. Hughes stated that Seifert had said a safety deposit box should cover it and that is what was done. He said he did not recall • giving staff direction on fireproof cabinets. Rockvam asked how many file cabinets are Council Meeting— 11/21/05 10 in the office and Weeks stated there were about ten. Rockvam asked the staff to get a quote on fire resistant file cabinets for the office. Weeks stated he would do that. c) Engineer 1. Schoell &Madson Re: Pay Request#3 —Lift Station#6 Adolf said the pay request for Lift Station 6 is for $51,340.29 for half the cost of the pumps and additional 10-foot wet well structure. He said the pumps have been purchased but not installed. Rockvam pointed out the spreadsheet for this item was behind the claims for payment. Adolf stated this is 30% of the original contract. Reinhardt asked Adolf if he was going to be recommending or rejecting the claim of the $100,000 dispute. Adolf stated he was still gathering information. Rockvam asked if the wet well was pulled out yet. Goman stated that would happen the following day. Rockvam asked why the city cared if Braun kept coming out to test the soil. Weeks stated they might be needed to analyze the claims. Williamson stated the City already had 5 samples at $2,000 each time. Adolf stated if the City refuses the claims for payment they need good information about the soil conditions. Reinhardt asked when this would be finished. Adolf stated they had asked for a four or five week extension. Goman stated they were hoping to be finished by the first week in January, factoring in weather conditions and holidays. Rockvam asked if the City pays a penalty if the company goes beyond this amount of time and Adolf stated they do. Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Widmer to approve Pay Request #3 for $51,340.29 to Carl Bolander & Sons. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 2. Schoell & Madson Re: Updated Equalization Connection Fee— 10/28/05 Adolf stated this was information only. Williamson asked if there would be an increase in January. Adolf stated there would be a small increase and he had used the October projection. He added the information is obtained from the construction cost index. d) Utility Superintendent 1. Norling's Lk Mtka Landscapes, Inc. Re: Estimated Increase Not In Budget— He stated Norling had decided to go ahead and wrap some of the trees before it snows. Williamson asked if they had replaced the entire stock. Goman stated he wasn't sure but it was beneficial to wrap the trees now and evaluate which ones needed wrapping depending on their age. Rockvam asked if the wrapping was only used once. Goman stated they the wrappings are reusable. Hughes asked if Norling had an actual cost figure yet. Goman stated no. e) Administrator The following items were noted: 1. Cash & Investment Summary&Expenditure YTD Guideline (Oct. 2005) 2. Fall Clean-Up Costs • 3. Holiday Lights Reminder Council Meeting— 11/21/05 11 • 4. Miscellaneous -None 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT Motion by Widmer seconded by Reinhardt to approve the claims for payment for November 21, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Widmer inquired about #2, Street Signs. Goman said that was for the center crosswalk signs. Williamson asked the cost per each and was told $300 each. Widmer asked about a flasher installed on the signs. Goman said Hennepin County would do that. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -None 10. NEW BUSINESS &COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Planning Commission Minutes— 11/9/05 b) Mound Fire Dept. to Three Rivers Park Re: Railroad Bridge at West Arm Rd— 11/2/05 c) Letter to Duane McCormick (Shoreline Place Condos) Re: Arborvitae Replacement — 11/10/05 d) Letter to Lyle Oman Re: Lakeview Lofts &Mist Lofts Occupancy— 1111105 e) Head, Seifert &Vander Weide Re: Lakeview Lofts Status Report— 11/17/05 f) Head, Seifert &Vander Weide Re: Mist Lofts Status Report— 11/17/05 • 11. MISCELLANEOUS - None 12. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Williamson seconded by Widmer to recess the Council Meeting at 11:00 p.m. to a closed session to discuss possible pending litigation from Lakeview Lofts. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. ANGELA DARST RECORDER LL ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER • Council Meeting— 11/21/05 12 RECEIVED • CITY OF SPRING PARK DEC 0 S 2005 SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA HEAD, SEIFEW MINUTES & VANDER WEIDE CLOSED MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 2005 11:15 P.M. The roll remained the same as the regular Council Meeting. Others present: Administrator Weeks, and City Attorney's Seifert &Beck. The Council exercised attorney client privilege and met with the City Attorney in a meeting not open to the public to discuss pending litigation with Frostad Development Company LLC. The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. ILL D. WEEKSS ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER • RECEIVED • CITY OF SPRING PARK DEC 0 8 2005 SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA HEAD, 3EI AGENDA & VANDER Wit COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 5, 2005 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) Council Meeting—November 21, 2005 b) Closed Meeting—November 21, 2005 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS a) MS4 Public Hearing, John Karwacki (Schoell &Madson) 1. Open Public Hearing • a. Notice of Public Hearing 2. Discussion & Comments a. Public Hearing Outline 3. Close Public Hearing b) Truth in Taxation (TNT)Public Hearing 1. Open Public Hearing a. Guidelines for Public Hearing— 12/5/05 b. Notice of Public Hearing 2. Discussion& Comments a. 2006 Proposed Budget(December 5, 2005) 3. Close Public Hearing c) Construction Update—Mist Lofts d) Proposed Moratorium 1. Draft Resolution 2. Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: Proposed Interim Ordinance— 11/30/05 e) Miscellaneous 6. ORDINANCES &RESOLUTIONS a) Resolution 05-38 —Approving Amendment to Landscaping Plan For Mist Lofts 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES a) Mayor • b) Council—Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer Council Agenda—12/5/05 1 • c) Engineer 1. Schoell &Madson Re: Pay Requests for Lift Station#6— 11/22/05 d) Utility Superintendent e) Administrator ;# 1. Building & Sign Report—November 2. Channels 8 &20 Schedules 3. Faegre &Benson Re: Lakeview Lofts Subdivision Plat— 11/29/05 4. Meeting Reminder Wed. 12/7 10:30 am—City Hall Re: Brimeyer 5. Miscellaneous 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS a) Letter to City of Orono Re: Water Supplied— 11/22/05 b) Letter to Three Rivers Re: Draft Master Plan Dakota Rail Regional Trail— 11/23/05 c) Letter to Concept Landscaping Re: Street Salt Sanding— 11/29/05 d) Lakeview Lofts 1. Status Report& Escrow Summary 2. Conditions for Certificate of Occupancy • 3. Arbitration Agreement 4. Schoell &Madson Re: Response to November 8"' Inquiry By Lakeview Lofts — 11/22/05 e) Mist Lofts 1. Status Report & Escrow Summary 2. Letter from LMCD to Cornerstone Re: Boat Dock Access— 11/23/05 3. Complaint Reports to Orono Police Dept Re: Noise &Dirt on Sunset Drive— 11/19 & 11/21/05 4. Request#10 for Reimbursement of Costs &Expenses (Head, Seifert & Vander Weide; Schoell &Madson) f) OPD News Release Re: Impaired Driving Enforcement— 11/30/05 11. MISCELLANEOUS 12. ADJOURNMENT • Council Agenda— 12/5/05 2 REC • CITY OF SPRING PARK DEC S *1W SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA HEAD S &VANDER MINUTES COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 5, 2005 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Rockvam called the meeting order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam were present. Staff present: Administrator Weeks, Utility Superintendent Goman, Deputy Clerk Corl, Office Assistant Farness and Recorder Darst; Others present: Tom Seifert, City Attorney; Ken Adolf, City Engineer; Planning Commissioner Mason. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Williamson seconded by Widmer to adopt the minutes for the December 5, • 2005 Council Meeting. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) Council Meeting—November 21, 2005 Hughes noted the following corrections: Page 6, last paragraph, third sentence. ., the word "mediation" is being removed; Page 7, d) 2. 6`h sentence " . . . expensive background" is being changed to " . . . extensive background report" . . . Williamson noted the following corrections: Page 2, last paragraph, fist sentence "DNR" should be "LMA"; Page 4, 4ch paragraph, "rooster" should be changed to "roster"; Same paragraph, "is" should be "it"; Page 5. c) "Tom" should be changed to "Todd". Motion by Hughes seconded by Reinhardt to adopt the minutes as corrected for the November 21, 2005 Council Meeting. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. b) Council Meeting—November 21, 2005 Motion by Widmer seconded by Williamson to adopt the minutes for the November 21, 2005 Closed Meeting. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Mayor Rockvam introduced the Council and Staff to the viewing public 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS a) MS4 Public Hearing, John Karwacki (Schoell & Madson) • 1. Open Public Hearing Council Meeting— 12/5/05 1 • a) Notice of Public Hearing • . Rockvam read the notice published in the Laker November 12, 2005 and opened the public hearing. 2. Discussion & Comments a) Public Hearing Outline Karwacki stated a public hearing is a requirement as part of the MPCA permitting process. He stated in 1972, Congress initiated the Clean Water Act and the focus was on drinking water. He said the focus is not only on drinking water but also on stormwater, most cities are required to participate and an annual public hearing is required. Karwacki pointed out informing and educating the community on public waters is an important component of the permit. He added another part of the permit is about illicit discharges into the storm sewer system Karwacki pointed out the City has almost completed the construction of a new sanitary sewer lift station; there are two new construction projects that are incorporating best management practices for stormwater run off; the City has increased the number of street sweepings per season. He said the City would revise the MS-4 permit application to meet MPCA recommendations; promote concern about storm water management and environmental issues related to water quality; have quarterly discussions of storm water management issues by Council and Planning Commission for 2006. • Rockvam asked about the open and close dates of the projects and why they were not on the document. Karwacki stated at the time this was written those dates were not known. He stated this has been updated since then. Rockvam asked what more the City could be doing regarding this. Karwacki stated the City should provide educational activities about the Storm Water Management Plan. Rockvam asked when the Watershed District approved the City's Storm Water Management Plan. Karwacki said it was approved in January 2004. Hughes asked if Karwacki would be supplying the information for discussion to the Council and Planning Commission. Karwacki said the idea is to inform the residents and use that time for education. Weeks stated they have been working on the educational elements. He said the City has sent information out in the newsletters and in water bills. Williamson stated there are programs on this project and they are run on local cable TV. Karwacki stated these were good suggestions and if the Council had more ideas they should let him know. 3. Close Public Hearing Motion by Widmer seconded by Williamson to close the public hearing. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. b) Truth in Taxation (TNT) Public Hearing 1. Open Public Hearing Council Meeting— 12/5/05 2 a) Guidelines for Public Hearing— 12/5/05 • b) Notice of Public Hearing Rockvam read the noticed posted in City Hall, Wells Fargo, and the Post Office and opened the public hearing. 2. Discussion& Comments a) 2006 Proposed Budget (December 5, 2005) Rockvam noted the final levy for 2005 was $687,636; the proposed levy for 2006 is $792,359, an increase of 15.2%; the final budget for 2005 was $901,780; the proposed budget for 2006 is $1,047,524. He announced the retirement of Administrator Weeks sometime in 2006. He noted the extra salary in the budget is for his replacement. Rockvam pointed out other increased expenses are the election process, new office assistant, and increases in the police and fire contracts. He said the total increases are approximately $131,000. He pointed out the Council reviewed the budget in two work sessions and there is a problem with balancing the budget. He recommended the Council put the entire proposed amount of $88,756 coming from LGA back in the General Fund and take back the antennae fees of$26,500 from the Water Fund and placed back into the General Fund. Rockvam said we would then have a balanced budget. • Rockvam asked if there were any questions from those attending the public hearing. Chris Snow, 2421 Black Lake Road, referred to an article from the Star Tribune. He asked the difference in the percentage change in taxes compared to Mound and also what is the increased revenue going to be from the new projects. Rockvam said the percentage increase for Mound was about 16%. Williamson said to Snow the problem lies with definitions. Williamson stated people use tax rates and tax levies applicable to the typical home. He stated the overall levy increase was in double digits, but it was based on your house value. Williamson stated his house value was just over $100,000 and this would be a 5.2% tax increase. He also pointed out the defeasance for Presbyterian Homes added dollars to our tax base. He stated he also saw this article and you have to be careful how you read it. Williamson said the percentage for Mound was between 15 and 16%. He also pointed out the construction projects were not yet included on this levy and the full impact from them would be in 2007. Williamson said dollars levied is irrespective of the value applied. Rockvam said the "Truth in Taxation" is a misnomer; the idea is to inform the general public of City taxes in the coming year. He pointed out the proposed levy figure in September is an estimate and a final figure is usually less. Rockvam said the Council worked hard on their projection and compared to last year his own City tax increased about 10%. Snow thought the amount of the increase should be lower than that of Mound. Hughes asked the process Snow could go • through to challenge his figures. Rockvam said this would be for the Board of Council Meeting— 12/5/05 3 • Review in April. Snow said if the percentage increase in Spring Park is higher than in Mound, we should consider reducing it. Rockvam asked if the Council supports the adjustment of the LGA and antennae revenue into the General Fund. Williamson said the Council could revisit that at a later date and Reinhardt agreed. Weeks said the budget could not be approved until the December 19t" Council Meeting when it is certified. Rockvam encouraged the viewing public to send any concerns with the budget to the City office. 3. Close Public Hearing Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to continue the public hearing to December 19, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. c) Construction Update—Mist Lofts Brad Ridgeway and Patty St. Pierre were present for the meeting. Ridgeway gave a construction update for the north and south buildings. He said Xcel is scheduled for the north building transformers and Centerpoint Energy is installing gas in approximately two weeks. He requested to attend Council meetings on request, bi-monthly, or only as needed. Rockvam stated the Council would rather have him still attend the Council meetings at their regular scheduled time for better communication. Williamson pointed • out if the Council takes action, it is to the contractor's advantage to be here if actions are taken, etc. Rockvam asked if there was a final determination on the location for the transformer. Ridgeway said there was not; they are working on it with Xcel; and they are still looking at utility easements on the south side of Del Otero. Seifert asked if they have received any of the environmental grant money from Hennepin County. St. Pierre stated they haven't received it yet, it was approved and the amount would be for$48,500. Adolf pointed out there is a fair amount of space on the south side of Del Otero for locating the transformer. Ridgeway said he thought the best area is by the parking garage on Del Otero. Rockvam said two arborvitaes are supposed to be planted in that location. Williamson stated there is a storm sewer grate on Shoreline a little to the west of Bayview Place and the grate is missing. Ridgeway said this was a county problem and he will check with them. St Pierre asked if the Council could discuss 6. a) Resolution 05-38, approving an amendment to the landscape plan for the Mist Lofts. Motion by Hughes seconded by Reinhardt to move item 6. a) to this part of the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • Council Meeting— 12/5/05 4 ' Rockvam read the resolution. St. Pierre asked the Council if they want a maintenance agreement from her asking for her to keep the trees alive for the next two years. Rockvam stated they would like an agreement that would be transferred in two years to the condo association. He asked if there would be sprinklers in the area where the trees would be planted. St. Pierre stated the sprinklers are on the overall landscape plan and they would be placed where needed. Rockvam said the Council wanted to make sure they were taken care of and watered. He said there is a difference in trees between the ones that get watered versus the ones that do not. Hughes asked if they knew the size of the arborvitae root bulb. St Pierre stated she did not know. Hughes stated he measured from the wall to the stakes and he did not know how they would be able to fit this size of tree in there. St. Pierre stated the landscaper was responsible if the trees were to die. She said if anything were to happen, either the landscaper or herself would have to pay to replace the trees. Hughes stated this was a concern of his. St Pierre stated she would deal with that. Rockvam said he wanted to make sure the agreement for water and maintenance of the trees will be passed on to the home owners association and becomes part of their by-laws and declaration so there is no misunderstanding. Mason asked when the trees would be put in. St. Pierre stated she was told this fall. Mason asked if there was any actual date. St. Pierre stated she had no specific date. Mason said that he didn't want them forgotten. St. Pierre stated this would cost them a lot of money to redo the plans and incorporate this into the plan. St. Pierre asked why the Council would be asking her to add this to the condo association agreements. She stated the Council has not asked this of other properties. Williamson said this had been discussed before. He stated they are concerned with buffering and screening between these two different uses of property. St. Pierre pointed out she was doing this as a favor for the neighbor and now the Council is asking her to change her documents. She stated they have every intention to keep their property looking nice and this is an agreement they already have. St. Pierre said she would withdrawal this agreement if this was going to be an issue. She stated she did not feel this was fair for the Council to ask. She said this would be a change to her documents and she would have to get them approved. St Pierre stated she had already sold 50 condos based on this document. She said at this point she would withdraw the change in the landscape plan and go back to the original plan. Rockvam emphasized the Council wanted to make sure this was taken care of. Williamson pointed out we are here at Cornerstone's request. Rockvam suggested adding one more whereas to the resolution stating the developer and homeowner maintain the arborvitaes. Rockvam explained the Shoreline Place Condo's hardcover situation and the City wanted more green space at their location. He said the approval of the condos was based on required green space. Rockvam said the arborvitae would be a benefit to the new homeowners at Cornerstone on the lst and 2nd floors as well as for Mason (property owner on the east side). Council Meeting— 12/5/05 5 • Rockvam stated the Council wanted to work this out ahead of time for the homeowner and the developer. Seifert verified the Council's concern is the size of the root ball and part of Masons property would be dug up and the second point is water for the arborvitae. St. Pierre said she understood the concern and commitment. She stated she would like to work out a solution between the City and Mason. Hughes stated he would like to table this discussion until the next meeting. St. Pierre stated she would bring her landscaper to the January meeting. Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to lay over the discussion on Resolution 05-38 to the Council Meeting January 3, 2005. All vote were aye. Motion declared carried. St. Pierre referred to agenda item 10. e) 2. & 3. Complaint Reports to Orono Police Dept. Mason stated work was being done and that was what his complaint was about. He said the work site hours should be posted on the gate. Widmer asked if they were allowed to do work as long as there was no noise. Rockvam stated it sounded like there was no noise but there were people talking. Ridgeway stated the X-ray tech had shown up early but there was no noise. Widmer asked if the 8 a.m. time in the ordinance talked about noise or work being done. Williamson stated this was a noise complaint and that it is a violation of work times. Ridgeway said he felt the ordinance talked about noise versus start times. St. Pierre stated sometimes they have people come early but they do not work until 8 a.m. Williamson stated the Council should look at the ordinance. Rockvam stated • there was a difference between having people present and having people make noise. Rockvam stated the Staff would look into the ordinance. St. Pierre pointed out it is clear in their documents the docks are not for overnight parking. She said she did not receive the letter from the LMCD regarding their docks. Rockvam suggested she call and clarify the dock issue with the LMCD. d) Proposed Moratorium 1. Draft Resolution 2. Head, Seifert& Vander Weide Re: Proposed Interim Ordinance— 11/30/05 Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to approve the draft resolution authorizing a study of the City zoning ordinance and authorizing a public hearing for consideration of the adoption of an interim ordinance establishing a temporary development moratorium and referencing a memo from Head, Seifert & Vander Weide dated 11/30/05 stating the requirements for the public hearing and moratorium. In discussion Rockvam stated this is not intended to affect an individual homeowner but for large commercial mixed-use projects. He added he would like to see leeway for a smaller commercial project i.e. building a bay on a building. He suggested a cost of $500,000 or under for smaller projects so they would not be affected. Williamson stated the purpose of the public hearing is to incorporate those suggestions. Hughes stated even though this is not a heavy construction season the Council did not address guest parking. Council Meeting— 12/5/05 6 Reinhardt proposed stating parcel size versus dollar amount. Williamson said it was a `slippery slope' when dealing with dollar amounts. Reinhardt said she was under the impression they are giving consideration to items but not `limited to'. Rockvam said it is `limited to' and this has to be focused. Williamson stated he wanted to avoid rewriting the ordinance. He said the Council could adopt an ordinance when there is an agreement and this should keep moving forward. Seifert stated this draft was on all projects and the moratorium stays in place until all portions are approved. He added we couldn't selectively lift the moratorium. Williamson stated he would accept a friendly amendment and add guest-parking requirement. Reinhardt stated she would also like to adopt a planned unit development. Williamson stated he was not sure he wanted to add that now. Reinhardt said she agreed but thought past developers could have benefited from this process. Rockvam said he disagreed. Reinhardt stated a PUD gives the City more authority. Rockvam said this moratorium was not the place for a PUD. Williamson agreed to Hughes' amendment to include a guest-parking requirement to the draft resolution. Weeks stated Brixius would be happy to bring forward a work plan and schedule a meeting before the January 2°d public hearing. • Upon roll call Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, and Widmer voted aye and Rockvam voted no. Motion declared carried. Hughes suggested asking the Planning Commissioners to attend the public hearing and any work session during the day. e) Miscellaneous—None 6. ORDINANCES &RESOLUTIONS a) Resolution 05-38 — Approving Amendment to Landscaping Plan For Mist Lofts — Discussed earlier in the meeting. 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEESSS a) Mayor Rockvam said planting the trees in a planter at Shoreline Place condos is a good idea. b) Council—Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer Williamson distributed a memo outlining terms and definitions regarding a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and suggested we move forward with it. He stated a CIP would make a more formal and analytical document available as to timeline and needs for major investments the City has to make. He reviewed his list and stated some items might not take place for years but the Council could be planning ahead. Williamson said the Council could review plans annually, update and improve the list anytime; some issues • may need approval from other government agencies. He added other Council members Council Meeting— 12/5/05 7 might have additional ideas. He stated this could be a 'wish list with a timetable'. He said this would allow the Council to know of projects and where the funding is coming from. He pointed out he was not looking for a motion; he just wanted the Council to think about it and formalize it next year. Rockvam stated he felt this plan was a good idea. He said it is important for the Council to determine if they want to replenish reserves out of the utility fund and how they want to do that. Williamson stated a CIP would do that. Rockvam said we have already taken about 1.2 million dollars out of or will be out of reserve funds. Reinhardt stated both the CIP and replenishing reserves could be done concurrently. Widmer inquired about the flashers for the pedestrian crosswalks. Goman stated a letter has to be sent from the City to Hennepin County. Widmer asked when the traffic signals are going to be adjusted. Goman stated he would get back to the Council with their schedule. Rockvam said the flashers are important to have. In another matter Rockvam expressed concerned for the 75 item checklist for Lakeview Lofts. He said the City wants to be sure the costs for the items not done are in escrow because the City has no leverage if enough money is not in the escrow account. Seifert clarified about 20 items are not done. Hughes asked if the final occupancy permit procedure would include the final inspection by fire, life safety issues and building code issues. Rockvam said we should have a meeting with the Building Inspector to make • sure he is in sync with the City's issues. Seifert noted Frostad is now experiencing the affect of the delay with the earlier environmental problems on his property. Rockvam pointed out the planting and concrete could have been done. Goman stated they provided a gravel path to Highway 51. Rockvam asked who made that decision. Weeks stated the county decided they wanted crushed red rock. Williamson noted the expiration date on the letter of credit is 12/22/05 and asked if we are in a position to execute an extension to encompass projects not completed. Seifert stated we need to get an estimate of costs and most of the municipal improvements are completed. Rockvam said we need two escrow accounts. Seifert said the landscaping on the list is not a municipal improvement and that would have to go into another account. He said Frostad said the landscaping was done and it is not. Hughes said the issue on the color should be included on the list. He asked if there was an update on the arbitration process. Seifert said he was meeting with the arbitrator. He added we need to have Frostad escrow $50,000 for the paint issue. Rockvam said if we do not micro manage we might be sorry. Adolf said he should have a list by the end of the week. c) Engineer 1. Schoell & Madson Re: Pay Request for Lift Station#6— 11/22/05 • Council Meeting— 12/5/05 8 • Adolf said they are still excavating to remove the concrete structure that was there before but they are having problems. Rockvam asked what problems. Goman said some of the sheeting could not go done to the full depth because of some obstruction. He said there was also a sanitary sewer line that cannot be crushed; all indications are that hopefully by the end of the week they can start setting and pouring the concrete base. Rockvam asked how they deal with where they cannot drive down sheeting. Adolf said they do not need the full space and can bring it in closer. Adolf pointed out the Council Agenda references a couple of invoices from Braun Intertech for soil borings. Rockvam said these were on the claims for payment. Williamson clarified Braun Intertech did not have a concerning relationship with Bolander& Sons or Schoell &Madson. Adolf recommended payment of these invoices. Weeks referred to 7. e) 3 — subdivision plat for Lakeview Lofts. He said the plat has to be approved and signed by the City. Rockvam verified this matter was all in order. Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Hughes to approve the final plat for the subdivision for Lakeview Lofts. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. e) Administrator 1. Building & Sign Report—November-Noted 2. Channels 8 &20 Schedules - Noted • 3. Faegre &Benson Re: Lakeview Lofts Subdivision Plat— 11/29/05 —Noted 4. Meeting Reminder Wed. 12/7 10:30 am— City Hall Re: Brimeyer Weeks— 10:30 a.m. Meeting -Noted 5. Miscellaneous Weeks referred to the memo from Springsted (10. g) regarding their executive search services and asked if he should set up a meeting. The Council agreed. Rockvam clarified the Council is just looking for a presentation of services and costs. 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Widmer to approve the claims for payment, including the supplement, for December 5, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Williamson asked if #10 from NAC is for any service in connection with Bayview Apartments review. Weeks said some of it is for that and he would provide a breakdown. 9. UNFINISHSED BUSINESS - None 10. NEW BUSINESS &COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Letter to City of Orono Re: Water Supplied— 11/22/05 b) Letter to Three Rivers Re: Draft Master Plan Dakota Rail Regional Trail— 11/23/05 c) Letter to Concept Landscaping Re: Street Salt Sanding— 11/29/05 Council Meeting— 12/5/05 9 c • d) Lakeview Lofts 1. Status Report & Escrow Summary 2. Conditions for Certificate of Occupancy . r 3. Arbitration Agreement 4. Schoell & Madson Re: Response to November 8th Inquiry By Lakeview Lofts — 11/22/05 e) Mist Lofts 1. Status Report&Escrow Summary 2. Letter from LMCD to Cornerstone Re: Boat Dock Access— 11/23/05 3. Complaint Reports to Orono Police Dept Re: Noise & Dirt on Sunset Drive — 11/19 & 11/21/05 4. Request #10 for Reimbursement of Costs & Expenses (Head, Seifert & Vander Weide; Schoell &Madson) f) OPD News g) Springsted Re: Executive Search Services— 12/2/05 h) E-mail from S. Mangold Re: Concept Drawing Park Hill Apartments— 12/5/05 11. MISCELLANEOUS -None 12. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to adjourn the Council Meeting at 10:02 • p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. ANGELA DARST RECORDER ILLIAM D. WEEKS ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER • Council Meeting— 12/5/05 10 a f REMO CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK,MINNESOTA BAN e , IN MINUTES HEAD gu1iia SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING & VANDE DECEMBER 7, 2005 10:30 A.M. - CITY HALL Council Members Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, and Mayor Rockvam were present. Others Present: City Attorney Nancy Beck and James Brimeyer of the Brimeyer Group, Inc. Absent: Council Member Widmer The meeting started at 10:30 a.m. James Brimeyer, of The Brimeyer Group, Inc, introduced himself and gave a brief biography of his background in the public sector. He provided information to the council about his executive search firm and what it can offer Spring Park in its search to fill the Administrator Position. Brimeyer handed out an example of the positions his firm has conducted searches for in the past and briefly spoke about the positions in which he is currently searching for candidates. Brimeyer provided several example community profiles • created as part of the search process that helps market the city to prospective candidates. He also provided an outline of the process The Brimeyer Group follows when searching for a candidate. He explained each step of the process from the development of a position profile all the way to negotiation with the selected candidate and six month review with the new employee. Brimeyer explained his fees, what estimated expenses may be, as well as their 18 month guarantee. The group spoke briefly about specifics about Spring Park as a community and about the outside agencies with which we contract police, fire,planning and other services. Mayor Rockvam gave a brief history of the Administrator position and how the city has handled filling the position in the past. Brimeyer discussed the timeframe involved in filling the position and stated from the start of the process to placing a candidate it could be 3-4 months. He stated more details would follow in a formal proposal that he would prepare if the city so desired. There was a brief discussion around the possibility of hiring an Interim Administrator as an additional alternative. The council concluded it would prefer to expend the energy toward finding the best permanent candidate in the most expeditious manner. The council thanked Brimeyer for presenting his information. . At 11:55 a.m. the meeting continued with all others except Brimeyer present. 0 Council Meeting—12/07/05 1 The council concluded that they were committed to using a search firm as opposed to 1111 • the Administrator position on their own. ' Bill Weeks joined the meeting at 12:05 p.m. Bill Weeks stated he lined up a meeting with Bruce Kimmel from Springsted to present Springsted's executive search capabilities. That meeting will take place, Monday, December 12th at 1:30 p.m. at City Hall. A brief discussion took place about a proposal from SRF consulting to Hennepin County to prepare a Site Plan Study for a possible Trailhead at the former Depot site in Spring Park. The council concluded that they would support and actively participate in the Site Plan Study process. Weeks informed the council that a meeting with Alan Brixius from NAC is set for Wednesday, December 21st at 1:30 p.m. at City Hall to review a possible work plan for the potential moratorium. The Planning Commission would be invited to attend as well. Meeting adjourned at 12:20 p.m. • Council Meeting— 12/07/05 2 CITY OF SPRING PARK JAN + 4 204 SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA Asm COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 19, 2005 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Rockvam called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam were present. Staff present: Administrator Weeks, Utility Superintendent Goman and Deputy Clerk Corl, and Office Assistant Farness; Others present: Nancy Beck & Tom Seifert, City Attorney's; Ken Adolf, City Engineer; Dan Petrik, City Planner. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Williamson seconded by Widmer to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —December 5, 2005 Motion by Hughes seconded by Reinhardt to approve the Council minutes for December 5, 2005. In discussion Williamson made corrections on the following pages: Page 3, 2nd to last paragraph, second sentence add "interchangeably" to the end of the sentence; Page 5, last paragraph remove "we are here" and add "the Council took up the proposal"; Page 6, 3rd paragraph, 7th sentence, the sentence should read "Williamson stated this was sited as a noise complaint, but that is a violation of work times"; Page 7, first paragraph, 51h sentence "at this meeting" should be added to the end of the sentence. Rockvam clarified there were five items to be discussed at the public hearing and Hughes added one more. Williamson agreed and said the hearing process is for details. Hughes noted page 5, second line, the word root bulb changed to "root ball". All votes were aye to approve with corrections. Motion declared carried. Mayor Rockvam asked if there was anyone that would like to be added to the agenda. Seifert said he received two communications from Mr. Brimeyer and would like to inform the Council of a memo he received. 1P Council—12/19/05 1 1 • Motion by Williamson seconded by Rockvam to amend the agenda and add this item under 5.b) Miscellaneous and ahead of 5.a) All votes were;#0"^0,' declared carried. M Mayor Rockvam introduced the Council and Staff to the viewing public. 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS b) Miscellaneous Seifert distributed the communications and pointed out the memo indicated dates Brimeyer would be available this week to meet with Council Persons. Rockvam asked if it was agreeable with the Council to move this item to the end of the agenda. Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to move this to the end of the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. a) Construction Update—Lakeview Lofts 1. Review of Landscape Plan Petrik displayed an updated landscape plan. He pointed out there would be globe trees on the north side to screen the view for the town homes and escrow was placed with the county to be used when they are ready to plant them. Rockvam asked the size and span of the trees. Petrik said they are • planted at 20 feet high and would mature to 25 feet high and would become five feet wide; there would be landscaping on each side of the entry way on Spring Street in the form of planters; openings would be made in the pavement for planting annuals. He added most of the plantings are in the county right-of-way and approval is needed in that area. Roger Swanson, 4208 West Arm Drive, referred to the screening for the West Arm Townhomes and said the association's preference was to have a continuous row of trees. Frostad pointed out there is an open area between the buildings and they are not intended to screen the lake from the apartments. He said he would facilitate screening for the West Arm Townhomes. Swanson said they would like to see a continuous row of trees. Frostad pointed out the placement of the county beautification is in the county hands and the funds are escrowed. Hughes asked who determines the amount escrowed. He was told Norling's Lake Mtka. Landscapes verified the costs and Hennepin County decided they wanted $12,000 from Frostad when the project was first started and the amount should more than adequately cover costs. Petrik pointed out the entry way and the location for a spruce tree that could possibly be used for an annual City Christmas tree. Rockvam verified that would be paid for by the City and it would be located along the south side of the project site. Hughes pointed out the loading zone was supposed to fit in that location. Petrik said there would be plantings by the front door on each Council— 12/19/05 2 side of the main entrance. Seifert clarified this would be the entrance in the middle of the building and the retail entrance is on the end. Rockvam stated the City wanted a raised median in the crosswalk from Sunset Drive to Spring Street and the county wanted a painted one. Adolf stated the county has since approved the raised area. Rockvam said that is the most logical spot for a crosswalk in that area. Reinhardt verified where the annuals were going to be planted and asked if that is where the planters are going to be placed. Petrik said it is preferred to have raised planters with raised annuals. Hughes asked if that would become part of the City's beautification plan. Petrik said it would belong to the association. Reinhardt asked what is the City responsible for. Petrik said we have escrowed enough money for the plantings and we hold the funds until the work is done. Frostad said there is going to be a bond issued for some of this work and some cash escrowed. He pointed out there is so little room to put things in that area and they do not want to cause traffic problems. Rockvam said the county has to agree to the plan on Sunset Drive, the City could adopt the plan at a future date meantime the money is escrowed to handle improvements. Rockvam referred to the temporary streetlights on the north south portion of Spring Street and said the light on the south end is turned so it shines over the neighboring property's parking lot's egress and ingress and the other light is not working. Goman stated Weis Builders is aware of this and they are looking for replacement parts. Rockvam said his concern is the area is not being lit. Reinhardt pointed out the lights on the exterior of the building are green. Goman said the permanent ones are black and this was previously decided. Rockvam stated Frostad is requesting occupancy so he could close on 21 of the residential units. He said we have to have a statement from our attorney. Seifert there are several issues: the escrow agreement has to be in written form and deposits made; revise the HCRRA permit that allows the emergency pathway to Sunset Drive; a bond is needed for municipal improvements; record the Development Agreement; amendment the condo declaration to what did not get done today. Goman was going to inspect the entrance to the garage. He said the video, strobe light and mirror are installed. The Council briefly discussed the monitor and traffic control light inside the garage. Seifert said when you are at the garage door to go out, you can see out. Frostad said he mounted the mirror on the outside to see easier. Seifert suggested placing a low speed limit sign on Spring Street. Hughes asked how big the monitor is and was told it is a 19 to 20 inch. Goman said it is visible to a vehicle when coming up the ramp. He said he is more concerned with the • location of the outside mirror and the fact a truck could hit it because it is too low. He added it is a round convex mirror 2% ft wide and 10 to 14 feet high. Council— 12/19/05 3 Williamson verified the mirror on the outside is for travel onto Spring Street. Rockvam verified the window on the side is for visibility on the side of the building. He said the speed limit for Spring Street could go on the Police Commission agenda. Seifert said it is not determined where the motion detectors at the parking lot entrance should be placed. Frostad said the motion detector triggers the flashing light and door opening and is part of the system. Rockvam verified this system is just for exiting the building. Seifert said another unfinished item is marking the loading zone as such. Goman said the signs should be placed on the bollards. Seifert said we have to verify the completion of the technical items. Hughes inquired about item #76, the sprinkler system. Goman said it is a dry system and located in the attic. He said all other areas of the building are sprinkled. Widmer inquired about the allowance of the outdoor grills on some of the balconies. Frostad said they had to be sprinkled and plumbed into natural gas and are only in certain parts of the building. He added there is a dry system for sprinkling the decks. In conclusion Rockvam stated the Council wanted to be aware of when the Certificate of Occupancy was being issued and if the attorney feels every • thing is acceptable it can be issued. Seifert said it would be when the listed items are taken care of. The Council agreed to let the attorney take care of this matter. 6. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS a) Resolution 05-40 Approving 2005 Final Tax Levy Collectible in 2006 Williamson pointed out we continued the public hearing to this date and extended the offer to anyone who wished to be heard. There was no one present Motion by Widmer seconded by Reinhardt to close the public hearing from December 5, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Motion by Widmer seconded by Reinhardt to approve Resolution 05-40, approving 2005 final tax levy collectible in 2006. Williamson said this is the last opportunity to revise the budget. He distributed a hand written proposal that would decrease the levy by 8.3%. He pointed out the number on the left side are line items; the biggest elements involved are historic; the key element is interest earnings, we have calculated only a 2% yield and should have an expectation on an increase in revenue on interest earnings and the net result would be $21,000. He pointed out on the spending side of the budget there is an overlap in compensation of the Administrators salary and there would be a minimum of 120 days time into this coming year before a new Administrator would be employed so he removed three months worth of additional salary, etc. Council— 12/19/05 4 • expense; he altered the amount for landscaping on page three of the expense portion of the budget relying on "historicity" and suggesting a reduction to the 2005 amount. Williamson noted none of the amount budgeted in 2005 was spent for the following line items: Sunset Drive improvement and legal fees in streets and sidewalks. He noted raising a budget amount for snow removal was a radical 300% increase and suggested to only double it. Williamson pointed out his reduced expenditures totaled $25,777 along with the net gain in the budget of $21,000 equaled $46,777 allowing a reduction in the levy to $745,582. Hughes asked Williamson if he added the search fees for a new Administrator back into the budget. Williamson said he did not but the City is paying a portion out of this year's budget and no figure was ever introduced into the budget. Rockvam said the additional Administrative salary could be left in and used for the search fee. He stated the Council held two work sessions on the budget and there was no conversation on this and if he had this a week ago there would have been time to review it. He said he felt blind sided with this presentation. Weeks pointed out Williamson's assumptions are from September and he should look at the figures thru November because those expenses were not included here. Weeks pointed out there were increases in the entire departments that include landscaping and snow removal so those two categories should not change. Reinhardt said she appreciated Williamson's intent but wishes she had more time • to go through it, she was not prepared for this and the budget was discussed in detail at workshops. Williamson pointed out changes to the LGA and Water Tower Antennae were made at the previous Council meeting and the first opportunity to go over this was this past weekend. He said he appreciates what is being said about the last minute presentation but felt it was better to make the presentation than not do anything. Hughes stated one of his concerns is the budget did not get to the Council as early as it did for past Councils. Weeks said the City is obligated to certify the budget and send it to Hennepin County by December 22na Motion by Williamson to approve his modifications to the budget excluding the recommended change for snow removal and landscaping. Motion died for lack of a second. Motion by Williamson seconded by Hughes to lay over until Wednesday December 21, 2005, the certification of the levy and add the discussion to the meeting on the moratorium. Rockvam said he would not have time to stay for an extended meeting. Reinhardt questioned reducing the time for the moratorium discussion. Hughes pointed out the total discussion is two hours. Williamson said the levy discussion could be done 15 or 20 minutes. Most of the Council concluded time for this discussion was a problem. Hughes stated he seconded the motion on principal. The Council Council— 12/19/05 5 • briefly discussed the costs for searching for a new Administrator and how much would be applied to 2005 and to 2006. Upon roll call Hughes, Reinhardt, Widmer and Rockvam voted no and Williamson voted aye. Motion declared carried failed. At this time the Council voted on the main motion approving Resolution 05-40, Approving 2005 Final Tax Levy Collectible in 2006. Hughes, Reinhardt, Widmer and Rockvam voted aye and Williamson voted no. Motion declared carried. b) Resolution 05-41 - Approving 2006 Budget 1. 2006 Budget Dated 12/19/05 Motion by Reinhardt seconded by Widmer to approve Resolution 05-41, approving 2006 Budget. Upon roll call Hughes, Reinhardt, Widmer and Rockvam voted aye and Williamson voted no. Motion declared carried. 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES a) Mayor Rockvam pointed out the Council has not had an annual evaluation with the three • employees. Williamson suggested laying this over to the first meeting in January and any additional compensation be paid retroactive and the Council agreed. b) Council—Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer Reinhardt inquired about the plaque for the water tower. Goman said it is completed and just has to be mounted. In another matter Reinhardt pointed out the snow storage at Kings and Warren from the Mini Storage and they are plowing between the rocks. She noted this could cause problems in the spring and asked if they could legally do this. Goman stated the Mini Storage owns a portion of that corner. He said the property owner objected to the placement of the boulders on that corner and the compromise was the right to store snow on the corner. Rockvam said that piece of property should be identified. Goman said it would be done next spring. Rockvam said the property owner should be advised of our erosion problem in that area and we want to keep this area cleaned up. Reinhardt suggested putting snowmobile regulations in the upcoming Newsletter. She asked if the snowmobile testing in the area is legal and this was unknown. Rockvam asked if any complaints have been made and there has been none. Williamson reminded the Council to discuss a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) in the near future. c) Engineer 1. Schoell &Madson Re: Pay Request#4 Lift Station#6— 12/15/05 2. Schoell &Madson Re: Lift Station#6 Status Report & Summary— 12/15/05 Council— 12/19/05 6 • Adolf stated Pay Request #4 for Lift Station #6 is for $27,407.36 and represents 35% completion. Rockvam verified Adolf recommends payment and it is in the claims for payment. Adolf stated he included a status report letter from Fred Dyck, from Bolander and it included up to last Friday. He said they were several days ahead of the amended schedule and start up of the lift station would the first or second week in January. Goman stated the construction on the structure is scheduled at a later start date after the holiday. Rockvam said it is nice to have a schedule. Adolf said the Council had one in the beginning and this one is amended. Rockvam stated this project is a case in point where we should not have taken the low bid. He said they had their own idea of how to construct the lift station; the people they had on this job were not as skilled as they should have been; when they hooked up to the interconnect they did not have the insight to heat it and the pumps froze and somewhere along the way this is a `Laurel and Hardy' operation. He said he would give them the benefit with the soil borings but not the freezing of the pumps. Williamson said we should discuss this at another time. Adolf said the contractor's goal is to get the project done as soon as possible. He added there are significant cost issues and the contractor has agreed to discuss this when the station is finished. Reinhardt asked what the obstruction was when they were doing the sheet piling. Goman they did not have to excavate as far down as • they thought they did in the southeast corner and thus able to continue. d) Utility Superintendent 1. Letter to Residents Re: Lift Station#6— 12/14/05 Goman noted the letter to West Arm resident regarding the progress of Lift Station #6. Rockvam noted the mud on the street would be present until spring. Goman said class 5 gravel would be used until it could be paved. Goman clarified the City's salt/sand policy. He referred to a petition recently submitted requesting less salt/sand on the east end of West Arm Road and a resident came in an requested no sand on that street. Goman explained the use of the sand is for safety and it is City policy to use it. He said Concept Landscaping is making an effort not to sand as much. He added the priority for sanding is intersections and hills are done first. The criterion for when to plow the streets was briefly discussed. e) Administrator 1. Cash& Investment Summary&Expenditure Guideline (Nov. 2005) Rockvam said he would like to see the average annual return and an average on all investments. Williamson verified the City has received the second half of the property taxes. He asked if we anticipate rolling over existing investments or expect making any further investments. Weeks said he is waiting until the lift station is finished. Williamson said he is concerned with iinvestments made in $300,000 increments because we wanted to keep the Council— 12/19/05 7 amounts at $90,000 increments so the CD's could be laddered in the smaller amounts. The Council briefly discussed investing and taking payments for the lift station out of our of Prime Security money market account. 2. January Calendar 2006 -Noted 3. Memo 12/13/05 Re: Receipt of Lift#6 Contribution-Noted 4. Lift Station#6 Cost Update -Noted 5. Meeting Reminder NAC 12/21/05 1:30 p.m. -Noted 6. Receipt of LMCIT Dividend-Noted 7. Miscellaneous -Noted Rockvam asked if costs from the planner and engineer on Bayview have been obtained. Weeks said they were working on it. It was noted there has been communication with the developer of Park Hill/Park Island Apartments and their application is expected to be submitted by the end of the year. 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT Motion by Widmer seconded by Reinhardt to approve the claims for payment for December 19, 2005. Hughes verified #17 Fall Clean Up was not the curbside pick up. Widmer asked if #16 for Beautification included the treetops in the planters and Weeks said they were • included. Widmer asked how many valves (#20) were included in the cost. Goman said it was for three valves and they were all City valves. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Seifert referred to a memo from Alan Brixius, City Planner, to the developer for Park Hill/Park Island Apartments stating they should enter into a predevelopment agreement with the City and pay $10,000. He said the City does not have an ordinance that states this. Rockvam said this was probably a result of the Council's dismay with the planning and engineering costs incurred for remodeling Bayview Apartments. Seifert said we do not want any money paid directly to the planner or the City in this manner. Widmer asked the status All Stars would have with the change in the no smoking ban. Rockvam said our ordinance clearly states a food percentage requirement has to be met to obtain a liquor license. He added we should be receiving monthly reports on this from each liquor license holder. Seifert asked if the City has received a response from our letter of December 8"' regarding the current ownership. Rockvam recommended the attorney send them a letter regarding this. 40 Council— 12/19/05 8 • 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a. Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: Vote Required for Interim Ord. Establish Temporary Development Moratorium— 12/7/05 —Previously Mailed b. NAC Re: Development Moratorium— 12/9/05 —Previously Mailed c. LMCD Re: Public Meeting on Milfoil on 12/14/05 —Previously Mailed d. Mediacom Re: Channel Changes— 12/5/05 e. Memo to Planning Commission Re: Meeting & Public Hearing on Moratorium — 12/7/05 f) Letter to All Stars Re: Ownership— 12/8/05 g) Mediacom Re: Rate Changes— 12/12/05 h) MCWD Water Pro Newsletter—Fall 2005 i) Mound Fire Dept—Fire &Rescue Calls &Activity Report—November 2005 j) Mound Fire Dept—Relief Association Report k) Assessment Process to Determine Driveway Projects Compliance with Zoning Ordinance 1) Lakeview Lofts 1. Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: HCRRA Gravel Sidewalk & Concrete Stoops at Lakeview Lofts— 12/12/05 2. Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: HCRRA Gravel Sidewalk & Concrete Stoops at Lakeview Lofts— 11/17/05 3. From City to Tom Seifert Re: HCRAA Permit for Emergency Ingress & • Egress Easement Area— 11/16/05 4. HCRRA Re: Permit for Gravel Sidewalk & Concrete Stoops— 11/9/05 5. Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: Lakeview Lofts Status Report— 12/15/05 m)2005 Year End EMV Property Type Table—(Payable 2006) n) Letter to L. Blackstad, Henn. Co. Transit & Community Works Re: Station Area — 12/31/05 o) Water Main Break, 4484 West Arm Road (Related Communications — Letter to LMCIT 12/13/05; Admin. Letter 12/2/05; Schoell & Madson Letter 12/12/05; Resident Letter 11110105; Util. Supt. Summary 10/21/05; Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Response 12/14/05) p) Head, Seifert &Vander Weide Re: Mist Lofts Status Report— 12/15/05 q) HCRRA to Seton Village Re: Dakota Rail Bridge #90652— 12/13/05 r) LMCC Re: Water Quality Education— 12/14/05 Williamson reported on the two communications related to the LMCC. He said Mediacom got a deal from QVC that displaced the weather channel on channel 23; the weather channel has been moved to channel 67 and an additional channel has been added. He said the franchise requires Mediacom to give written notice of any change and they did not do this; they have been cited and they offered to switch the channels back but it was decided this would create public confusion. Williamson said they paid additional money to buy a lower channel position where viewer ship is higher. • Council— 12/19/05 9 • Williamson said the other item is (10.g) rate changes. He said rate changes can be made only once a year but they made a change in part of package one part of the year and changed another part of a package another part of the year. He did note their increase is smaller than national increases. Williamson announced L't meeting being held on January 12'h at 11:30 to consider wireless Internet servidb and the invitation was extended to City Councils and Administrators. Rockvam extended a holiday greeting to the viewing public. 5. b) Miscellaneous Seifert stated Brimeyer indicated he would like to interview each Council member and he gave a choice of dates and times available. Rockvam verified a contract has not been signed. Reinhardt noted the interviews with the Council people would be about 30 minutes each. Rockvam said he would be available at 9:00 a.m. on 12/23; Widmer said she was available at 9:30 a.m. on 12/23; Reinhardt said she was available at 9:00 am on 12/21; Hughes said he was available at 9:30 a.m. on 12/21; Williamson said he was available at 10:00 a.m. on 12/21. 11. MISCELLANEOUS—None 12. ADJOURNMENT • Motion by Williamson seconded by Reinhardt to adjourn the meeting at 9:42 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK l —WM LIAM D. WEEKS ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER • Council— 12/19/05 10 FOMM • CITY OF SPRING PARK ga•*= SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA jam COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 21, 2005 7:30 P.M. —CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—December 5, 2005 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS a) Construction Update—Lakeview Lofts 1. Review of Landscape Plan b) Miscellaneous • 6. ORDINANCES &RESOLUTIONS a) Resolution 05-40—Approving 2005 Final Tax Levy Collectible in 2006 b) Resolution 05-41 —Approving 2006 Budget 1. 2006 Budget Dated 12/19/05 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES a) Mayor b) Council—Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer c) Engineer 1. Schoell &Madson Re: Pay Request#4 Lift#6— 12/15/05 2. Schoell &Madson Re: Lift Station#6 Status Report & Summary— 12/15/05 d) Utility Superintendent 1. Letter to Residents Re: Lift Station#6— 12/14/05 e) Administrator 1. Cash & Investment Summary& Expenditure Guideline (Nov. 2005) 2. January Calendar 2006 - ---_- 3. Memo 12/13/05 Re: Receipt of Lift#6 Contribution 4. Lift Station#6 Cost Update 5. Meeting Reminder NAC 12/21/05 1:30 p.m. 6. Receipt of LMCIT Dividend 7. Miscellaneous 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT • Council— 12/19/05 1 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS • 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS a) Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: Vote Required for Interim Ord. Establish Temporary Development Moratorium— 12/7/05 —Previously Mailed b) NAC Re: Development Moratorium— 12/9/05 —Previously Mailed c) LMCD Re: Public Meeting on Milfoil on 12/14/05 —Previously Mailed d) Mediacom Re: Channel Changes— 12/5/05 e) Memo to Planning Commission Re: Meeting & Public Hearing on Moratorium— 12/7/05r f) Letter to All Stars Re: Ownership— 12/8/05 g) Mediacom Re: Rate Changes— 12/12/05 h) MCWD Water Pro Newsletter—Fall 2005 i) Mound Fire Dept- Fire &Rescue Calls &Activity Report—November 2005 j) Mound Fire Dept.- Relief Association Report k) Assessment Process to Determine Driveway Projects Compliance with Zoning Ordinance 1) Lakeview Lofts 1. Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: HCRRA Gravel Sidewalk & Concrete Stoops at Lakeview Lofts— 12/12/05 2. Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: HCRRA Gravel Sidewalk & Concrete Stoops at Lakeview Lofts— 11/17/05 • 3. From City to Tom Seifert Re: HCRRA Permit for Emergency Ingress & Egress Easement Area— 11/16/05 4. HCRRA Re: Permit for Gravel Sidewalk& Concrete Stoops— 11/9/05 5. Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: Lakeview Lofts Status Report— 12/15/05 m)2005 Year End EMV Property Type Table—(Payable 2006) n) Letter to L. Blackstad, Henn. Co. Transit & Community Works Re: Station Area — 12/13/05 o) Water Main Break, 4484 West Arm Road(Related Communications—Letter to LMCIT 12/13/05; Admin. Letter 12/2/05; Schoell & Madson Letter 12/12/05; Resident Letter 11/10/05; Util. Supt. Summary 10/21/05; Head, Seifert &Vander Weide Response 12/14/05) p) Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: Mist Lofts Status Report— 12/15/05 q) HCRRA to Seton Village Re: Dakota Rail Bridge #90652— 12/13/05 r) LMCC Re: Water Quality Education— 12/14/05 11. MISCELLANEOUS i' 12. ADJOURNMENT • Council— 12/19/05 2 xace CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK,NIINNESOTA ," 4 M MINUTES OF SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE 011M SPRING PARK CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSOO HELD DECEMBER 21, 2005, 1:30 P.M. AT CITY HALL City Council Members in Attendance: Mayor Jerome Rockvam, Gary Hughes, Sarah Reinhardt, Joanna Widmer, Bruce Williamson Planning Commission Members in Attendance: Bill Anderson(Chair—left at 2:45),Jean Mork Bredeson (left at 2:45), Sera Maloney,Mike Mason, Doug Sippel Planning Commission Members Absent: Beth Aschinger, Evalina Klein Staff in Attendance: Bill Weeks, City Administrator/Clerk/Treasurer Alan Brixius,Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. Dan Petrik,Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. Tom Seifert, Head, Seifert&Vander Weide Nancy Beck, Head, Seifert &Vander Weide • On December 21, 2005, at 1:30 p.m., the Spring Park City Council and Planning Commission held a special joint meeting at City Hail with Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc., the City Planner, and Head, Seifert&Vander Weide, the City Attorney. The meeting was conducted in a workshop format. The purpose was to discuss the parameters of the study of the City's zoning code that the City Council requested the City Planner and City Attorney to conduct pursuant to Resolution 05-39 adopted on December 19, 2005. Alan Brixius, the City Planner, led the meeting. He requested input from the Council and Planning Commission regarding the issues that have arisen during the Lakeview Lofts and Mist Lofts redevelopment projects and related concerns with respect to the City's Zoning Code. The following matters with respect to this topic were discussed: Guest parking—the Zoning Code currently has no specific number of spaces for guest parking; relies instead on density. Commercial parking—how will this work in practice? Application fees—need provisions in the Zoning Code regarding fees for staff review of zoning applications. The City should not have to bear these costs. • SPECIAL JOINT MEETING— 12/21/05 Possible problem when plans are submitted for review before a predevelopment • agreement has been signed by the developer. Exterior finishes—consider setting requirements for color and materials;. oncern, y with deviations between actual building and the illustrations shown tll�CO bil *A 1 regarding color; discussion of brick exteriors...can set a percentage or limit r ' requirement to sides of building visible from public rights of ways...also consider use of different materials for visual interest. There is a need for some standards in the Zoning Code because currently, if a project does not require a variance, CUP, etc., then the City has little input on how the project will look. Construction activities—one concern raised was that it is more difficult to deal with contractors (who are often on site for only a short time)than with the developer who has a greater interest in cooperating with the City. The requirement of a construction activity and staging plan should be considered for future projects. Some problems/issues with the current projects include: a. Staging area b. Loading/unloading of materials C. Ingress/egress to site d. Perimeter security(fencing, lighting, etc.) e. Damage to neighboring properties (e.g. lime dust killing trees) f. Dust control (enforcement issues) g. Diesel exhaust • h. Site clean-up/debris i. Hours of operation(concern about what constitutes "work," issue of diesel truck noise before"work" is started, interior quiet work may be permitted earlier/later, handle as a nuisance issue?) Landscaping—concerns were voiced regarding the adequacy of the Zoning Code regarding landscape issues. The Planner agrees that Code has deficiencies in the landscape area and he can provide sample provisions for review. Williamson stated that clear landscape standards are needed. Limited time for review—concerns were raised regarding developer requests for immediate Council action on items with little time for review. The Council understands that some issues have to be dealt with quickly and the Council would like to be helpful,but it is concerned about pressure to make decisions too quickly. The Planner stated that the Council can adopt a policy setting a time schedule for submission of plans for review and similar requests so that the Council has an adequate time for review and consideration before-^snaking decisions. General discussion continued regarding matters to be considered by the Planner when working on the Zoning Code study. • SPECIAL JOINT MEETING— 12/21/05 2 Some of the rules/regulations may belong in the City Code rather than the Zoning Code; • one reason: the police will enforce Code violations,but not Zoning violations. The City's nuisance ordinances can be used to deal with some of the construction activity 0 concerns. It is important to have regulation of construction debris in the Code because it should apply to all construction projects, not just the ones where there are development agreements in place. One option would be to have a construction ordinance that governs construction operations. A copy of the ordinance would be delivered to the applicant along with the building permit. The Planner advised that some cities are adopting a fine for Code violations. This procedure may be a faster and cheaper method for enforcing the Code since it would use mediation if there is a dispute rather than having a criminal misdemeanor prosecution. The legality of this option will have to be reviewed by the City Attorney. The Wayzata development process was discussed. The Planner advised that Wayzata has extremely detailed architectural standards...very time consuming for the Planning Commission/Council to deal with. It is not something that he would necessarily recommend for Spring Park. Also, the Wayzata requirements are expensive. This can delay redevelopment because of the costs involved. It also only attracts "heavy hitters" for redevelopment projects. • The Planner advised that the Comprehensive Plan may be the place for some of the requirements that the Council is considering regarding redevelopment projects. The Comprehensive Plan sets the tone for the City. The Zoning Code should contain a clear provision that the cost of all changes to utilities required by a project will be borne by the developer, and all changes must be approved in advance by the City Engineer. The Streetscape (and Sidewalk) Plan developed for the Lakeview Lofts and Mist Lofts projects needs to be reviewed and incorporated into the Zoning Code or Comprehensive Plan. The concept of"transition zones"between different zoning districts was discussed. Many cities have space for this,but there is not a lot of space in Spring Park so it may not be feasible. Alternatives include requiring boundary line fences, landscape screening, and greater set-backs. The Planner advised that boundary line fences are generally preferable to fences set back from the property line because of the maintenance problems associated with the"no man's land" created between the fence and the property line if set backs are required. In commercial zones, usually only screening of outdoor storage areas is required. • SPECIAL JOINT MEETING— 12/21/05 3 Height requirements/limitations were briefly discussed. The Zoning Code currentl* # 7 • permits buildings taller than 3 stories subject to certain conditions. It was set up this way to accommodate the Tower. It provides flexibility, but can be changed. �• „ VA JIB The Planner advised the Council and Planning Commission that all important future development projects in Spring Park will be redevelopment projects. Generally, redevelopment projects are more expensive than new development projects; for example, developed land is more expensive than green space, and there are additional costs involved such as demolition. Small lot size also often increases the cost or redevelopment projects. At some point, the Buettenhoff property in the middle of the City will be redeveloped. The City needs to think about how it wants the City center to look in the future. The Mayor stated that a"lake look" is important. It is hard to define, but you know it when you see it. The Planner suggested that everyone drive around the area and take pictures of buildings that have a"lake look." This will help the Planner develop standards that define a"lake look." Lake look performance standards can be contained in either the Zoning Code or the Comprehensive Plan. The City has more discretion with respect to the enforcement of standards contained in the Comprehensive Plan. Changes from Zoning Code requirements often need a variance,which the Council has little discretion in granting...an undue hardship (not solely economic in nature)that is unique to the property must be shown. The procedure for the study of the Zoning Code was also discussed. The Planner stated that as a first step,NAC would provide a work program and cost estimate. Workshop • sessions with the Council and Planning Commission will be required during the process. It was suggested that the workshops be held in the evening to make it possible for working members to attend. The proposal for the redevelopment of the Park Hill Apartment complex by K Hovnanian and the effect of the possible moratorium on the project were discussed at the end of the meeting. The developer has submitted concept plans to the Planner and has advised the Planner that it intends to submit an application for plan review to the City before December 31, 2005 in order to be exempt from the proposed moratorium. The project would be a complete tear down of the existing buildings. It would reduce the number of dwelling units from 157 to 150. There would be underground parking beneath all five buildings. The surface parking lots will be used for guest parking. The plan also provides for a reduction in impervious surface on the site. The developer believes that no variances or CUPs will be necessary. The Planner has advised the developer that it will be required to escrow money with the City to cover the costs of plan review. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 3:40 p.m. • SPECIAL JOINT MEETING— 12/21/05 4