Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-04-18 MINUTES AGENDA COTTAGE GROVE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 18, 2001 Persons wishing to address the Council during fhis meeting are asked to fill out a "Speaker Signup Form"and return the form to any Staff Member prior to the start of the meeting. Speaker Signup Forms are located on each audience chair in the Council Chamber. OPEN FORUM - 7:15 P.M. Persons may address the City Council on subjects that are not a part of the Regu/ar Meeting agenda, but must limit remarks to two (2) minutes. Open forum will adjourn to the Regular Meeting promptly at 7:30 p.m. Open Forum and a portion of the Regular Meeting are te/evised LIVE, airing on Governmenf Channel 16. REGULAR MEETING - 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor ROLL CALL — City Clerk 1. ADOPTION OF AGENDA 2. PRESENTATIONS 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. April 4, 2001 Regular Meeting 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Accept and Place on File the Following Minutes: *'`i. Economic Development Authority of February 13, 2001 and March 13, 2001. B. Consider adopting a resolution accepting a grant from Washington County School-to-Work to provide financial rewards to youth volunteers in the Recreation Department's U-Lead and U/R Programs. Staff Recommendation:Adopt the resolution. The grant is in the amount of$2,557.50. C. Consider authorizing issuance of a single-occasion gambling permit to The Phoenix Residence, Inc. to conduct a raffle at Mississippi Dunes Golf Course, 10351 Grey Cloud Trail, on June 12, 2001. Staff Recommendation:Authorize issuance of the single-occasion gambling permit. During the required background investigation by the Public Safety Department no facts were found which would constitute denial of the permit. APRIL 18, 2001 AGENDA Cottage Grove City Council D. Consider authorizing issuance of a single-occasion gambling permit to the Church of St. Rita to conduct a raffle, bingo and pull-tabs at the Church of St. Rita, 8694 — 80th Street South, on September 22 & 23, 2001. Staff Recommendation:Authorize issuance of the single-occasion gambling permit. During the required background investigation by the Public Safety Department no facts were found which would constitufe denial of the permif. E. Consider approving payment of second quarter 2001 support for the Youth Service Bureau. Staff Recommendation:Approve second quarter payment. The ba/ance in the gambling fund is approximately$46,000 at 3/31/01. F. Consider the appointment of John DeBaere to the position of Working Foreman in the Streets Maintenance Division of the Public Works Department. Staff Recommendation:Approval of the appointment of John DeBaere to the position of Working Foreman in the Streets Maintenance Division;this is an exempt position within the bargaining group that will report directly to the Public Works Supervisor. The position performs a variety of duties in the maintenance and operation of the City's street and storm sewer systems and is directly responsible for the supervision of Sfreets Maintenance Division personnel as directed by the Public Works Supervisor. G. Consider approval of the final plat for Hidden Valley 10th Addition, which will consist of 20 lots for single-family homes and 3 outlots. The preliminary plat was approved on June 2, 1998. Staff Recommendation:Adopt fhe resolution approving the�nal plat for Hidden Valley 10th Addition. H. Consider authorizing the replacement of the main City Hall file server, which is no longer powerful enough to perForm all necessary functions. Staff Recommendation:Authorize the purchase of a replacement main file server at a cost of $12,931.29 from Dell Computers, Inc. I. Consider adopting a resolution transferring $54,752 from the Water Area Fund (575) to the CGTAP Fund (552) Staff Recommendation:Adopt the resolution. J. Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the creation of the Celebration Fund as of 1/1/00 and the transfer of$7,000 from the General Fund to the Celebration Fund during 2001. Sfaff Recommendation:Adopt the resolution. K. Adopt the final 2001-2006 Capital Improvement Plan. Staff Recommendation:Adopt the fina12001-2006 Capital Improvement Plan. L. Consider approving a variance to Title 11-3-3, Accessory Structures, to allow construction of a 780 square-foot garage in front of the principal structure at 6740 Goodview Court South. Staff Recommendation:Adopt a resolution approving the variance. M. Consider adopting a resolution authorizing Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates to prepare a feasibility report and plans and specifications for the public utility and street improvement project for the proposed elementary school to be located at 7447 — 65th Street. Staff Recommendation:Adopt the resolution. **N. Consider approval of a simple lot division of a 20-acre parcel of land located at 6240 Ideal Avenue South into finro separate taxing parcels of 17.5 acres and 2.5 acres. Staff Recommendation:Adopt the resolution approving a simple lot division of a 20-acre parcel located at 6240 Ideal Avenue South into two separate taxing parcels of 17.5 acres and 2.5 acres. APRIL 18, 2001 AGENDA Cottage Grove City Council **O. Consider approval of a simple lot division of a 20-acre parcel of land located at 6120 Ideal Avenue South into two separate taxing parcels of 17.5 acres and 2.5 acres. Staff Recommendation:Adopt the resolution approving a simple lot division of a 20-acre parcel /ocated at 61201deal Avenue South into two separate taxing parcels of 17.5 acres and 2.5 acres. **P. Consider modification of the Investigative Aide position. Staff Recommendation:Modify the Investigative Aide position to eliminate Dispatch duties of the current job description, and place the posifion in either Pay Grade IX or X of the 2001 Pay Plan for Non-Represented Employees. 5. RESPONSE TO PREVIOUSLY RAISED OPEN FORUM ISSUES 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS *A. Hold the public hearing on Modification to the Development Program for Development District No. 1 and the Modification of the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing District Nos. 1-1 and 1-3, and adopt a resolution approving the Modifications. Staff Recommendation:Hold the public hearing and adopt fhe resolution. 7. BID AWARDS 8. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS A. Consider approving an interFund loan to the Ice Arena Fund from the Closed Debt Service Fund in the amount of$850,000. Staff Recommendation:Approve interfund loan to the Ice Arena Fund from the Closed Debt Service Fund. B. Consider adopting a resolution approving 2000 to 2001 budget carry forwards and designating December 31, 2000 fund balance. Consider adopting a second resolution authorizing the transfer of$100,000 from the General Fund (100) to the Equipment Replacement Fund (250). Staff Recommendation:Adopt the resolutions. C. Consider approval of an ordinance rezoning certain properties with the City of Cottage Grove to bring them into compliance with the approved 2020 Comprehensive Plan. Staff Recommendation:Adopt the ordinance rezoning certain properties within the City of Cottage Grove, which will bring them into compliance with fhe approved 2020 Comprehensive Plan. D. Consider denial of a variance to Title 11-15-8C, Mississippi River Corridor Overlay District bluff line setback requirements, to allow construction of a swimming pool �t 11931 Lofton Avenue South. Sfaff Recommendation:Adopt the resolution denying the variance. 9. RESPONSE TO PREVIOUSLY RAISED COUNCIL COMMENTS AND REQUESTS 10. CQUNCIL COMMENTS AND REQUESTS 11. PAY BILLS A. Approve payment of check numbers 118227 to 118449 in the amount of $652.267.50. APRIL 18, 2001 AGENDA Cottage Grove City Council 12. WORKSHOP SESSION — OPEN TO PUBLIC **A. Thompson Grove Pavement Management Project. 13. WORKSHOP SESSION — CLOSED TO PUBLIC A. Personnellssues. ADJOURNMENT * Contains Supplemental Information ** Packet Item Submitted 4/16/01 REGULAR MEETING COTTAGE GROVE CITY COUNCIL April 18, 2001 OPEN FORUM — 7:15 p.m. Open forum provides a person an opportunity to inform the Council of a problem or to request information related to City business not scheduled for Council action and on the Agenda. Mayor Shiely encouraged persons to limit their remarks to two (2) minutes per issue. Present: Mayor Sandy Shiely Council Member Pat Rice Council Member Cheryl Kohls Council Member Jim Wolcott Council Member Rod Hale Also Present: Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator Ron Hedberg, Finance Director Jim Kinsey, Public Safety Director Jerry Bourdon, City Engineer, BRAA Les Burshten, Public Works Director Kim Lindquist, Director of Community Development Corrine Thomson, City Attorney, Kennedy and Graven Michelle Wolfe, Assistant City Administrator No one appeared under Open Forum. CALL TO ORDER The City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota held a regular meeting on Wednesday, April 18, 2001, at the Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 80'h Street South. Mayor Shiely called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Sandy Shiely Council Member Pat Rice Council Member Cheryl Kohls Council Member Jim Wolcott Council Member Rod Hale Also Present: Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator Ron Hedberg, Finance Director Jim Kinsey, Public Safety Director Jerry Bourdon, City Engineer, BRAA Les Burshten, Public Works Director Kim Lindquist, Director of Community Development Corrine Thompson, City Attorney, Kennedy and Graven Michelle Wolfe, Assistant City Administrator Regular Meeting—Apri118, 2001 Cottage Grove City Council Page 2 Mayor Shiely presided over the meeting. ADOPTION OF AGENDA MOTION BY WOLCOTT, SECONDED BY RICE, TO APPROVE THE FINAL AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. PRESENTATIONS NONE. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the April 4, 2001 Regular Council Meeting were approved as presented. CONSENT CALENDAR Council Member Kohls asked to pull item K for discussion. She stated the list originally received, the Capital Improvement Plan, was a list of proposed projects for the next 10 years, which was reviewed. She explained since the project review, a memo has been received from the Finance Director that includes more detail regarding the Annual Debt Service Levy. She explained that she has several questions and concerns and suggested the item be moved to Unfinished and New Business but asked if it would be possible to table the discussion for two weeks. She stated this would give her time to discuss the additional information with the Finance Director before making any decisions. Mayor Shiely stated Item K is moved to Unfinished Business where a motion can be made at that time to table discussion. Mayor Shiely stated that it appears there is a typo under Item 4d noting the police background report show September 22 and 23, 2000 and it should be September 22 and 23, 2001. MOTION BY HALE, SECONDED BY WOLCOTT, TO: A. ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE THE FOLLOWING MEETING MINUTES: i. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF FEBRUARY 13, 2001 AND MARCH 13, 2001. B. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 01-035 ACCEPTING A GRANT FROM WASHINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL-TO-WORK FOR COTTAGE GROVE RECREATION DEPARTMENT'S U-LEAD AND U/R YOUTH VOLUNTEERS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,557.50. C. AUTHORIZE ISSUANCE OF A SINGLE-OCCASION GAMBLING PERMIT TO THE PHOENIX RESIDENCE, INC., TO CONDUCT A RAFFLE AT THE MISSISSIPPI DUNES GOLF COURSE, 10351 GREY CLOUD TRAIL, ON JUNE 12, 2001. D. AUTHORIZE ISSUANCE OF A SINGLE-OCCASION GAMBLING PERMIT TO THE CHURCH OF ST. RITA TO CONDUCT A RAFFLE, BINGO AND PULL TAB OPERATIONS AT THE CHURCH OF ST. RITA, 8694 80T" STREET SOUTH, ON SEPTEMBER 22 AND 23, 2001. E. APPROVE PAYMENT OF SECOND QUARTER 2001 SUPPORT FOR THE YOUTH SERVICE BUREAU IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,500.00. F. APPROVE APPOINTMENT OF JOHN DEBAERE TO THE POSITION OF WORKING FOREMAN IN THE STREETS MAINTENANCE DIVISION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. Regular Meeting—April 18, 2001 Cottage Grove City Council Page 3 G. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 01-036 APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT KNOWN AS HIDDEN VALLEY 10T" ADDITION. H. AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF A REPLACEMENT MAIN FILE SERVER FROM DELL COMPUTERS, INC., AT A COST OF $12,931.29. I. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 01-037 TRANSFERRING $54,752 FROM THE WATER AREA FUND (575) TO THE Cottage Grove Tax Assistance Program (552). J. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 01-038 CREATING A CELEBRATION FUND. K. THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR. L. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 01-039 APPROVING A VARIANCE TO TITLE 11-3-3, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, OF THE CITY CODE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 780 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE IN FRONT OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AT 6740 GOODVIEW COURT SOUTH. M. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 01-040 AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY REPORT AND PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR ALL PUBLIC UTILITIES AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, 7447 65T" STREET SOUTH. N. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 01-041 APPROVING A SIMPLE LOT DIVISION OF A 20-ACRE PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED AT 6240 IDEAL AVENUE SOUTH INTO TWO SEPARATE TAXING PARCELS OF 17.5 ACRES AND 2.5 ACRES. O. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 01-042 APPROVING A SIMPLE LOT DIVISION OF A 20-ACRE PARCEL. OF LAND LOCATED AT 6120 IDEAL AVENUE SOUTH INTO TWO SEPARATE TAX PARCELS OF 17.5 ACRES AND 2.5 ACRES. P. APPROVE MODIFICATION OF THE INVESTIGATIVE AIDE POSITION AND PLACE POSITION IN EITHER PAY GRADE IX OR X OF THE 2001 PAY PLAN. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Mayor Shiely stated all Items on the Consent Calendar except Item K have been passed. RESPONSE TO PREVIOUSLY RAISED OPEN FORUM ISSUES NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Hold the public hearing on Modification to the Development Program for Development District No. 1 and the Modification of the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financinq District Nos. 1-1 and 1-3, and adopt a resolution approving the Modifications. Mayor Shiely stated the public hearing was open and asked if anyone from the audience would like to speak. She noted no one from the audience stepped forward stating the public hearing is closed to public statements. City Administrator Ryan Schroeder stated the Economic Development Authority (EDA) recommends adoption of the Resolution for Modification to the Development Program for Development District No. 1 and the Modification of the Tax Increment Financing Plans. He stated both districts are redevelopment districts created in 1985 noting one is a housing redevelopment district for the Oakwood Heights project, the other is an economic redevelopment district for the Up North Plastics project. He stated this is to make corrections and to clarify intent of use of the proceeds for both districts. He stated this needs to be done to bring these districts into conformance with current state law. City Administrator Schroeder stated the reasons for bringing this to the Council now is in Regular Meeting—Apri118, 2001 Cottage Grove City Council Page 4 anticipation of legislation currently proposed that, if adopted by the State, could restrict municipalities from amending budgets for redevelopment districts that were created prior to 1990. City Administrator Schroeder stated the changes recommended for adoption would do six things in both cases. He reviewed the six items with the Council noting this information is included in the information packet that was provided to the Council. He stated these six items would address both cases. City Administrator Schroeder explained the six items to the Council. He stated the first item is to expand the budget for each district to include interest earnings, interfund loans and interfund transfers as tax increment funds. He clarified this will not provide additional revenue sources to the City stating it is only recognizing the items within the budget that were not recognized earlier. He referenced 1985 as an example stating interest earnings were not classified as tax increments noting with past legislative changes they are now included. He stated the second item is to clarify budgets for previous expenditures citing an example to the Council that clarified discrepancies between budget versus actual expenses is to correct and recognize the expenditure incurred. He stated the third item is to increase authorization of bonded indebtedness, the fourth item is to explicitly authorize refunding of bonds, the fifth item is to clarify the duration of the district noting this is a 25-year district sun setting in 2011, and the sixth item is to clarify the amounts of the transfers of tax increments. He stated both will cover these items and clarified this is not amending the total bottom line budgets. He referenced the materials received stating the changes do include the opportunity to allocate any excess revenues to shortfalls in other districts and allows the right to expend any excess revenues throughout the development districts. He noted this is the urbanized area of the community stating if there are project eligible expenditures or needs in these districts the excess can be directed to these areas. He asked for further clarification from Assistant Ciry Administrator Michelle Wolfe stating the Economic Development Authority is recommending approval of this action and is requesting Council's adoption of the Resolution. Assistant City Administrator Wolfe referenced the schedule stating there are several steps that need to be accomplished per State statute, which includes the Planning Commission review. To assess conformance with the City's comprehensive plan, the Commission has taken action on the item. She stated public hearing notices and all required steps have been completed as per the statute. She stated this is the final City action and proceeds to certification. Mayor Shiely asked for clarification on the section in the report that deals with the fact that we are not talking about any more money or the bottom line is the same. City Administrator Schroeder explained this is to amend the line items to recognize where expenditures have occurred. He clarified that neither revenue nor additional opportunity for expenditure is being created beyond what is currently anticipated in the present budget. Council Member Hale asked if this would be done regardless of whether or not there is pending legislation clarifying this is a housekeeping item. He asked if the legal staff prepared the Resolution or is it a model that is used. City Administrator Schroeder stated this is being done because of pending legislation noting it has been under consideration prior to State legislation. He clarified to Council Member Hale that Ehlers and Associates prepared the Resolution, which is the same as in other communities. MOTION BY HALE, SECONDED BY WOLCOTT, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 01-043 OF THE CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THAT THE MODIFICATION TO Regular Meefing—April 18, 2001 Cottage Grove City Council Page 5 THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 AND THE MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS NOS. 1-1 AND 1-3 CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. BID AWARDS NONE UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS A. Consider approving an interfund loan to the Ice Arena Fund from the Closed Debt Service Fund in the amount of$850,000. Mayor Shiely stated Council is asked to approve an additional interfund loan to fund operations at the Ice Arena for 1999, 2000 and into 2001 in the amount of$850,000. The cash balance at the beginning of 2000 was approximately negative ($109,000) and at the end of 2000 will be approximately negative ($476,000). The cash and fund balance at any given time are not expected to be the same because of normal liabilities and receivables occurring in the course of business as well as prior loans. A table of the past Ice Arena results was included with the information packet provided to the Council for review. Finance Director Ron Hedberg stated this is one of the cleanup issues for closing the books for the year 2000. He stated significant amounts have been spent on capital improvements over the last 5 years for the ice arena. He stated in the last three years $545,000 has been spent. He stated in the last two years there have been interfund loans from one fund to the ice arena to provide cash to complete the capital improvements. He explained this request is another interim interfund loan to cover unfinanced capital improvements as well as the operating deficits from the year 2000 and 1999. He stated the ice arena operated with a deficit in 1999 noting no funding was provided. He stated the cash needs at the end of December are approximately $476,000. He stated they are proposing to include in the interfund loan enough cash to finance the operations for the year 2001 noting the ice arena has a deficit budget for the year 2001 that needs approximately $235,000. He stated there are two existing interfund loans noting the intent is to roll these two loans into one interfund loan. He explained this would pay off the balance of two interfund loans in the amount of$139,000 at the end of 2000. The benefit to do this interfund loan at this time is that it provides the opportunity to finance the ice arena operations until the year 2002. He stated it would need to be addressed in the 2002 budget process referencing an annual debt service payment required in the Resolution. The interfund loan repayment will need to be addressed in the 2002 budget as well as in the operating deficits for the ice arena. Finance Director Hedberg stated there are actually four options that can be considered. The first is not to do anything. He explained that because it is a negative cash position, an informal interFund borrowing is occurring. He stated the financial statements would show zero cash in the ice arena fund where it is actually a negative $476,000. He stated at the end of year for accounting purposes they will need to get cash to zero noting it will become an informal interfund loan at that time. He stated on January 1 st it reverses and the cash is back to a negative $476,000. He stated the second option would be to do an additional third interfund loan to provide enough cash to get it to zero at the end of 2000. He stated the third option would be to provide enough cash to roll the two existing interfund loans into one loan. He stated the fourth option would be to refinance the existing loans and provide enough cash for 2001 operations. Regular Meeting—April 18, 2001 Cottage Grove City Council Page 6 Mayor Shiely stated there was a real need to discuss 2002 and beyond clarifying that this is a stopgap. Finance Director Hedberg stated this is a stopgap and only gets the ice arena to the end of 2001. He stated that as a part of the 2002 budgeting process a discussion and decision needs to be made with respect to strategy and funding. Council Member Hale asked if the P&L for the ice arena would carry the interest as an expense for the $850,000 and asked where it would appear on a balance sheet. He clarified the amount of the current loan is at 5.5%. He asked if they would be able to pay this loan off within the 10-year timeframe. Finance Director Hedberg clarified to Council Member Hale that the P&L for the ice arena would carry the interest as an expense stating there is a balance sheet included with the financial statement and is provided to the City for review. He confirmed the current loan is 7 years at 5.5% interest, which is comparable rate in the market today. He stated the existing loans were for 7 years and are proposed to be extended in 10 years due to the budgetary burden. He stated it is hoped in the 2002 budget discussions a decision will be made about the ice arena and future subsides. City Administrator Schroeder clarified that the expectation is that nothing changes. He stated if this is done and the operation runs as it has been and the debt continues to be an expense to the operation, it would be considering approximately $150-160,000 transfer annually to keep the operation afloat. Council Member Kohls asked for clarification on option 4 asking if it would also come out of the closed debt fund. She also asked for clarification on closed debt funds, what it is, and what the money is traditionally used for. She asked if the City has a specific policy for use and balance. Finance Director Hedberg stated the cash would be provided from the closed debt fund because that fund has the most amount of cash that is uncommitted. He explained when projects are financed the dollars are provided to start the construction. Finance Director Hedberg stated it is the policy to transfer any monies left over into the Closed Debt Fund. The money then becomes available for other eligible projects similar to special assessment debt. He stated the balance of the Closed Debt Fund is over$2 million. He explained that because it is an interfund loan from one fund to another, it is up to the Council's discretion to determine the terms of the loan. Council Member Hale clarified Finance Director Hedberg's comments stating that when the 2002 budget is reviewed a decision is needed as to whether the ice arena would be able to pay this debt. He further clarified if they are not able to pay it off it may be necessary to look at the general fund to subsidize this debt noting this is one of the options being considered. Finance Director Hedberg stated it is his expectation that when they do the 2002 levy there will be a component for a subsidy to the ice arena. Mayor Shiely expressed her hopes that the Council agree there is a need to have further discussion about the future and how the ice arena situation will be handled. She recommended a discussion take place to make a decision. Council Member Kohls stated in past discussions it was decided that they would have periodic workshops to discuss ice arena issues and expressed her agreement with Mayor Shiely. She stated her preference would be to have these discussions before they begin discussion around the budgets. Regular Meefing—Apri118, 2001 Coftage Grove City Council Page 7 Mayor Shiely stated a need to work together and do brainstorming to determine what can be done and restated Council Member Kohls' suggestion to have this done before August 2001. Council Member Wolcott stated there was a discussion during the budget process where a goal was set stating the ice arena would be subsidized for no more than $100,000. He noted the ice arena manager position is not yet filled which in turn has caused some delays in the process. He clarified that they understood the ice arena would need to subsidized to a certain extent stating $195,000 was not acceptable, noting $100,000 was the agreed upon goal. Council Member Kohls suggested a memo with an update to provide an idea as to where they are at in the process. MOTION BY HALE, SECONDED BY RICE, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 01-044 APPROVE AN INTERFUND LOAN TO THE ICE ARENA FUND FROM THE CLOSED DEBT SERVICE FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $850,000. MOTION 5-0. B. Consider adopting a resolution approving 2000 to 2001 budget carry forwards and designatinq December 31, 2000 fund balance. Consider adopting a second resolution authorizing the transfer of$100 000 from the General Fund (100) to the Equipment Replacement Fund (250). Mayor Shiely stated this is to consider a resolution approving the carryover of budgeted and unspent amounts from the 2000 to the 2001 budget year in addition to considering a transfer of$100,000 from the General Fund to the Equipment Replacement Fund for the future replacement of the aerial ladder truck. Mayor Shiely suggested the discussion begin with the budget carry forwards and designating December 31, 2000 fund balance. Finance Director Hedberg stated the first discussion on carry forwards requires 3 separate discussions due to the inter-relation of the issues and recommended discussing them all together. He explained the budget carry forwards are uncompleted projects that were budgeted for the year 2000 and are still uncompleted. He stated the staff is requesting they carryover the budget amounts into the following year. He referenced the packet materials, page finro shows a list of the dollar amounts with a brief description as to what is being carried forward. He stated in the general fund there is $211,000, utilities fund includes $259,000 which includes $150,000 for the Salt Storage Shed, equipment replacement fund includes $91,000 and a $2000 EDA fund bill. He stated the special funding requests include a carryover from 1999 to 2000 for a $185,000 seal coating program that was not completed at that time. He stated in 2000 the normal seal coating program was completed noting the additional seal coating was not completed. He stated the Public Works Department has requested the amount be carried over and apply it to the Salt Storage Building stating this is a definite change in the original budgeted use of those funds and requires a decision by the Council. He stated the next item is designating a portion of the City's remaining undesignated fund balance at the end of 2000 for the purchase of mobile data computers for police cars. He stated the Chief has applied for and received a grant that includes a potential City cost with this grant for an approximate cost of$40,000 depending upon the possibility of receiving another grant for the remaining costs. He explained that due to the fact that there was no surplus dollars available in the Police Department he felt it was appropriate for the Council to address this as an use of general fund balance or Council contingency rather than a budget carryover in the Police Department. Finance Director Hedberg stated the third item included in the carry over discussion is for designating fund balances for specific purposes. He explained that money is collected each Regular Meeting—April 18, 2001 Cottage Grove City Council Page 8 year that is restricted in use noting they are designating the money so it isn't spent for other purposes. He referenced the 911 Enhanced Communication fees that are collected stating there is approximately $38,000 that remains unspent at the end of 2000 noting the use of this money is restricted and they want to designate the fund balance to ensure it is not used for any other purpose. Finance Director Hedberg added that the $38,000 remaining in the 911 enhanced communication fees could potentially be used toward the local share of the polices Mobile Delta Computer Grant. Mayor Shiely asked for clarification on the $9,000 US West gave to the Police Department asking if this was a one-time payment or are they paying a yearly fee/lease. Finance Director Hedberg stated it was a one-time payment of$9,000 and was for the loss of the storage area. He stated they are not paying a yearly lease noting others do but he did not know why they do not pay a leasing fee. Chief Kinsey stated the contract with Qwest does call for the City of Cottage Grove to become owners of the tower after a given period of time stating it was his belief that the period was 25 years. City Administrator Schroeder clarified that they do get paid for the construction of the tower and are allowed an antenna on the tower. He stated that typically they allow a company to place an antenna on a tower and they_ receive a dollar amount annually for this but Qwest provided the construction not the City of Cottage Grove. This is the reason they do not receive an annual lease payment. Chief Kinsey stated this did provide the City with a tower that allows them to install their radio equipment noting they have gained a better system that they did not have to pay for and the City is saving money on repairs. Mayor Shiely asked for further questions on the first resolution stating she would prefer to work on each resolution separately. Council Member Wolcott expressed concerns about the seal coating stating they have made large investments on the new roads. He stated his concern would be if there were cutbacks on seal coating it will affect and shorten the life of the road. He stated his concerns that there is money being removed from seal coating after there was a request for additional funding. He stated he does not want to see a cutback in seal coating and asked for assurance from Public Works Director Burshten that this would not affect the life of the roads. He clarified that the seal coating is still on track and being done on schedule referencing the roads and construction. Public Works Director Burshten stated this is not jeopardizing the program at all, noting the money is allocated in the 2001 budget for the seal coating. He stated a large coat was applied two years ago and the dollars being discussed were in addition to the regular coating they are presently doing. He stated there is a large program this year and confirmed they will be able to continue the seven-year rotation. He stated at one time they were on a five-year rotation schedule, which was successful. He stated they have changed the type of rock used and they are now able to extend the rotation time. He stated he does not see any issues and confirmed the program would not be affected. He stated he did not believe there would be a problem outside of unforeseen issues that would be outside their control, referencing a potential rise in the petroleum prices. He stated they are on schedule and confirmed they are sealing, on schedule, two years after construction. City Administrator Schroeder clarified this is not taking money from the 2001 budget noting there is approximately $185-190,000 in 2001 for seal coating. He stated this is much like the Closed Debt Fund stating each year over the last four years they have increased the allocations for seal coating and the bids have been less than the allocation. He stated they have rolled the difference forward each year noting this is residual from 1999 and 2000. Regular Meefing—April 18, 2001 Cottage Grove City Council Page 9 Council Member Hale stated he had the same concerns as expressed by Council Member Wolcott noting the words referenced as "uncompleted seal coating" stating it does not discuss that the objective of seal coating has been accomplished. He stated the way it is described that the money was left over after completion of the project again referencing the words "uncompleted projects". Public Works Director Burshten stated it should not read "uncompleted". He stated all that has been anticipated has been completed and they are on schedule. Council Member Wolcott asked for clarification that they are seal coating all roads two years after construction. He referenced the pavement management over the last five years with a follow up two years later with a seal coating and expressed his concerns that the money is spent for seal coating. Public Works Director Burshten cited examples of decisions made where seal coating was delayed at the scheduled intervals due to roads in need of repairs. He acknowledged this would not necessarily prolong the life of the asphalt noting the asphalt was already at a stage where they did not do the seal coating. He stated they are on schedule now where this will not happen, noting that as they do the new roads they are seal coating two years after they were paved and continuing the program on a seven year cycle going forward. Council Member Wolcott restated his concerns regarding the amount of money the City is spending putting in new roads and suggested there is a need for assurance that they are maintained for the maximum amount of life. Mayor Shiely asked that this discussion be clearly detailed in the meeting minutes. Finance Director Hedberg clarified there is a budget carryover for uncommitted Council contingency from 1999 into 2000 noting the Resolution being discussed does not carry any of this in noting there is $28,000 uncommitted in the Council Contingency for 2001 budget. He suggested adding some money to Council Contingency for 2001 stating it could come from $185,000 as an option or from the General Fund balance or carryover a previous Council Contingency. He stated the decision is up to the Council. Putting the $185,000.00 into Council Contingency is an option if the Council is not comfortable committing it towards the Salt Storage building at this time. He stated if not committed the money would remain in Fund balance stating only the designation will change. Council Member Hale asked where the money would be placed. Mayor Shiely clarified that if the Council specifies its purpose would prevent spending on other items. She stated she had read differently stating her understanding was that they were looking at an amount at the end of 2000 of$254,000 in the Council Contingency. Finance Director Hedberg stated the Council Contingency, at the end of 2000, like any other budgeted line item that is not spent, goes into fund balance. He noted that when he created the material he did not carry over the Council Contingency stating the balance for 2001 is already at $150,000. He clarified that he verified the dollar amounts and commitments noting that presently it is down to $28,000. He stated the Council Contingency, if they adopt the Resolution in the packet, would be $28,000 for 2001. He stated there is the unused Council Contingency from 1999 and 2000 that has not been carried over noting they can carry this forward if they choose. He stated this is presently in fund balance. Council Member Kohls asked how much is presently in the Council Contingency fund. Regular Meeting—April 18, 2001 Cottage Grove City Council Page 10 City Administrator Schroeder stated allocations from the fund balance could be done noting it was important to carry this forward into the fund balance. He noted revenues have been coming in slightly higher than projections and expenditures have been coming in slightly lower referencing past performance. Council Member Wolcott stated there is an item under utilities for the salt storage shed and asked if the amount from the seal coating would be added to this. Finance Director Hedberg stated that when the salt storage shed was brought in for approval the dollar amount discussed was in excess of$300,000. Mayor Shiely clarified that it was determined that this is what we need noting they will not get a shed for$150,000. Finance Director Hedberg asked if the Council wants to carry over its own unspent Council Contingency fund from the 1999 and the year 2000. He noted this option is not included in this Resolution stating it can be added. Mayor Shiely stated they can continue to discuss but she is looking for a motion on the first Resolution. Council Member Hale stated he is ready to make the motion noting there is still an issue in the first Reso�ution to carry over the Council Contingency. He asked for clarification as to whether this has been included. He noted his past experience that when it is in the Council Contingency the Council always knew where that money was and the Council tends to give more direction for that money. He stated there is value that the Council Contingency reflects the carryover. He moved the resolution that the Council Contingency carryover be included. MOTION BY HALE, SECONDED BY RICE, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 01-045 ADOPTING 2000 TO 2001 BUDGET CARRYOVERS. Council Member Wolcott restated his concerns about pulling all the seal coating money stating he does not want to see all the money moved. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Mayor Shiely stated this part of the discussion involves adopting a second resolution authorizing the transfer of$100,000 from the General Fund (100) to the Equipment Replacement Fund (250). Finance Director Hedberg referenced the information left at each position for this evening's discussion. He stated the audit is not completed and these are preliminary numbers. He noted they are not anticipating a significant adjustment to the numbers. He stated the audit opinion will be done in approximately one and a half months. He stated the results for the year 2000: the revenues were over budget by approximately $303,000 with $163,000 coming from investment earnings. He stated the year was not extraordinary but that the budget was very conservative. He stated they need to adjust investments to market value at the year noting it is prudent to have a conservative budget for investment earnings. He noted $91,000 was under budgeted intergovernmental revenues that were not anticipated and $38,000 for additional services. Finance Director Hedberg reviewed the expenditure items with the Council referencing pages finro through six stating these pages are included with the Financial Statement. He referenced page six Regular Meeting—April 18, 2001 Cottage Grove City Council Page 11 stating they are approximately $606,000 under budget. He reviewed the program areas and dollar amounts with the Council that came in under budget. He explained these are all the general fund programs noting nearly every program area was under budget. He stated $130,000 was unused contractual services noting the largest portion was legal fees stating they were lower than what had been budgeted. He stated $272,OOOwas the budget to actual balance in capitol outlay clarifying $185,000 of this amount was carry over from the previous year for the seal coating. He stated over $200,000 is from the Council Contingency carryover from 1999 to 2000 He expressed a need to point out the practice of budget carry forwards, explaining that the 2000 budget will be reduced for each of these line items noting the budget to actual in the financial statements will not look anything like this because $200,000 will be moved. He stated the following years' budget will be increased which adds to the under budget scenario for the year 2001. He stated altogether it results in a General Fund balance of$6.2 million. He referenced the materials included with the memo details a calculation of General Fund, Fund Balance, Designations and Reserves that calculates a preliminary amount available of$897,000 of unreserved, undesignated General Fund balance that would be available for designation. He stated $436,000 in budget carry forwards was just approved noting the remaining undesignated General Fund balance would be $461,000. Finance Director Hedberg stated staff recently reviewed the formal actions taken to set aside monies to replace the aerial ladder truck. He stated the only formal action they found was $200,000 that was moved to the Equipment Replacement Fund. He noted there have been workshop discussions but no formal action. He stated the Resolution is to take $100,000 from the $461,000 and move it to the Equipment Replacement Fund for future replacement. He stated it is up to the Council to decide the actual dollar amount if they wish a difference amount. Mayor Shiely stated this was the original intent. Chief Kinsey asked for clarification regarding the dollar amount quoted by Finance Director Hedberg. He asked if the actual figure was $200,000 or$20,000. Finance Director Hedberg confirmed he quoted in error stating it should be $20,000. MOTION BY KOHLS, SECONDED BY WOLCOTT, TO ADOPT RESOLUT/ON NO. 01-046 TRANSFERRING $100,000 FROM THE GENERAL FUND (100) TO THE EQUIPMENT FUND (250) FOR THE FUTURE REPLACEMENT OF THE AERIAL LADDER FIRE TRUCK. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. C. Consider approval of an ordinance rezoninq certain properties with the City of Cottage Grove to bring them into compliance with the a�proved 2020 Comprehensive Plan. Community Development Director Kim Lindquist reviewed the proposal with the Council and residents of Cottage Grove. She stated the rezoning involved three different areas of the City. She stated this is the next phase of the Comprehensive Plan process involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan noting the state law requires the City bring their zoning ordinance into compliance with their plan. She referenced materials provided for review explaining the three areas to be discussed noting the first is in the West Draw, the second is within Old Cottage Grove, and the third is in the SE portion of the community along Highway 61. Community Development Director Lindquist referenced Exhibit A for the West Draw area. She stated the West Draw areas were rezoned to urban reserve in 1996 in response to the previous ComprehEnsive Plan. She stated as part of the West Draw Task Force recommendations the concept of an R2.5 zoning district and a urban reserve district were formulated at that time and these Regular Meeting—April 18, 2001 Cottage Grove City Council Page 12 areas were brought into the urban reserve. She explained these areas were put into a holding pattern designated as future urban areas noting services were not available at that time. She stated the zoning ordinance required very large lots in order to discourage development before it was ready. She stated the urban reserve was one to finrenty and the new proposal is the R2.5 Urban Density Zoning District that was created from the West Draw Task Force Report. She explained this is the 11,000 square foot lots. She stated this is consistent with the MUSA expansion that was previously approved in the last Comprehensive Plan review. She noted a change from 1996 is a diagonal cut on the properties. She stated there has been a large amount of discussion from the Planning Commission noting the property owners have also had discussions. She stated this portion may not be able to be served by gravity sewer and stated they want to try to clarify the line is not hard and fast from a zoning perspective. She stated when they are ready to begin development and the utility work begins they would do a utility review based on pipe and site elevation. Community Development Director Lindquist stated the second area being considered is the Old Cottage Grove area. She referenced a discussion of Terry Redman's property in reference to issues around nonconforming properties in the City that were used as residential but were zoned commercial. She stated there is a Comprehensive Plan process stating this proposal is an attempt to remove the residential properties that are nonconforming by zoning amendment out of the commercial designation. She stated this is consistent with the land uses currently in this area noting they are keeping the properties that are designated commercial B2, in the Comprehensive Plan as commercial. Community Development Director Lindquist reviewed Exhibit C with the Council stating this is also a portion of the implementation of City's Comprehensive Plan. She stated these are areas that these areas were previously designated commercial stating the zoning changes bring it into conformance. She referenced property that was considered a part of the 61 Marine review acknowledging this will probably be turned over to commercial and was changed to a 62 designation. She stated many of the items were previously discussed noting this is the next step in bringing these properties into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. She referenced the minutes noting John McCool received calls from property owners inquiring about being included in the rezoning process. Community Development Director Lindquist explained these sites were not included in the Comprehensive Plan review stating the property owners need to come forward and apply through the normal planning process. She stated they did notify all of the property owners affected by the rezoning and properties within 500' of the proposed rezoning properties. Mayor Shiely stated they have three requests from the audience to speak. She noted that if others want to speak, to come forward. Ronald Reiman, Sr., 6120 Hadley Avenue South, Cottage Grove, stated people, firms and governing bodies all have principles to guide their decisions, however, the catch is we hold those principles. He noted we often surrender our values or ignore them due to inertia. He stated he would like to offer two examples of planning values specific to the West Draw. He referenced the current 2020 Comprehensive Plan and West Draw Task Force report quoting sections from each document as it relates to the original commitment for protection of the natural resources, wild life habitats and the rural areas of West Draw. He stated rural estate developments are dominate in West Draw noting that in the future they need to be sensitive to the environment. He stated it is difficult to find any reference to this commitment in the Comprehensive Plan noting he was unable to find anything that includes this sentiment. He stated plans have not worked to preserve a unique natural asset so much as it appears to meet the demands of developers referencing the decision for placement of a costly pipeline into difficult terrain. He stated they have been backing into a process that compromises the essential environmental attractions and integrity of the area through piecemeal actions. He Regular Meeting—April 18, 2001 Cottage Grove Cify Council Page 13 referenced the process stating residents who feel threatened instead of protected by zoning tend to give up and move from the area. He stated this brings in new owners, noting many are absentee owners, with little stake in the area. He stated that now, at the final, most critical stage of development for West Draw, the development of this unique area is the real test to see if we mean what is said about our principles. The Council stated it is impossible to envision how the proposed zoning, before this evening, could be consistent with these values. He asked the Council what is the responsible path to development. He suggested the Council return the proposal to staff for rework according to the following two tenants: 1. That the remaining treed, hilly areas of the West Draw be designated for eventuat zoning of_no more than one home per five acres thus preserving the heart of the remaining unique area. 2. That the properties adjacent to this area be developed with graduated lot size ranging from an acre and a half to R2.5 constituting a transition to the more open flatland properties. He stated these guidelines are general in nature and consistent with the principles already adopted by our City Council. He stated the Planning staff is capable of producing a design that will incorporate them into a new plan. He stated such a plan would preserve the remaining character of the neighborhood that residents have been working for a decade to save. He stated it would also be an example of our decision-makers observing clear principles that they are obliged to uphold in their actions. He stated they have come a long way in ten years noting much has changed and the residents have faith they will be true to our principles and uphold the pledge the City has made to its' residents. Bob Hudnut, 7145 65th Street, Cottage Grove, stated many in the West Draw respectfully suggest any decision to rezone the urban area is premature and should not be acted upon tonight. He believes it is premature because a.) It was never intended to rezone the urban reserve at this early date. b.) No environmental impact statement has been done c.) No fiscal impact statement has been done determining what the cost will be to the city in services versus the punitive revenue in taxes d.) The rezoning suggestion before the Council tonight has not been fully discussed and thought through by the community and planning staff noting that part of the Comprehensive Plan is to promote public participation and discussion. He stated a brief hearing is not enough discussion that involves the issues of rezoning that will forever alter the character of a neighborhood. He asked why the planning of the city is held exclusively for the planning staff and developers. He noted residents are rarely invited to participate during the staffldeveloper process. He respectfully suggested from now on all meetings befinreen planning staff and developers, at conceptual and other critical stages, involve neighborhood participation and that the neighborhood be invited to participate through the same system of letters that is used at the time of a public hearing. He stated it is not good planning to plan without full citizen participation every step of the way noting it is their lives that are affected too often by what others have planned for them. Mr. Hudnut noted that it is also one of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan to enhance the image of the City. He respectfully suggested that rezoning to R2.5 would not enhance the image of the City because it could jam up to 1,075 homes in this area at four per acre and create a virtual city within the city. He stated that it is argued that R2.5 allows densities of one to four homes per acre stating there is no assurance with this zoning that there would ever be one or two homes per acre. He stated the planning staff, not the community, is planning a density of three homes per acre that would mean 806 new homes. Mr. Hudnut stated it is also argued that a certain number of R2.5 homes is needed to support extension of sewer and water stating this argument has not been costed out. He stated the residents have not seen figures supporting the need for an R2.5 density. He stated the West Draw, according to the Task Force Report is a "unique area of the community" and he suggested they proceed with sensitivity before launching into rezoning. Mr. Hudnut asked the Council to consider what 800 houses would do to the uniqueness and to consider other areas before making any decisions. He referenced Council Member Wolcott stating the West Draw has always been designated as an area of the City for higher end homes. He stated crowding 800 homes would not make for higher end housing. Mr. Hudnut stated even having a variety of housing choices to attract a variety of people to our City is a most desirable goal. He suggested Regular Meeting—April 18, 2001 Cottage Grove City Council Page 14 that what would be consistent with uniqueness of the area and with the desire for higher end housing, is R2 zoning for a larger portion of the 274 acres than the current suggestion of finro percent. He stated the City zoning regulations indicate, quoting 11-9-b3, R2 is intended to represent areas which because of rugged, wooded terrain are well suited to high value housing of very low densities stating 1.5 acres. Mr. Hudnut stated this area of West Draw is such an area. He further noted the Task Force promises that in the future emphasis must continue to be placed on development that is sensitive to the environment and adjacent land uses, such as the land uses suggested by Mr. Reiman. He suggested a new zoning classification, R2.25, which would be one or finro houses per acre stating this new classification that would be appropriate for the land usage adjacent to R2 and before moving on to R2.5 which is appropriate for some of the area but not 98% which is the proposal before you. Mr. Hudnut referenced the West Draw Task Force Report stating the residential development shall be designed and located where there will be minimal impact from adjacent non-compatible land uses. He stated the adoption of the R2.25 zoning would give the tool for such graduated land use in our community. He referenced the report's vision statement noting new housing that borders existing housing is to be on similar sized or graduated sized lots. He suggested the community and staff could come up with an R2.5 zoning for a percentage of the area with the rest continued in urban reserve while the process is being watched to determine densities. Mr. Hudnut suggested the appropriate zoning for the rest of the area can be determined in due course. He stated the proposal tonight is in disagreement with the top four items in the West Draw Task Force Report. He stated in conclusion this property, one of the last pristine areas of Cottage Grove, deserves better than the 98% of R2.5. He asked the Council not to rezone, step back and take a longer look, with full public participation and discussion, of this unique area of our fair City. Walter Lager, 7115 So. 65th Street, Cottage Grove, stated he had a number of things to say but will be short. He stated his perspective on this issue, referencing a statement made by a former staff person long ago and suggested it would be wise to ask or survey the populace regarding this issue. Mr. Lager suggested to the Council that they keep this perspective as they make their consideration. Peter Thompson, 6888 65th Street, Cottage Grove, acknowledged the discussions as to why we shouldn't do things noting he is one of the largest property owners in the area and had assumed the Comprehensive Plan was basically completed. He stated his concern is a triangle of land that is too low to be served by City sewer because of the elevation and asked if he could get City water to the area for development. He stated the staff and Council have done a good job and he is very happy with the present zoning from the Comprehensive Plan. Community Development Director Lindquist stated she had explained to Mr. Thompson that gravity is not an issue with water and that the issue would be financial for the developer because they maybe rural lots and it could be costly to extend the sewer lines to the individual lots noting they would have to be able to meet those costs noting. Staff is not opposed to having rural lots that have the ability to access public infrastructure as long as there were no cost implications to the City. Mary Dahlin, 7530 65th Street, Cottage Grove, stated she lives just down the road from the proposed rezoning. She stated she was not aware that this area was going to be rezoned for such high-density housing. She stated she has addressed the Council many times noting she has lived in the area for approximately 20 years and pays approximately$4,000 a year in property taxes. She stated the West Draw is a unique, lovely area of Cottage Grove noting it does not serve in the community's best interest to develop it into high density housing. She stated it is unique in that it is still rural in a vastly developing area and should remain this way. She stated she is not opposed to houses but believes they should be on acreage rather than urban lots in order to maintain the unique character of this area and stated she wants to make sure the Council understand this. Regular Meefing—April 18, 2001 Cottage Grove City Council Page 15 Jeff Podall, 8818 Grosspoint Avenue South, Cottage Grove, stated he has been a Planning Commission member for eight years and is also a member of the West Draw Task Force. He expressed concerns over some of the things he heard this evening noting that Mr. Reiman was a member of the Task Force and Mr. Hudnut sat in on several of the meetings. He stated when the Task Force put a lot of the property into urban reserve, they were looking at when City services were available. He noted the PUD situation mentioned by Mr. Hudnut, stating the Task Force did look at this issue very long and hard. He stated that from the perspective of the Planning Commission and the West Draw Task Force, once you are in this situation you can preserve some of the natural amenities by clustering. He noted that clustering would create a higher density in some areas but would preserve the majority of the natural amenities that are unique to the area. Julie Schenk 6969 65th Street, Cottage Grove, stated that based on what she heard tonight she has noticed the developers are building high density housing around the edges of the area. She stated they are not developing some of the middle areas noting they are building townhomes 30-feet from her property boundary. Ms. Schenk stated the private landowners in this area are selling the lots to the developers. She noted the private landowners end up losing their privacy and the developer ends up saving a lot of money on pipes, roads, and not having to remove as many trees. She asked, since they are bordering the edge of the property, what will happen in the future when this property develops. She noted the arguments that could ensue due to the type of development being done in these areas. Ms. Schenk stated the developers are not providing their own trees and space. The PUD is great if the open land is owned by the developer. But if the developer is going around the border developing and using existing private land owners' undevetoped land for his open space, this will cause problems in the future. She stated the residents are asking for some type of transition or buffer zone so this is smoother process. She stated she hopes the planning staff and Council will consider this issue. Tim Reiman, 6100 Hadley Avenue South, Cottage Grove, stated he moved to Cottage Grove approximately one year ago from a PUD development in Ann Arbor, Michigan. He clarified his understanding of PUD and comparing it between Michigan and Minnesota noting a fifth of an acre lot, ten-foot spacing between homes, natural amenities, 1-3 trees which is a far cry from what they have now in the West Draw area. Mayor Shiely restated to the audience that the Council is considering approval of an ordinance rezoning certain properties within Cottage Grove to bring them into compliance with the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Hale asked for clarification on Exhibit B in reference to the proposed MUSA line asking if it was or was not in the present MUSA. He asked if they needed to petition or if it was automatically included because of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated he was on the Council when the term urban reserve was first used stating it referenced a holding pattern knowing that at some point the land would be developed. He noted that by placing the MUSA, people would realize the area was urban and eventually developed. He asked if any of the identified property owners in question requested exemption from this rezoning. He stated that he was not here for the approva� of the Comprehensive P�an but was present for the approval of the West Draw Task Force and the zoning of this area, noting he did vote for the Comprehensive Plan at that time. Council Member Hale stated that when the idea was developed the Council was very sensitive to those residents who have the larger tracts of property that are referred to as rural estates ensuring they did not infringe or require them to opt into a MUSA expansion or to pay costs associated with the development but to maintain their quality of life. He asked if this was still true today. He referenced the environmental sensitive overlay in the approved comprehensive plan stating it appears to be Regular Meeting—Apri118, 2001 Cottage Grove City Council Page 16 reflective of the commitment of the Comprehensive Plan to the environmentally sensitive areas in West Draw did ask for clarification if the information came from the Natural Resource Inventory. He noted $40,000 was spent to do a complete resource inventory of the City, noting it is a very detailed document used by the planning staff as a guide with developers regarding zoning changes or development purposes. Council Member Hale stated this shows the City is committed to preserve these areas. He stated this document does identify these areas in the West Draw which are currently zoned as R2 or R1, urban estate development. He stated they have not taken areas defined through this document as environmentally sensitive areas and made attempts to develop beyond the rural character. He stated his remarks are not to imply support or non-support of the zoning but to review the City history. He stated the idea of the R2.5 zoning is as a result of the Task Force in trying to create a buffer between rural areas and the more highly developed areas noting the City is trying to be responsive to residents in these areas. Council Member Hale referenced a guide that states R2.5 can have one to four houses noting it is impossible to put one to four houses in an R2.5 zone per acre stating it would probably be three or less. He stated you cannot get four due to the zoning of R2.5 as it requires 11,000 square feet for a lot and there is 43,580 feet in an acre and would be impossible to comply. He stated the market supports larger lot sizes. He stated that at the beginning of reviewing development options in The West Draw engineer was very sensitive to making a commitment cost wise in terms of trying to build a sewer infrastructure system that would not be so expensive that it would drive the development costs so high that people would not develop the area. He stated the areas the engineer had to work with had a very mixed zoning. Council Member Hale stated the engineer was trying to build a system that would be paid by those users, while trying to build a system that would accommodate their needs and keep costs down. He stated that the rural people who wanted their property maintained as rural meant they could not expand the infrastructure to accommodate them at a future time because others would have to bear the costs, noting the engineer was working against a very tough schedule. Council Member Hale stated there is a real problem if there is no consistency in holding true to the zoning. He noted the zoning is based on the infrastructure for the sewer and asked City Engineer Bourdon to clarify. He referenced a statement that sewers drive the development stating he believes the City and developers drive the development. He noted the MUSA line was developed by the citizens stating this is how they want the City to grow. Community Development Director Lindquist stated it was noted during the Comprehensive Plan update staff included the MUSA expansion. She stated if they had not been doing the Comprehensive Plan, they would have to go to the Metropolitan Council separately and to go through a plan amendment to bring the MUSA in. She stated that since they were doing the comp plan now it would be reasonable to bring this MUSA in now. She stated none of the property owners contacted them with regard to taking the property out of the R2.5 zoning. She stated they were very much aware of the plan. Mayor Shiely asked Council Member Hale to clarify what he meant by it being impossible to have four houses per acre. Council member Hale explained the minimum of sizes and consistent unit densities. City Engineer Jerry Bourdon clarified to Council Member Hale that the lower density would mean fewer people to pay for the infrastructure. He stated the engineering assumptions were conservative and the current process has stayed true to the assumptions. Council Member Kohls asked as to when it was decided to be rezoned to R2.5. She stated she has reviewed her notes from the various meetings and workshops in addition to reviewing minutes of meetings and does not see anything specific that states the zoning is to be changed. She stated it was noted in the Comprehensive Plan update that this was being added. She requested a copy of the Regular Meeting—April 18, 2001 Cottage Grove City Council Page 17 plan and asked for points of reference, streets that would be recognized, to show where the 200 acres is located on the map. Council Member Kohls asked if some of the land is held by developers noting some of the lots are owned by US Homes. She asked when they foresee development taking place in West Draw area and if any developers have come in with ideas or plans for this property. She stated her concerns are about the density issue referencing the one to four. Council Member Kohls stated that in past development it will be whatever maximum they can get onto every acre. She asked what kind of density is being discussed and for clarification between two units per acre or three and one half units per acre. Community Development Director Lindquist stated many of the maps in the Comprehensive Plan illustrates the MUSA line. She stated her agreement with Council Member Kohls that no one specifically identified the areas to be rezoned and reviewed the locations with the Council. She stated she is not aware of any transactions taking place but did acknowledge there are interested parties and they have received calls. She verified that US Homes does own some of the land. She stated the area to the west would be served by the sanitary sewer line that will be going through the Pine Summit project, the Orrin Thompson project that is currently under construction. She stated the sewer line has not been extended all the way to 65th noting this is dependent on the build out of the Orrin Thompson project. Community Development Director Lindquist stated in the eastern section the City will be extending sewer and water to the school site located on the south side of 65�h noting water will be in 65`h and the sewer line will be running up to the school site and possibly beyond. She stated this could be fairly soon as the completion date for the school timetable is scheduled for May 2002. Community Development Director Lindquist stated the guide plan is one to four units per acre. She stated the criteria the developer has to meet noting the zoning ordinance for the R2.5 is 11,000 square feet. She stated this comes directly from the recommendation of the West Draw Task Force. She explained that the PUD is a good tool and does not necessarily increase density. Community Development Director Lindquist stated one of the requirements of the PUD is that the applicant actually shows a yield plan that shows the amount of lots they can obtain under the straight zoning noting this is the basis they use in discussion. She stated in some instances where development is easier, they could get finro units per acre. She stated there are several areas that are difficult to develop and the projects that have been approved have all been under two units per acre. Community Development Director Lindquist referenced the Centex project, noting land dedication, was under two units and stated the Solberg Plat on the southside of 70th was significantly under the finro units per acre. She stated that due to topography, overhead lines, and park dedication that the City has requested, they will probably not see the four per acre but would be closer to the two or three per acre. Mayor Shiely asked for clarification regarding overall density and referenced the Centex property. She also asked if the discussion referred to clusters and included the pipe. Community Development Director Lindquist stated the Centex parcel was 177 acres with 205 lots proposed. She stated this was a part of the original and overall density noting it included the pipe. Council Member Wolcott referenced the residential zoning in the Code of Cottage Grove used to say the minimum lot size 7,500 square foot. He stated when they went into this area they came up with a new zoning which is the R2.5 which states that the City wanted to create larger lots with higher end housing. He stated the minimum lot size went from 7,500 to 11,000 square feet and minimum lot width went to 85 feet. He stated it was brought up to show an area in Cottage Grove that developed higher than the allowed density. He referenced Sandy Hills noting they were allowed a 7,500 square foot but there is not a lot that is less than 10,000 square feet and are lots as large as 12,000 square feet. He expressed his concerns with the possibility of developers coming into this area and Regular Meeting—Apri118, 2001 Cottage Grove City Council Page 18 squeezing in as many lots as possible. He stated the reason they went to the R2.5 was to increase the minimum lot size. He acknowledged developers will come in and try to place as many units as possible noting this would still need to go through the planning staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council for the review and approval process. Mayor Shiely stated that a comment was made earlier that the pipeline does not determine the development noting they just found out the impetus for the development of the western property comes because services will be available through the Pine Summit development. She stated the impetus for the other site is because services will be brought to the new school. She asked Community Development Director Lindquist for clarification regarding the rezoning request. Community Development Director Lindquist clarified this is really not the true reason. She stated the real reason for this discussion is because they just updated the Comprehensive Plan. She stated they could have waited finro to three years keeping the property in reserve but they did not want to go through the process again. She stated public hearings and neighborhood meetings were held and noted it seemed appropriate to bring it in. Mayor Shiely stated she has been involved from the beginning and wanted to see the West Draw maintain its rural character. She acknowledged the enjoyment of the atmosphere by residents and visitors alike. She referenced two lectures she gave today at Park High School about Cottage Grove. She stated the most common question asked by the students is what are you doing as the Mayor and as a Council to preserve Cottage Groves' unique rural character. She stated she supported the West Draw Task Force and still does. She stated she is no longer happy with what is happening in the West Draw since it is no longer what the West Draw Task Force was looking for. She stated that urban reserve meant it was much farther out than two years since the Comprehensive Plan had been adopted noting she thought urban reserve was out in the future. She stated she believed this was going to be an orderly development and that urban reserve was in the future. She referenced the new school. She stated she is still uncertain about the R2.5 zoning issue. She stated she lives in an R4 zoning, noting most residents are in an R4 zone. She stated this is called low density residential and most of the City is R4. Mayor Shiely clarified that low density is one to four per acre. She stated she doesn't understand why at some point, during the development of the R2.5 zoning, it wasn't changed. She clarified her understanding that this is land use and rezoned for only four units to an acre, noting they are only 500 square feet short of having four on an acre. She stated there is no time in the future when the Council will be told that because they are clustering and not taking the same amount of roads and acreage as we would for a normal development that they can have four per acre in a R2.5 zoning. She asking if they truly thought no one would come and ask for the four per acre. Community Development Director Lindquist stated the Comprehensive Plan has all single family, urban development listed as one to four units per acre. She noted the zoning has performance standards which set different lot sizes. Council Member Wolcott clarified that a fourth of an acre would be removed from the size due to easements and roads. He stated they would not be able to have four units per acre. He stated that there is a minimum lot size and width noting the street and right of way needs to be considered. He noted they would have to go through the process to request and would need to look at the overall density of the acreage. He stated the minimum lot sizes, minimum lot width, streets, and right of way would need to be considered and four per acre would not work. Mayor Shiely questioned why they bothered with urban reserve when the West Draw Task Force was already looking at these issues. She stated she has concerns regarding transitions and acknowledged they include the West Draw, the industrial along Ideal, the Industrial Park versus the Regular Meeting—Apri118, 2001 Cottage Grove City Council Page 19 homes on Heath Avenue, and the homes along Hadley. She asked why we can't zone buffers noting she can foresee conflicts in the future because this issue is not being addressed clearly. She stated they are told the Council can zone buffers yet it always ends up with the Council not being able to do it. She stated she does not see a buffer being provided in the West Draw and the residents do have a valid point. She stated she would have liked to have something in the Comprehensive Plan that would indicate when they are going from R2.5 to R2. She stated she is concerned that they are not getting the kind of development they had hoped for stating she is not sure how to go about finding the right developer. She stated she is frustrated but is not trying to undermine the work the Task Force has done. She stated she would like to see the West Draw as something unique noting she has not seen any signs of the changes they have discussed. She stated there is a need to discuss this. Mayor Shiely stated she is concerned about the existing infrastructure and whether it can handle what is developing, noting it may be developing faster than they had previously planned. She asked why are they being faced with this now as she had the understanding that urban reserve was 20 years out in planning. Council Member Kohls stated she recollected the urban reserve was 20 years out and that this would fill in when it was time to extend the MUSA line. She recalled looking at a map and discussing urban reserve that extends as far as Woodbury. She asked what is left of the urban reserve and when this was established. Community Development Director Lindquist stated there maybe some confusion noting the Metropolitan Council uses urban reserve and is post 2020. She stated the only thing that would be zoned as urban reserve in the City is the Hardwood Corridor. She stated this was based on the 1996 rezonings related to the West Draw Task Force. The City had devised their own urban reserve zoning prior to the Met Council Blueprint using Urban Reserve as a land use tool. Council Member Hale noted it was his understanding the Council had made this decision referencing the creation of the new MUSA line. He asked why they would want to extend the MUSA line into an area that is zoned R2 or acre and half lots. Mayor Shiely clarified she voted against the extension Council Member Kohls asked where in the City a presently zoned R2 area is located where someone can go to build a home. She stated she is confused with the colors and the land use. She noted some of the areas reviewed are not yet developed. Community Development Director Lindquist clarified that this is a 2020 draw noting that some of the green areas are R2 zoning. She reviewed the sections in the West Draw stating that rural residential is R1, R2 or an AG designation which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in terms of permanent rural residential. She reviewed the zoning areas on the map with the Council. Council Member Kohls asked if, as the West Draw fully develops as per zoning, the City is set up to handle the densities and people with the infrastructure at no cost to the City. City Engineer Bourdon stated that from an engineering standpoint, the way it is set up now the City would be able to service the land use plan at the kind of densities they expect would happen. He noted the ranges of units you can have in any one project are very great, one to four units or even five to ten units, and this could cause concern. He stated if you talk with the planners about the way the development is likely to happen, you will have two units per acre for single family development and the capacity is there to handle it. Regular Meeting—April 18, 2001 Cottage Grove City Council Page 20 Council Member Hale clarified that the stub to handle this was put in twenty years ago. He asked any consideration was given at that time as to why it was built to the constrained size it was built. He asked if the school would be served by the West Draw. City Engineer Bourdon confirmed the stub was installed twenty years ago. He recalled some conversations he had with individuals who explained the process to him. He stated the way the City would develop has changed referencing that in 1992 to 1994 you could not go into the West Draw area and develop high density because at that time there was a capacity issue. He stated the school would be served by the West Draw. MOTION BY KOHLS, SECONDED BY SHIELY, TO TABLE FURTHER DISCUSSION MOTION CARRIED 4-1 (WOLCOTT). Mayor Shiely stated a workshop would be set up for further discussion. She asked that City Engineer Bourdon also attend. Mayor Shiely called a five-minute break at 9:46 p.m. Mayor Shiely called the meeting back to order at 9:57 p.m. D. Consider denial of a variance to Title 11-15-8C, Mississippi River Corridor Overlay District Bluff line setback requirements, to allow construction of a swimming pool at 11931 Lofton Avenue South. Mayor Shiely stated the applicant is requesting a variance to allow construction of an in-ground pool on the property at 11931 Lofton Avenue. The variance is from the critical area standards for bluff setbacks. The setback requirement is 100 feet and the proposal is for a 29-foot setback. Staff was remiss in noting within the staff report than an aboveground pool had previously been located on the property, in the same general location. There is no record of a variance being granted for the aboveground pool. Community Development Director Lindquist stated staff is recommending denial for several reasons stating the main reason for denial is that the property is very constrained. She noted the number of variances already approved for the property and asked how many variances the City wants to grant. She stated a pool is a general luxury and is not something typical that would occur on a property. Community Development Director Lindquist stated that by approving a variance request like this it will generate similar requests in the future. She stated the Department of Natural Resources and the Planning Commission do not support this project. Paul C. Runze, 11931 Lofton Avenue, Cottage Grove, stated he did not move here with the original thought of installing a pool but did look at the property with the thought of eventually putting in a pool. He acknowledged that in looking at the lot plan, it does appear that the proposed location is about 30- feet from the original line. He stated it would be 15-feet from the back property line. He noted that the property backs up to a coolie stating this land is not suitable for development. He acknowledged the number of variances approved for this property, noting an above ground pool had been on this property at one time. Mr. Runze stated there were three variances granted, noting the first in 1983 for the construction of the main structure, the second in 1986 was due to first expiring, and third was for the construction of a garage. He noted the size of the lot stating it is very wooded. He stated they had considered other options that included putting the pool in the front yard but that would require a different variance and he does not want a pool in the front yard. He explained that the pool would not Regular Meeting—Apri118, 2001 Cottage Grove City Council Page 21 be visible to other residents or from the river. He stated he does not understand why this has been recommended for denial. Council Member Wolcott asked about the possibility of placing the pool in the front yard and inquired about the trees. He asked for clarification on the land behind his property Floyd Ott, 11865 W. Point Douglas, clarified the type of pool installed. He noted to the Council the similarities and precedence with a property located at 11370 Kingsborough Trail. He stated logic should prevail noting it would enhance the owner's property. He asked the Council how it would adversely affect the property restating the low visibility from the river and credibility of the owner. He clarified the property behind the owner was a ravine noting the hardship issue would fall under the practical issue condition. Council Member Kohls asked about the criteria they are required to meet in order to grant a variance. She noted Mr. Ott was correct with respect to the variance that was issued for 11370 Kingsborough Trail. She stated she understood the staff concerns noting the recommendations from staff and the variances previously granted for this property. She acknowledged the visual issue and the fact it would not be a problem. Community Development Director Lindquist stated the requirement criteria are listed in the staff report section and referred the Council to this section for review. Mayor Shiely stated the rational for the pool was a visual issue noting it was not intrusive from the river. MOTION BY WOLCOTT, SECONDED BY RICE, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 01-XXX APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM TITLE 11-15-8C, MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT BLUFF LINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SWIMMING POOL 29.6 FEET FROM THE ESTABLISHED RIVER BLUFF LINE AT 11931 LOFTON AVENUE SOUTH, AND DIRECT STAFF TO SUPPORT THE VARIANCE BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY IS RESTRAINED, THE SITUATION IS UNIQUE, AND NO THERE IS NO VISUAL IMPACT. MOTION CARRIED 4-1 (RICE). E. Adopt Final 2001-2006 Capital Improvement Plans. Mayor Shiely stated Item E is the item Council Member Kohls requested be removed to from the Consent Agenda. She clarified Council Member Kohls intent to request this item be tabled for further discussion. Council Member Kohls stated she would like to meet with the City Administrator and the Finance Director to ask questions. MOTION BY HALE, SECONDED BY KOHLS, TO TABLE FURTHER DISCUSSION. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. RESPONSE TO PREVIOUSLY RAISED COUNCIL COMMENTS AND REQUESTS NONE COUNCIL COMMENTS AND REQUESTS Regular Meeting—Apri118, 2001 Cottage Grove City Council Page 22 Council Member Hale noted the Memorial Bridge linking the main land is under water and also the causeway. He expressed his appreciation and those of residents for their support and assistance in ferrying across from the island. He stated this is the third highest flood noting five major floods in the last 35 years and three in the last 8 years. He stated the thought had crossed his mind as to what could possibly be done if there were 600 houses on the island versus the nine. He also noted that Aggregate Industries also contributed to the aid of the residents on the island. He thanked the Fire Department for their assistance during this time. Mayor Shiely acknowledged Council Member Hale's wife in the audience. She asked the Council for suggestions for the Great Grove Get-Together. She stated the committee has asked the Council to come up with a challenge for other City Councils and their mayors. She asked the Council their thoughts on a tug of war. Mayor Shiely asked the staff to develop a letter to the City Councils for St. Paul Park, Newport and Woodbury, indicating that Cottage Grove was not very good at horseshoes but is very good at tug of war. She clarified they want the challenge to be visual for the attendees. Council Member Wolcott suggested golf, bochee ball, or volleyball. He suggested tabling this for further discussion. Council Member Hale was excused from the meeting. Council Member Kohls noted an article in the At Home section of the St. Paul Pioneer Press regarding senior housing. She stated senior housing is something the community needs. She noted the Human Services Commission has been working on this issue. She stated she would like to ask for a report from the staff that would provide potential areas for development. Identify them, identify the issues and begin to resolve and move forward with the possibility of a retirement community. She stated she met with a architect to discuss possibilities for enhancement of the Grove Plaza Mall and reviewed the results of the conversation with the Council. She shared a few of the examples for mall renovations with the intent to generate thoughts and discussion. She referenced the Architectural Design Guidelines noting this has been discussed. She stated this needs to be upgrade and recommended further discussion with the Architect. She stated Kathy Anderson, architect, will be contacting the rest of the Council to set up meetings to review her ideas for the City of Cottage Grove. PAY BILLS MOTION BY WOLCOTT, SECONDED BY KOHLS, TO APPROVE PAYMENT OF CHECK NUMBERS 118227 TO 118449 TOTALING $652,267.50. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Mayor Shiely stated they would now move to the Workshop session noting it is open to the public. She stated the workshop discussion involves an update on the neighborhood meetings. She stated they would then move to a closed workshop session, noting this will be closed to the public as they will be discussing a personnel issue. WORKSHOP SESSION —OPEN A. Thompson Grove Pavement Management Project Mayor Shiely stated she was very impressed and pleased that the Task Force is in existence and has presently held finro meetings. She stated she is impressed and pleased with the progress. Regular Meeting—April 18, 2001 Cottage Grove City Council Page 23 Public Works Director Burshten stated there has been progress. He noted the two meetings held in March noting they have established a committee that consists of five people, Bonnie Fritz, Kathleen Kline, Gordon Jenson, John Thorkildson and Jeff Bedault. He stated the two meetings held in March were enough to accomplish several issues. He stated this is an update noting the preview that shows what can be expected at the next neighborhood meeting May 15th, 7:00 p.m., at the National Guard Armory. He stated the Task Force did a good job noting they got out and polled the neighbors and brought back some good viewpoints. He noted they seemed favorable and stated they do not foresee any problems. Jeff Podall, 8818 West Grosspoint Avenue South, Cottage Grove, confirmed the meetings and the effort of the Task Force to poll their neighbors. He stated they received very positive response from the residents stating the question most frequently asked was how soon they can do this noting they are very tired of the condition of the roads. He stated there were very few concerns raised. He noted some of the issues identified included the length of time it takes to turn the assessments, payback time for extensions, and the sidewalks around the Cottage Square area. He stated they expressed the desire to keep with the existing sidewalks that lead to the Great Hamlet Trail area. He stated a need to look at more of the sidewalk areas noting there were areas that aren't too easily serviceable by the snow plow equipment. Mr. Bedault stated most of what is in the feasibility report should be doable. He stated everyone was in favor of it as long as everything stays status quo with the pavement management that has been done and the costs associated with it are paid by the 2% for total reconstruction he does not see any major problems. Mayor Shiely stated that it was her understanding that in previous pavement management discussions, the staff had come up with an informal policy as it relates to the sidewalks. She stated they would not retrofit the sidewalks unless a certain percentage of the neighbors requested the retrofit. Council Member Wolcott clarified that the policy states that if there is a sidewalk in place it would be replaced. He stated they are not planning to do sidewalks replacements unless they are petitioned by the neighborhood requesting it be looked at. He stated he was not sure whether this was a formal policy but is what was done in the Hillside neighborhood. He stated they did a survey of the neighbors in the Hillside neighborhood noting the results came back stating the residents did not want the new sidewalks. Council Member Kohls stated this clarification totally counters what happened on Hillside, noting the number of signatures they received on a petition. She asked for clarification on the requirements or numbers of signatures stating she did vote for the sidewalk enhancements. Mayor Shiely stated they determined that the people who would be affected are the voices they would listen to. She stated this would be considered based on what the people on that street want. She stated the report addressed the concerns of the neighbors with respect to the widening of the road and how it would affect their yards. She stated the City owns a certain amount and would be taken from a City easement and not their yards. She stated sidewalks would be a different story especially if they widen the roads. Mayor Shiely stated she did not want to get into a discussion on sidewalk issues. It was her understanding a policy was in place and if there isn't, a discussion needs to take place to establish policy. Mr. Podall stated they steered clear of the sidewalk issues noting that adding new sidewalks were the responsibility of the City. He stated they did discuss existing sidewalks that did need to be replaced. He noted the sidewalk that goes from 84`h Street into Cottage Grove Square are used often. He noted the two entrances to Cottage Square in addition to the sidewalk by The New Moon that dumps out to Regular Meeting—April 18, 2001 Cottage Grove Cify Council Page 24 the street. Mr. Bedault noted the other sidewalks in question are the sidewalks from Grenadier down Grange to Hadley which are only 3-feet wide, there are power poles, and they extend into people's yards. He stated they are used but at this point they would need to be wider in order for Public Works to be able to clean them. He stated they definitely did not want to touch to the subject of new sidewalks. He stated this would be dealt with at the neighborhood meeting if the subject were brought up. Mayor Shiely stated they did add sidewalks to the Hillside school and in some of the pavement management areas noting the question of retrofitting into areas that have been there for 35 years. Council Member Kohls stated she did vote in favor of sidewalks on Hitlside noting she has not changed her philosophy. Dave Hanson, consultant for Bonestroo consulting engineering firm, stated he attend both meetings and there was a lot of great input. He noted a list has been started with issues that will need to be addressed in the feasibility report. He stated it is their hope that they will receive further input at the neighborhood meeting scheduled on May 15ih. He referenced the project schedule that was presented to the Council in December and that the direction was to step back, get a committee established, and hold a neighborhood meeting. He stated at that point they would proceed with the feasibility report. Mr. Hanson stated this is still the plan. He stated that following the May 15`h meeting, the intent is to gather additional field information in order to prepare a better feasibility report that addresses the existing conditions and has a better handle on costs. He stated this effort will take through May, June, and July with the hopes that by mid to late summer they will have a feasibility report they can present to the Council. Mr. Hanson noted the intent of the neighborhood meeting is to discuss the committee utilizing the same format used in previous years providing a brief overview of the ideas, existing issues and what to expect when the project is finished. Public Works Director Burshten stated this is all the information they wanted to present. He recommended another neighborhood meeting suggesting May 15`h as a possible date. He stated from this meeting they will proceed with the breakdown of the three areas. He stated the first meeting will be for everyone noting this will affect 1,100 homes in that area. He stated they are anticipating at least 10% of residents will be attending the meeting. Mayor Shiely acknowledged the information in the report was excellent and very comprehensive. Council Member Wolcott noted the meetings were scheduled on Council nights. He asked for clarification on two issues. He stated some people want sidewalks and some do not stating there is a need for a discussion on sidewalks to determine policy. He asked if storm sewers were discussed. Public Works Director Burshten noted storm sewers were discussed and Dave Hanson and Bonestroo did put together a map identifying storm sewers that will need to be installed on 85th and the Grafton area to prolong the life of the road. He ctarified it is like any other project and should be incurred as a part of the cost of the project and assessed under the finro percent. Council Member Kohls stated she was left with the impression from previous discussions that there would be a major storm sewer upgrade but now it sounds like it isn't. She noted this is a concern with the residents in this area and that an upgrade is needed. Dave Hanson stated a preliminary layout has been created that outlines what does need to be upgraded and improved. He stated this layout was based on the work with Public Works and observations made while driving through the areas. He noted the intersections that are problems Regular Meeting—Apri118, 2001 Cottage Grove City Council Page 25 stating that with further observations they may find further issues. He stated they are expecting issues at the neighborhood meeting to be raised with respect to drainage. He stated that for the Thompson Grove area there is $750,000 worth of storm sewer that needs to be addressed. He stated they have not looked at the detailed list noting that out of the $750,000, $150,000 is marked for improvement of existing storm sewers. Public Works Director Burshten noted every project has included an upgrade to the storm sewers. He stated this is not a lot of money and that to do the entire system would cost a lot more. He stated this is only problem area that has been addressed over the years. He stated this is a very old area of Cottage Grove noting the system is now inadequate and the problem areas are being addressed. He noted a discussion did take place suggesting they do a comparison but this has not yet been done. City Administrator Schroeder noted that it comes down to approximately $7,700 per household for project costs and asked how this compared to previous projects. He stated to his recollection the average is around $6,500 per lot. He stated this is relevant information to share with the public with regard to actual costs. Council Member Kohls asked how long the neighborhood advisory committee would remain a committee and intact. She stated there are twelve people on the committee noting that three of the committee members are City employees. She suggested adding more citizens to the committee. Public Works Director Burshten stated the intent is to keep the committee intact for the entire three- year process. He stated the committee would not be meeting often and they have committed to attend the first meeting. He stated adding more citizens to the committee would be a plus and they have already considered including more individuals. Mr. Bedault restated Public Works Director Burshten's comments with respect to committee membership noting they did advertise in the Bulletin to get people involved in the Task Force. Mayor Shiely suggested the letter being sent out to everyone indicate that they are looking at streets and storm sewer issues. Dave Hanson stated that in the mailing they could identify in more detail the content of the meeting. He noted the neighborhood committee asked to review the feasibility report in order to view the issues. He noted a discussion around the possibilities or need for a separate meeting for Hadley after completion of the feasibility report. He stated there are three neighborhoods suggesting they have a separate meeting for the neighbors that abut Hadley to discuss the issues. Mayor Shiely closed the open workshop at 11:19 p.m. WORKSHOP SESSION — CLOSED A. Personnellssues Present: Mayor Sandy Shiely Council Member Pat Rice Council Member Cheryl Kohls Council Member Jim Wolcott Absent: Council Member Rod Hale Regular Meeting—Apri118, 2001 Cottage Grove City Council Page 26 Also Present: Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator Corrine Thompson, City Attorney, Kennedy and Graven MOTION BY WOLCOTT, SECONDED BY RICE TO OPEN THE CLOSED SESSION. The Council met in closed session, pursuant to the open meeting law, to receive an update from the City Administrator on personnel issues. MOTION BY WOLCOTT, SECONDED BY RICE, TO ADJOURN THE CLOSED SESSION AND RECONVENE THE REGULAR MEETING. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY WOLCOTT, SECONDED BY KOHLS, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 11:15 P.M. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. Respectfully submi ed, `--� �l�'�---- Bonita Sullivan TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.