Loading...
052609 CC Reg MinCITY OF SH WOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, MAY 26, 2009 MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:0 P.M. Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Bailey, Turgeon, Woodruff and Zerby; Attorney Tietjen; City Administrator Heck; Finance Director Burton; Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown; and Engineer Landini Absent: None. B. Review Agenda Administrator Heck requested that Item 3.1-1, Tobacco License for 25365 Smithtown Road (Oasis Market) be added to the agenda. Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the agenda amended. Motion passed 510. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, May 11, 2009 Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of May 11, 2009, as amended in Item 8.A, Page 7, Paragraph 6, Sentence 1 change "Without objection by the seconder, the make of to "Without objection by the seconded, the maker of", and in Item 10.A, Page 9, Paragraph 6, Sentence 2, change "Ms. Scanlon explained" to "Mr. Scanlon explained". Motion passed 510. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Lizee reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. Turgeou moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List approving payables and payroll checks #48388 - 48449 in the amount of $197,202.79. B. Authorize Expenditure of Funds for Seal Coat Aggregate (This was moved to Item 9.1) under Engineering/Public Works.) C. Authorization to Hire Seasonal Employee CITY " WOO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES May, Page 2 at '9 Mayor Liz6e stated the hourly rate for the Public Works temporary position is $11.50. The $10.50 stated in the Staff memorandum is a typographical error. Mayor Liz6e requested the hours of the City Hall open house be changed to 4:00 P.M. - 7:00 P.M. to accommodate those individuals who may not get home from work until close to 6:00 P.M. Councilmember Bailey suggested the time period be 5:00 P.M. - 7:00 P.M. There was consensus to change the hours of the City Hall Open House to 5:00 P.M. - 7:00 P.M. Motion passed 510. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. George Hoff to Report on Matthew Phillippi Mediation Attorney George Hoff stated Council approved the settlement on the case with Matthew Phillippi during its May 11, 2009, meeting. The settlement offer was reached after approximately 4 - 5 hours of mediation. Those representing the City during that mediation included Administrator Heck, Director Nielsen, himself and Mark Rosso from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIS) who was the adjustor in charge of the file. As part of the settlement Mr. Phillippi was paid $5,000; $3,500 of that came from the LMCIS and the City and $1,500 came from the other parties in the case. He explained prior to entering into mediation he had provided Council with an analysis of the case in a closed door session. His analysis of the case did not change during mediation to any substantial degree. The settlement was driven by economics. The reason Heck and Nielsen thought the settlement offer was appropriate to bring to the Council was in the end it would save the City and the LMCIS a good deal of money. A summary motion was set and drafted; the financial settlement was much less than what that would have cost. As part of the settlement Mr. Phillippi released all claims he may have against the City up to the date he executes the settlement agreement and cashes the settlement check. This is different then the results the City would have gotten had it gone through with and been successful in litigation; it would have related to any claims related to the flooding issue raised in this complaint. The other thing the City obtained in the settlement is the lease settlement is recorded against the property and binds the current and future owners of the property. In response to a comment from Councilinelnber Turgeon, Mr. Hoff stated based on Mr. Phillippi's posture at the start of the mediation to where the mediation ended up was astounding. The City got 0 -1.1 f g;.`-00D REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ltS d _ Page 3 s -9 something extra out of the settlement even if it had went through a successful litigation. He thanked Administrator Heck and Director Nielsen for their efforts during mediation. In response to a question from Councilmember Woodruff, Mr. Hoff stated the City had to act on the settlement offer by May 11, 2009, and he did recollect if Mr. Phillippi had to cash the check by any certain date. Mr. Hoff explained if Mr. Phillippi does not execute the document within a reasonable period of time (e.g., 30 days) the City could go to court and ask that the settlement be executed. Tile documents are written such that they are binding on all parties but the City. 6. PUBLIC HEARING None. 7. PARKS Commissioner Norman reported on matters considered and actions taken at the May 12, 2009, Park Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Councilmember Turgeon asked if Public Works had addressed the graffiti issue in Freeman Park, to which the response was it had been done. In response to another question from Turgeon, Brown stated he had not checked on whether or not Xcel Energy had repaired the two lights in Freeman Park. 8. PLANNING Director Nielsen stated that after waiting 12 minutes the Planning Commission meeting of May 19, 2009, was cancelled due to the lack of a quorum. A. Administrative Enforcement Director Nielsen stated during its April 27, 2009, meeting Council approved an ordinance amending the City Code establishing administrative enforcement of Code regulations. He explained the law allows a city to publish a summary of the ordinance. The resolution before Council this evening is to approve that publication. He stated he assumed Council will want to interview the applicants for the hearing officer positions. Council indicated his assumption is correct. Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 09-028, "A Resolution Approving Publication of Ordinance No. 458 by Title and Summary." Motion passed 510. 9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Accept Feasibility Study and Order Preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimates for Harding Lane and Harding Avenue Engineer Landini stated the meeting packet for this evening included the feasibility report for road reconstruction of Harding Avenue and Harding Lane. The feasibility report was ordered by Council during its March 23, 2009, meeting. The reconstruction of Harding Avenue and Harding Lane are included in the 2009 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and the 20-Year Pavement Management Plan (PMP), and they are rated as in need of improvements. The feasibility report evaluates: if the roadway reconstruction is feasible; sanitary sewer improvements; storm water management improvements and watermain improvements. The report indicates the items are feasible and cost effective. Should Council s e_ xw a,. -EGULAR COUNCIL"' r "INUT S Fage4ofY) choose to move forward with the project, a resolution approving the report and setting the public hearing for the project was included in the meeting packet for Council's consideration. Landini explained that there is a cul-de-sac on both ends of Harding Lane. There is a dry pond to the north near the railroad trail. The project includes replacing the outlet structure with a new one to restore it to its original condition. The roadways will have a 24-foot-wide driving surface with edge control outside of the driving surface. The feasibility study includes expansion of watermain down the road. The sanitary sewer was televised and few issues were found. Soil borings were taken and the soils are in very poor condition; therefore, two feet of sand sub-cut base and six inches of rock will have to be placed under the roadways. Drain the will be installed along the edge of the roadways. Landini stated at a previous meeting, Council asked that he break out the results from the resident survey conducted in January 2009. He stated 12 residents on Harding Avenue and Harding Lane responded to the survey. Ten indicated they did not want the roadways to be reconstructed and two did. Seven did not want watermain extended, one did and four were neutral depending on the cost. Five did not want a 24-foot- wide roadway, three did, and four wanted other. Five did not want on-street parking allowed and seven did. Eleven did not want the streets to be posted as no parking. The current roadways are bituminous streets which are approximately 28-30 feet wide. Harding Lane has bituminous edge control and Harding Avenue does not. The project proposes extending the storm sewer system on Harding Lane which exists on the lower potion of Harding Lane only. Councilmember Turgeon stated she hoped that once the pond was restored, the storm water issues for properties to the north which abut the trail would subside. She asked that those residents be notified of the public hearing. Engineer Landini clarified the pond was originally designed as a dry pond and it was never intended to have standing water in it for long periods of time. The pond will be a detention facility where it will hold the water for a certain amount of time. Director Brown explained there is currently a weir structure that in effect does zero detention; the intent is to incorporate a control structure that will detain the storm water. There isn't sufficient room to construct a NURP pond where it would have a permanent pool. Over the years residents have dumped grass and other material into the pond which resulted in a loss of volume in the pond. Councilmember Woodruff asked if the storm water issues would be resolved if a pavement reclamation process was used to repair the roadways, noting the feasibility report recommends reconstructing them. Engineer Landini explained drain the would be installed but storm sewer could not be extended. Director Brown stated there is significant grade around the north cul-de-sac and there is no edge control; roadway water cannot be contained. Councilmember Zerby asked Engineer Landini to walk Council through the decision flowchart used to determine if a roadway was a candidate for reclamation or reconstruction. Engineer Landini explained the roadways have a PASER rating less than five, there is adequate right of way but the foundation soils are poor; based on the decision flowchart the roadways should be reconstructed. Zerby stated the results of the feasibility report are consistent with the outcome of the decision flowchart. Councilmember Turgeon questioned if Council was being asked to decide on a pavement reclamation or reconstruction approach, or is it only being asked to accept the feasibility report. Engineer Landini stated to stay on schedule with this project Council needs to decide if watermain installation will be included as part of the project so he can schedule the necessary public hearing, advertise the public hearing for approximately three weeks and notify residents. Council can decide after the public hearing that it no longer wants to include watermain as part of the project. °"iJLA13 ~~3'Jar MEETING MINUTE F ige of Councilmember Turgeon expressed concern that there may not be sufficient time to complete this project before late fall of 2009, and based on past experience with Wedgewood Drive improvements it is problematic to complete a road project if the weather temperatures get to cold and winter like or if there is a substantial amount of rain. Dale Sonnichsen, 5695 Harding Lane, stated he was an original long-time resident on Harding Lane and he looked forward to having the streets redone. He explained the water table in the area is currently going down. He has spent 80 percent of the cost of a new well to date and he doesn't have much deeper to go other than boring a new hole to a deeper aquifer. He would prefer not to spend $10,000 on an assessment in addition to the $8,000 he has already spent on a well. He stated if there is a public hearing for the project he will make sure to knock on his neighbors doors to make sure they are aware of it. He was confident that based on the survey more than 50 percent of the affected residents do not want to be assessed for watermain. Of the twelve survey respondents, seven did not want watermain installed and four were unsure until they knew the cost. He was one of the four who were unsure, and now he would not prefer to have watermain installed. He commented there are approximately eighteen property owners in the project area, and only twelve completed the survey. Councilmember Turgeon stated the assessment cost is $8,025 per property. Director Brown explained per the City's Ordinance the connection charge to the property line is $10,000 minus any assessment previously paid. The property owner has to pay all cost to bring water from the property line to the house. Andrew Waldo, 5679 Harding Lane, stated he installed a new 210-foot-deep well two years ago. It would be a real financial struggle for him to pay the assessment for watermain. He explained he was one of the four survey respondents who were neutral on watermain installation until they knew the costs. After hearing what the cost will be he is not in support of watermain installation, but lie is in favor of repairing the street as it is in pretty bad shape. Dean Corder, 5685 Wedgewood Drive, stated he lives right behind Mr. Sonnichsen. He explained that in 2008 watermain was installed in his street. He has not hooked up to City water yet because it would make more sense for him to hook up to City water on Harding Lane if it were to be installed because it would be closer to his house. He understands if the residents don't want watermain installed because of the assessment. He did not think he had much of a choice when watermain was installed as part of the Wedgewood Drive roadway project. Now that the project is complete he is glad that lie can choose to hook up to City water based on the changing water table. He expressed concern about storm water drainage. There is a line of woods on his property that borders Harding Lane and it tends to fill up with water, especially when the snow melts in the spring. He believes the problem was created when Harding Lane was first put in. He requested that drainage issue be resolved as part of this project. In response to a question from Councilmember Bailey, Engineer Landini explained Council can choose to drop the watermain portion of the project at the public hearing or even up to the time when the contract is awarded for the project. Director Brown explained that at some point the City has to notify residents and inform them that Council is contemplating assessing them for watermain installation, but that doesn't commit Council to that until the project is ordered. Bailey recommended the notification to residents clearly communicate Council has not decided if watermain will be installed, but it is considering it. Councilmember Woodruff stated it was incumbent for Council to take this path. He noted lie was not a proponent for or against installing City water. He suggested the project move forward with the design to include watermain installation. Council can make a final decision on installing watermain after a public hearing. CITY r-' -"-,AR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES May'-;,. Page 6 of t , Woodruff moved, `I'urgeon seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION O. 09-029, "A Resolution Approving Feasibility Report on Proposed Improvements and Setting Public Hearing Tate for June 22, 2009, City Project 09-02 Harding Avenue and Larding Lane Road Reclamation Project" and ordering plans and specifications for the reconstruction project including watermain improvements. Councilmember Bailey requested Council be provided the opportunity to review the notification letter to the residents informing them of the June 22, 2009, public hearing before it's sent out and he also requested the residents be asked for their feedback in advance of the public hearing. Engineer Landini stated he could notify the residents next week and as part of that notification he could tell them about a survey on survey monkey and ask them to complete the survey. Council would receive the results of the survey in their meeting packet. Councilmember Zerby asked if funding for the roadway improvements only had been decided on. Director Brown explained that a few months ago Council discussed finding approaches for roadway improvements and at that time it decided it wanted to continue to fund the improvements out of the General Fund. The Local Roadway Fund will quickly deplete as the roadway projects are completed. Staff will have to present Council with the bonding funding approach for improvements in the not to distant fixture. The feasibility report does not specify that anything other than watermain will be assessed. Administrator Heck stated Council directed Staff to move forward with this project in 2009 using the funds in the Local Roadway Fund, and bonding and transfer would be considered in 2010 and beyond. Councilmember Woodruff stated during the 2009 budget process funds were set aside to do this roadway improvement project, and he explained that when improvements are funded out of the General Fund all property taxpayers pay a portion of them. Councilmember Zerby asked if the $97,000 budgeted in 2008 for storm water management improvements to Harding Lane will be used to fund part of this project. Director Brown explained storm water improvements done as part of a roadway project are funded out of the Storm Water Fund, noting there are more storm water projects than funds available to do them. Motion passed 510. B. Accept Feasibility Study and Order Preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimates for Smithtown Lane Engineer Landini stated the meeting packet for this evening included the feasibility report for road reconstruction of Smithtown Lane. The feasibility report was ordered by Council during its March 23, 2009, meeting. The reconstruction of Smithtown Lane is included in the 2009 CIP and the 20-Year PMP, and it is rated as in need of improvements. The feasibility report evaluates: if the roadway reconstruction is feasible; sanitary sewer improvements; storm water management improvements and watermain improvements. The report indicates the items are feasible and cost effective. Should Council choose to move forward with the project, a resolution approving the report and setting the public hearing for the project was included in the meeting packet for this meeting for Council's consideration. Landini explained the roadway will have a 22-foot-wide driving surface with edge control outside of the driving surface, noting the current width is 20 feet. There are issues relating to who owns the right-of- way. The City has prescriptive rights in the right-of-way. Director Brown explained there are poor soils under Smithtown Lane, there currently is no edge control, and there aren't as many of the drainage issues as there are on Harding Lane because there are fewer ground water issues and the grades are much less severe. Using the decision flowchart for street reconstruction versus pavement reclamation, Smithtown - -U-AR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -aF- l 19 Lane has a PASS rating less than 5 therefore the adequate right-of-way is the next decision to determine if the roadway can be reconstructed. The owners and encumbrance report stated the right-of-way is not in place; it is not a platted right-of=way. The City will have to claim prescriptive rights; State law states the City has the right to what is required to operate and maintain a roadway. Prescriptive rights can include ditches and drains, and sometimes become controversial. Continuing on the flowchart, when there is not adequate right-of-way the flowchart moves to considering reclamation. If the decision is made to install watermain then the roadway has to be reconstructed. He noted the residents have not requested City water be installed. He stated he thought Smithtown Lane may be a good candidate for using the pavement reclamation approach to improve the roadway. Mayor Lizee asked if the roadway were reclaimed would the City still want to construct a cul-de-sac on the east end of Smithtown Lane. She noted that would require land acquisition. Director Brown explained there is a public safety reason to construct the cul-de-sac; it would allow vehicles to turn around safely. He stated the resident who would be impacted the most by having a cul-de-sac constructed has expressed a willingness to have that done. The reclamation can be done without constructing the cul-de-sac, but Staff recommends a cul-de-sac be constructed as part of the project and at a minimum a hammer head turnaround should be considered. Councilmember Woodruff questioned if both a cul-de-sac or hammer head turnaround could be included in the design, allowing a decision about what should be done to be made at a later date. Director Brown explained it is much easier to eliminate something from the design at a later date than it is to add something. Woodruff stated Smithtown Lane is a great candidate for reclamation. It is a small street with a low traffic level. There is a significant difference in cost as well as much less impact on the residents if the roadway is reclaimed. He expressed his support for the pavement reclamation approach for making improvements. Councilmember Turgeon stated it is her understanding that if the roadway is reclaimed, the width will remain 20 feet wide, drain tile will be installed and edge control will not be installed. Councilmember Woodruff stated the feasibility report indicates the reclaimed roadway width will be 22 feet wide. Director Brown explained pavement reclamation usually involves trying to maintain the existing surface width; adding additional surface requires constructing it. From a statutory point of view engineers are to recommend a roadway be designed with two 11-foot-wide driving surfaces. Staff needs to protect itself from a professional and personal liability perspective. Council can direct the roadway to be designed differently. In response to a question from Councilmember Bailey, Director Brown explained if a cul-de-sac were to be constructed thereby requiring land acquisition the City would have an appraiser determine what the square-foot value of the land is. Staff can then negotiate an easement price with the property owner. If an agreement can be reached an easement document would be prepared and executed based on direction from Council. He assumed there is no desire on anyone's part to enter into the eminent domain acquisition process. Councilmember Bailey stated lie did not want the desire to have a preferable solution which includes construction of a cul-de-sac, necessitating land acquisition, affect the probability of completing the project in 2009. Director Brown stated he did not want to prolong this project any longer than is necessary. He did not want the Wedgewood Drive process repeated for the sake of everyone, even if it meant delaying the actual work on Smithtown Lane. He encouraged Council to, for future projects, consider a process of doing the planning and design work for a roadway project in one year and doing the actual work the following year. He thought the process would allow for more time to resolve issues and concerns. Councilmember Zerby concurred with having an 18 - 24 month timeline for these types of --DREG"' ' -UNCIL, MEETING MINUTES Page r of 19 projects. Councilmember Woodruff stated he thought the timeline for this project is very realistic because it does not take the same amount of time to do pavement reclamation as it does to reconstruct. Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 09-030, "A Resolution Approving Feasibility Deport on Proposed Improvements and Setting Public Hearing Date, City Project 09-03 Smithtown Lane Road Reclamation Project" and ordering plans and specifications for the pavement reclamation of Smithtown Lane not to include watermain improvements. James Elder, 26115 Smithtown Lane, stated lie was suspicious of the survey results. Only four properties responded and there are eight property owners on Smithtown Lane, noting one of the properties in not occupied. He asked Staff to explain what pavement reclamation involved. Director Brown explained the existing asphalt surface along with the underlying rock soil will be milled (i.e., ground), drain the will be installed along the edge of the pavement, and three inches of asphalt will be placed over the pavement. The pro is it happens quickly. The cons are underlying soil issues are not resolved and there isn't much of an opportunity to resolve drainage issues. Mr. Elder stated the drawing shown this evening was different than the drawing shown during the neighborhood meeting. Engineer Landini explained the drawing shown during the neighborhood meeting was his rendition which showed a reconstructed roadway would be placed in the middle of the 66-foot-wide right-of-way. The Hennepin County owners and encumbrances report showed something different. in response to a question from Mr. Eider, Landini explained the reclaimed roadway surface would be two feet wider and would roughly be located in the same place. Mr. Elder stated when watermain was installed down Smithtown Road many years ago he requested the City install a connection point that he could connect to in the future. He noted a small portion of his property is adjacent to Smithtown Road. He is not sure if that ever happened, but if it did he could connect to the watermain on Smithtown Road. After talking to other residents, it may be that only 3 - 4 properties on Smithtown Lane would have to connect to a watermain on Smithtown Lane; the others can connect to watermain that already exists. Director Brown stated he would check into what properties were assessed as part of the Smithtown Road project and he thought any parcel of land adjacent to Smithtown Road was assessed. He will verify whether or not a connection point for Mr. Elder's property was installed. Mr. Elder clarified he was not assessed. Brown clarified there are three properties on Smithtown Lane that would not be assessed for watermain because they had previously been assessed, and the $9,533 assessment amount accounts for that. Councilmember Woodruff stated the motion made was to make the improvements to Smithtown Lane using the pavement reclamation process and that means watermain will not be installed. Mr. Elder stated he understood that. Woodruff stated if a connection point exists of the Smithtown Road watermain for Mr. Elder's property and if he was not already assessed for that, he would have to pay a $10,000 connection charge to bring City water to the property line. Mr. Elder asked if there will be public hearing for this project. Director Brown explained the City is not required to hold a public hearing for a pavement reclamation effort; Council can choose to do that. Mr. Elder stated he would endorse that because one-half of the residents on Smithtown Lane did not respond to the survey, and it is his understanding that at least one of the residents was not aware of the neighborhood meeting on the project. Councilmember Woodruff stated the reclamation effort would cost approximately $110,000 less than a reconstruction effort and would still result in having an adequate roadway that would last a long time. CITY --OOD REGU- --)UNCIL MEETING MINUTES May 26,'-' Rage 9 of " Joe Melton 26085 Smithtown Lane, stated he found the information about pavement reclamation versus reconstruction of Smithtown Lane on the City's web site to be helpful and he thanked Staff for putting it there. He is in support of reclaiming the roadway because of cost. The complete cost using this approach, including storm water management improvements and storm sewer improvements, is $124,800 which is paid for with taxpayer dollars. The complete cost to reconstruct, including storm water management improvements and storm sewer improvements and watermain improvements, is $295,000 and the property owners would be assessed approximately $10,000 for the watermain improvements. He commented he and his wife have lived on Smithtown Lane longer than anyone else. Katherine Krueger, 26065 Smithtown Lane, stated her property faces Smithtown Road. Her property is the drainage point for the entire road. The storm water flows onto her yard, over and under her driveway through a culvert and through a culvert under Smithtown Road to Mr. Elder's property and onto the creek. She questioned if some amount of curb could be installed to stop the flow of water onto her property. She voted to have a curb installed because of that. The gravel from the driveways on other residents' properties washes down to her property. She did not want this project to exacerbate the problem, and hopefully it can fix it. In response to a question from Mayor Lizee, Director Brown stated he is hesitant to piece-meal asphalt curb so that it's in front of one lot and not another. Brown explained asphalt curb doesn't resolve the storm water issue it just moves the water further downstream. He stated Staff will discuss if some other type of drainage facility can be constructed on the small parcel of land the City owns in the project area. If the roadway was reconstructed, part of the project included creating a detention facility on the City- owned property. Mr. Elder stated if the culvert under Smithtown Road were cleaned out, the storm water would drain away from Ms. Krueger's property much faster. Mr. Elder questioned if that could be considered as part of the project, to which Brown responded it could. Dick Whetston 26040 Smithtown Lane, stated he applauded Council's stated direction to reclaim the roadway because it's a low usage roadway and he did not think it was prudent to spend taxpayer dollars to reconstruct it. He did not think it is practical to install watermain based on survey results. He explained his property is located near the location of the proposed cul-de-sac. He commented that when watermain was installed along Smithtown Road he was erroneously assessed for it because his property was the closest buildable property yet he did not own the property that was purportedly that close. He stated he did not care if a cul-de-sac was constructed. He had discussed with Staff the possibility of negotiating his property needed for the cul-de-sac in exchange for the City-owned parcel of land. He asked if consideration would be made for local traffic during the project because all properties on the south side of the street were land-locked. Director Brown explained the City will have to maintain access for emergency vehicles. Residents will be notified of when the roadway will have to be closed for some period of time. He noted that as soon as the roadway is milled it is back to a drivable, albeit dusty, surface. Motion passed 510. Director Brown asked if Council wanted to hold a public hearing. Councilmernber Woodruff clarified that was not part of his motion. Administrator Heck explained that if the roadway was to be reconstructed and watermain installed the resolution indicated a public hearing would have been scheduled because property owners would have been assessed for watermain. Because watermain is not going to be installed, there is no requirement to schedule the public hearing. CITE "THAI COUNCIL MEETV- e.~L May Page 10 r 19 There was consensus to schedule a neighborhood meeting for the Smithtown Lane project the same evening a neighborhood meeting on final design is scheduled for the Harding Avenue and Harding Lane project; that date is June 25, 2009. C. Consideration of Traffic Signing Policy Director Brown stated Staff was asked to consider some options for signing along Smithtown Road and Country Road 19. Staff and Council have received comments that it is difficult to determine what road someone is on. He explained the tradition has been to sign only cross streets for roadways and not both roadways. This tradition has been followed because of cost. Staff requested and received a quote for supplies only to resign and remount signs. The quote for the street sign blade is $28.50 and the cost for the street sign post bracket is $35.75. Staff calculated the cost to resign Smithtown Road for all of the intersections; the cost for the materials only would be $2,518.75. The 2009 Operating Budget for Traffic Control is $4,000 for all sign items and traffic signal repairs. Staff believes Council needs to decide if this should be a uniform policy throughout the City, a policy for collector roads only, or continue with the past policy. All cities have a deadline in 2011 to meet the Federal Highway Administration mandate to comply with the reflectivity standards. Public Works has been selectively replacing faded signs over the last four years. Councilmember Zerby stated he did some research online and found the State of Minnesota Department of Transportation has a Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices which talks about signage. A paragraph in the manual title 2D-20 stated that in a business district and on principal arteries street name signs should be placed on diagonally opposite corners. In residential areas at least one street name sign should be mounted at each intersection. Signs naming both streets shall be installed at each intersection. He suggested the City comply with MnDOT's requirement, and that principal artery be those roadways for which the City receives funding from the State or the City's collective streets. Mayor Lizee stated she agreed with Zerby, especially for Smithtown Road, which is also referred to as County Road 19, Manitou Lane and Shadywood Road. Councilmember Turgeon suggested the impact of making the signs compliant should be considered before additional signage on Smithtown Road is considered. She thought there should be an overall plan, not just a plan for Smithtown Road. Director Nielsen explained that the corridor study, which Council adopted, does call for specialized signage for the Country Road 19 and Smithtown Road area. That should be factored into the plan. Councilmember Woodruff suggested Staff prepare a plan between now and the end of the 2010 budget process to replace half of the signs in 2010 to position the City to become fully compliant in 2011 and to satisfy the requests for signs on Smithtown Road. He stated in his neighborhood there are no fishing on the bridge and no parking signs that are difficult to read. He questioned if they would be included as part of the 2011 mandate. Director Brown stated he thought the mandate included all regulatory signs, but he will confirm if those types of signs will be included. Councilmember Zerby stated it would be good to have a larger plan for sign replacements. He has heard residents convey they are confused about what constitutes Smithtown Road and he did not think it was necessary to wait to order signs for Smithtown Road. Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the purchase of materials to resign Smithtown Road for all of its intersections for an amount of $2,518.75. 1 _ _ __,_100D REGULAR COUNCIL I _.TES '-eCLI In response to a question from Councilmember Woodruff, Director Brown stated the signs quoted for resigning Smithtown Road will be 2011 compliant and it does not take into consideration the special signage identified for the Country Road 19 and Smithtown Road area specified in the corridor study. Brown noted that when the special signage is purchased and installed per the corridor study specifications, the removed signage can be pert into the sign inventory for Smithtown Road. He noted there is a lag time from when the need for a sign is determined and when the sign arrives; therefore, the City maintains a small inventory of signs. Motion passed 510. D. Authorize Expenditure of Funds for Seal Coat Aggregate This was removed from the consent agenda at Councilmember Woodruffs request. Councilmember Woodruff explained he asked that this item and Item 9.E be removed from the consent agenda because Council was being asked to authorize expenditures that would result in the total cost for the 2009 sealcoat street maintenance project being in excess of the 2009 budgeted amount of $204,000. Staff is asking for authorization to purchase sealcoat aggregate for an amount of $26,000 plus tax and it is recommending the 2009 pavement markings be awarded for an amount $194,150. Those two items combined amount to $221,970. In its memorandum to Council Staff indicated it will decrease the oil application rate during construction to bring the project cost down. He questioned what that meant. Engineer Landini explained he used the highest oil application rate when he calculated the project cost; he wanted to provide Council with the maximum project cost as Council does not like when Staff has to ask for additional funds later. The actual oil application rate is three tenths of a gallon less per square foot than what was used in the calculation. He thought he could reduce the costs to what was in the 2009 budget by managing the oil application. Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, authorizing Staff to purchase sealcoat aggregate for the 2009 Sealcoat project from Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., and Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 09-027, "A Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for the 2009 Bituminous Seal Coating of Streets to Pearson Brothers Inc., City Project No. 09-05", subject to a combined total project cost not to exceed $204,000. Motion passed 5/0. E. Accept Bids and Award Contract for Sealcoat Project, City Project No. 09-05 This was removed from the consent agenda at Councilmember Woodruffs request and was discussed as part of Item 9.D. 10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. South Tonka Little League Agreement for Freeman Park Ball Field Signs Attorney Tietjen stated during its May 11, 2009, meeting, Council discussed a request from the South Tonka Little League (STLL) for amendments to the City's Zoning Code that would allow it to display commercial advertising signs on the ball-field fences of the two fields in Freeman Park used by STLL for little league games. Council decided to deny the request. Council instead decided to pursue an agreement with the STLL allowing it to display the signs; an agreement that would address Council's concerns for things such as maintaining control over the signage and the extensive nature of the proposed amendments. Staff has come up with an alternative which is for STLL to apply for a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) to CITY -_-_100 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETIN LJTES May 26, Page 12 of I- display commercial advertising signs. One of the conditions of the C.U.P. would be that STLL must enter into a license agreement with terms acceptable to the Council. This approach would allow the City to place time restrictions on the length of the C.U.P. and agreement. It would also allow the City to either revoke or rescind the C.U.P. and license agreement if the terms of the C.U.P. or license agreement are violated. This C.U.P. approach would not require extensive amendments to the City Code. It would require an amendment establishing the process; review and recommendation by the Planning Commission; a public hearing for the amendment and C.U.P.; and final approval of the amendment, the C.U.P. and the license agreement by Council. Should Council choose to pursue this approach, Staff suggests Council direct Staff to draft amendments to the City Code; this could be done concurrent with the crafting of the license agreement. Staff appreciates this will cause a delay for the STLL, but Staff believes this is the best approach. She noted her memorandum dated May 22, 2009, (a copy of which is on file) identifies 15 conditions for Council to consider. Councilmember Woodruff stated Council recently discussed a C.U.P. for another matter and one of the items brought to his attention was the potential applicant did not have legal control of the property. He questioned how the STLL could apply for a C.U.P. and how the City could approve it when the STLL has no control over the ball-field properties. Director Nielsen noted the City issues C.U.P.s for companies to locate cellular antennas on the City's water towers; the authority is conveyed to the companies. Councilmember Woodruff asked if one of the conditions could be to limit this to the ball fields located in Freeman Park. Attorney Tietjen stated the process would be open to everyone, but Council would be able to identify content neutral limitations in the license agreement. Councilmember Turgeon questioned if this could be open to the tennis courts in Freeman Park. Woodruff questioned if it would be applicable for other City parks. Woodruff expressed concern about the potential loss of City control over signage. He suggested it be limited to a particular purpose and area. Tietjen explained those issues would be addressed through the license agreement. Director Nielsen explained the intent is to define the original Ordinance narrowly, and if some other organization wanted to place signs somewhere else it would have to request its own amendment. He did not think the Ordinance could be limited to the little league. Woodruff stated he wanted to restrict it to the two fields in Freeman Park being discussed. Nielsen stated that gets into the issue of all organizations being treated consistently. Nielsen explained the Ordinance would limit the location of the signs to the inside of the ball-field fences. Councilmember Turgeon stated she appreciated the STLL wanting to move this forward quickly, but the STLL requested the 60-day extension. She did not think it was necessary for the City to rush this process. Attorney Tietjen clarified the STLL's application was acted on; there is no required deadline that must be satisfied. Tietjen stated theoretically another organization could make a similar request that Council would have to consider it; the restrictions can be tailored in the license agreement and the request. In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Director Nielsen explained the administration of this would be covered in the amendment itself. He anticipated an applicant would apply for a C.U.P. and that only gives them the right to display signs. The application for signs would be treated similar to any application for a temporary sign and that would be a $20 permit. Either the applicant or the sponsor would pay for the permit. Staff expected there would be some type of fee schedule. The Code amendment would fall under the temporary sign amendment. Councilmember Bailey noted there are very few fenced in areas in City parks. Although he would not be in support of hanging signs in trees or littering the landscape in parks, he would not have a problem if other sports organizations with fenced in areas requested to display signs during their seasons. He thought this idea of displaying sponsorship signs could work using the C.U.P. process. Although this process may COUNCIL M E°IING MINUTES y: ,2 e' a 19 not be completed in time for the summer baseball season, it should be in place for the fall baseball season and for future years. Councilmember Zerby stated there are situations where the City has crafted tight documents to control things, and he thought Staff could do so again. Bailey moved, Zerby seconded, directing Staff to draft an amendment to the City Code establishing a conditional use permit provision to display signs in City parks, to draft a license agreement between the City and the South Tonka Little League, to schedule a public hearing for the Code amendment and another hearing to consider the conditional use permit application from South Tonka Little League for this purpose. Councilmember Turgeon stated from her vantage point this was not about ball fields, it is about Freeman Park and she is not in favor of displaying signs in parks. Motion passed 4/1 with Turgeon dissenting. B. City Hall Landscaping Director Nielsen stated Staff had requested and received a third quote for landscaping City Hall, noting it had already received two quotes which Staff was not satisfied with. The third quote is from Lan-De-Con. Mark Labaree, one of the owners of Lan-De-Con, is a former Shorewood resident and Park Commission member and has consulted with the City in the past. The other two quotes were from TKDA and All Seasons Landscape and Design. The Lan-De-Con proposal seems to be the most realistic; the proposal fits the City's needs the best and the price is realistic. Staff recommends the City use Lan-De-Con to perform the landscaping working. Councilmember Woodruff stated he has not received a copy of the Lan-De-Con proposal. Director Nielsen stated he will get that to Council. Nielsen explained the cost is $2,400 for design work including sign sketches. It addresses the five areas identified as needing landscape work; the entry area to City Hall, the landscaped berm area on the west end of the parking lot, the west side of building along Country Club Road, the back of the building, and the rain garden proposed for the City-owned property. He commented the City may consider using Metro Bloom for some of the rain garden activities. There was Council consensus to continue this item to its next meeting. Councilmember Zerby asked if the City Hall address will be on the sign, to which Director Nielsen responded it will. Mayor Lizee recessed the meeting at 9:00 P.M. Mayor Lizee reconvened the meeting at 9:05 P.M. C. Proposal for a Comprehensive Utility Rate Study Director Burton stated a comprehensive utility system rate analysis in on the City's 2009 goal list. Staff has obtained quotes for this service from Abdo Eick and Meyers, LLP (the City's Auditor) and from Paul Donna, of Northland Securities, Inc. (the City's bond consultant). Each firm brings a different perspective to their analysis. She explained the Abdo Eick and Meyer's analysis would emphasize cash flows for December 31, 2008, through December 31, 2011. It would also provide comparisons with other cities. CITY(-"V z_,'_»EW C " ""AR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES May', , ; Page 14 o." Northland Securities would develop up to four alternatives for sanitary sewer, water, and storm water rates and evaluate these alternatives for changes in operating expenses, system usage, customers, capital improvements and funding options. Its analysis would cover the five-year CIP period and could go out as far as 10 - 12 years. Its familiarity with debt funding options could be useful when discussing funding options for water system and storm water management improvements. For an additional fee, Northland Securities would conduct a public workshop to explain its findings and recommendations to the public. She noted funding for the analysis would come out of the Sewer, Water and Stormwater enterprise funds. Burton stated Staff recommends the appointment of Paul Donna and Rusty Fifield, with Northland Securities, to provide the utility system rate analysis services for an amount not to exceed $8,900. Councilmember Woodruff stated former Councilmember Wellens had requested a lower-usage base rate for water consumption be added to the City's rate structures. Director Burton stated Northland Securities will be informed that is of primary importance, as are the needs for the enterprise funds to be able to support operations and the need to have rates that encourage water conservation. Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, appointing Paul Donna and Rusty Fifield, with Northland Securities, to provide the comprehensive utility system rate analysis services as per their proposal for an amount not to exceed $8,900, and including consideration of a lower-consumption water base rate. Councilmember Bailey commented that when the rate analysis was discussed during a February 2, 2009, Council work session the timeline for completion of the analysis by outside resources was anticipated that it may be possible to complete the analysis by the end of the first quarter of 2009 to the middle of the second quarter of 2009. Director Burton duly noted Bailey's comment, and stated the Northland representatives have indicated their report should be completed in August. Councilmember Zerby asked if the proposal includes any discussion about expanding the City's water system and how that would be paid for. Director Burton stated Northland representatives will consider the City's City water connection charge as well as rates. Zerby stated the $10,000 connection charge can be a burden to residents, and he questioned if other alternatives would be considered. In response to a question from Councilmember Bailey, Director Burton explained there would be an additional fee for Northland Securities to conduct a public workshop to explain its findings and recommendations to the public. Northland personnel would review their findings with Council as part of the overall cost. Administrator Heck commented that the City of Excelsior is doing a rate review as well, and because some of the City's residents get their water from Excelsior it would be prudent to coordinate the timing of the two studies and any rate adjustments. Motion passed 510. D. Southshore Center Administrator Heck stated the meeting packet for this evening contained a memorandum from him regarding future operations of the Southshore Center (the Center). After the packet was distributed he came to the conclusion that future Center operations could be made to be much simpler than those identified in the memorandum. He explained the operation of the Center became an issue after the Friends of the Southshore Center (the Friends) dissolved; there was no longer any person or organization running CITY REGULAR COUNCIL MEETIN-- r, ~ a S May 2 , Page 1 o°'.. the day-to-day operations of the Center. When the Friends ran the Center the member cities (the Cities) were not involved in the day-to-day operation; the Friends were entirely responsible for the Center. Each individual City could decide if it wanted to voluntarily contribute to funding the Center's operations. After the Friends dissolved in early 2009 the Cities started discussing how the Center should be run. One of the benefits of the discussions is it became apparent that the Cities may not be able to reach consensus on some of the issues. Heck explained that during its May 11, 2009, meeting Councilmembers Woodruff and Bailey discussed the option of having Shorewood lease the Center and, in effect, run the Center operations similar to the way the Friends did. Shorewood would be solely responsible for the running the Center. After discussing the lease option with Attorney Tietjen, he thought it was an intriguing option although it may cause some issues from a tactical perspective. He has discussed the possibility of drafting an operating agreement; in essence, everything would remain the same with the exception that Shorewood, if it so desired, would operate the Center in the same fashion that the Friends operated the Center. There would either be a lease agreement, similar to the one the Friends had with the Cities, or some other document between the Cities that gives Shorewood the sole authority and responsibility to operate and maintain the Center as a community center. The other four Cities could voluntarily decide if they want to contribute financially to that. He has discussed this concept with representatives from the other four Cities and they seem to be receptive to it. Heck asked Attorney Tietjen to comment on a lease agreement versus some other type of document such as an operational agreement. Attorney Tietjen explained that legally Shorewood could lease the Center, but it would be somewhat awkward because Shorewood is a partial owner of the Center and it would be both a lessor and lessee. She is not aware of anything legally that would prohibit Shorewood from being both a lessor and lessee. Modifying the lease agreement that existed between the Friends and the Cities would not just be a simple matter of replacing the word Friends in the lease agreement that had existed between the Cities and the Friends. Because Shorewood would be both a lessee and lessor there would have to be some agreement with the other four Cities about how dispute resolution would occur; Shorewood, as a property owner, would not vote against Shorewood, as a tenant, if a dispute arose. The other option would be some type of operational agreement similar in nature to a joint powers agreement, even though it's not a formal joint powers entity the Cities collectively own the Center and are designating an entity to operate and manage the Center. She did not think it would make a significant amount of difference as to what the form of the agreement is; both are probably possible. But, given some of the issues with dispute resolution and how decisions will be made any agreement has to include something all Cities are in agreement with to address such issues. Councilmember Turgeon stated with the lease approach the City would basically have the same arrangement as the Friends had. When the Friends were responsible for the Center the Cities were not required to make any financial contribution and there was no vote as to how the Center was operated. Using the lease approach should eliminate any hesitancy the other four Cities had about amending the Cooperative Agreement. Administrator Heck explained the real issue with the Cooperative Agreement, if it gets to that point, has to do with the division of the Center as an asset should the asset go away. The Cooperative Agreement doesn't need to change using either approach. He agreed with Attorney Tietjen's assessment that modifying the lease agreement between the Friends and the Cities to have Shorewood be the lessee is not as simple as just changing Friends as the tenant to the City of Shorewood as the tenant; it would have to be modified to reflect the current situation. Using either approach Shorewood would have the sole CITE' r'- ` -EWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES May 2- . Page 16 oa' authority to make all the decisions regarding the management, operations and maintenance of the Center. The Cooperative Agreement will remain in effect; therefore, Shorewood cannot act unilaterally to dispose of the building or close the building. That would still require at least four of the five Cities approval to do so. The existing lease agreement has a 25-year term. He suggested either type of agreement have a five- year term; it would demonstrate Shorewood's good faith commitment to keeping the Center operational as a community center. A three-year commitment, which is what three of the Councilmembers prefer, does not seem long enough. The other Cities would prefer a five-year term, but may consider a three-year term. He thought either approach is a good way to solve the issue, noting the fast approaching deadline of June 30, 2009, to have some operating arrangement in place. He stated the City continues to receive calls from potential rentals who want to rent the Center after the June 30`x' date. Councilmember Turgeon stated she preferred to keep the term of the agreement three years which she thought was the same as the term in Community Rec Resources' (CRR) proposal [CRR's proposal is for a 42-month term]. Doing so would make it easier should CRR decide they did not want to manage the Center at the end of a to-be-agreed upon contract. Councilmember Bailey stated he would prefer a three-year term. If the process is successful, he hoped the Center can be functional as a community center long beyond five years. He did not anticipate there would have to be any major capital improvements made within the next three years. At some point there has to be discussion about capital improvements. If Shorewood is going to make major capital improvements to the building than the cost basis for the building would have to be adjusted. Three years should provide ample time for the Cities to address how capital improvements should be handled. He thought after three years Shorewood should have a relatively good idea if keeping the Center operational as a community Center will work, and he indicated he hoped it would. Councilmember Zerby stated he could support a three-year term if that's what everyone wanted, but he wanted to have the agreement include an automatic renewal clause that can be terminated with advance written notice. The agreement should self perpetuate until Shorewood says stop. Councilmember Turgeon stated the lease with the Friends contained similar clauses. Zerby suggested maybe the renewals could be for up to four successful renewals of five years in length. Administrator Heck stated those were components of the draft operational agreement lie and Attorney Tietjen had been working on; it included automatic renewal, positive action has to be taken to terminate the agreement, and sufficient advance notice would be required. Mayor Lizee stated she has spoken with three of the other Cities' mayors and Administrator Heck about scheduling a joint meeting of the Cities' councils for 8:00 A.M. on June Yd to discuss these options. The meeting would be held at the Southshore Center. The Tonka Bay Council was going to discuss the special meeting this evening; she thought it was in agreement. The Excelsior and Greenwood Mayors were in agreement with the ►neeting and indicated they thought they would have a quorum of council members present. She expressed hope that at least a quorum of the Shorewood Council would be in attendance; that they would make an effort to adjust their schedules to be there. She noted she had contracted Deephaven Mayor Skrede but has not heard back from him (Skrede was present in the audience this evening). She stated she anticipated the meeting could last up to two hours. The purpose of the meeting is to have the Cities agree on some type of lease or operational agreement as the June 30`x' deadline is approaching quickly. Hopefully, the Cities could collectively reach an agreement, and then CRR can be hired to manage and operate the Center prior to July I sr Councihnember Bailey asked if a draft lease or operational agreement would be available to discuss during the June 30t" special meeting. Attorney Tietjen stated she thought a draft or outline of an agreement could be available by then. CITY" V€ OD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES May, , Page 17 of Councilmember Zerby stated he thought the timing was great. The Southshore Center working group has been working on this for a number of months. Administrator Heck has been working hard at coordinating those discussions and preparing materials for the meetings. The Cities' Councils have been discussing different options. It's time to resolve how the Center will be managed and operated. Mayor Lizee explained that during the meeting each City's Council would open their own special meeting and each meeting would have the same agenda. All participants will hear the same presentation about an agreement. The goal is to have each City vote on approving an agreement during the meeting. Councilmember Woodruff stated he thought the lease agreement was the one that had the best opportunity to be taken care of in a short amount of time. All the Cities and their legal counsels are familiar with the lease. He identified six places where minor changes would need to be made to the Friends' lease. He was pleased to hear the other Cities have some interest in this approach. He noted he can't attend the special meeting; he has a previous commitment that starts early in the morning and continues into the evening. Councilmember Bailey stated he cannot guarantee he can attend the special meeting until he checks his calendar. Councilmember Zerby stated he will attend the special meeting. Administrator Heck stated she had hoped Council was ready to express its willingness to operate the Center on behalf of the Cities and to move forward in that direction. He's not sure if that would involve a motion stating so. He had hoped he could communicate Shorewood's willingness to do so to the other Cities and indicate a formal lease agreement will be forthcoming. He had hoped this would be resolved this evening. Councilmember Turgeon stated she is hung up on the June 3`d special meeting. Tile timing is not the best. She wants to see the agreement first and have it distributed to the Cities' Councilmembers. She does not anticipate the other Cities will object to lease agreement as it will be extremely similar to the Friends' lease; therefore, she questioned what would be discussed for two hours on June 3`d. From her vantage point it was not important to meet on June 3`d; a meeting a week or two later may be more appropriate provided one is needed. Councilmember Zerby stated this is such an important issue. The five Cities rarely get together as a whole. This is one subject that is worthy of a joint meeting. Turgeon stated it may be more appropriate for the Cities' Councils to first discuss the lease agreement among themselves. Mayor Lizee stated Shorewood needs buy-in from the other Cities. The Cities' Councils have discussed the issue of keeping the Center operational at various times. New questions come up which delays coming to any agreement. Having all the Councils in the same room on June 3`d should allow for everyone's questions to be answered at that time with each Council hearing the same answers and concerns. She again expressed hope that the Shorewood Council would have a quorum at the meeting. Woodruff moved, directing Staff to prepare a modified 3-year term auto-renew lease agreement with Shorewood as the lessee and have the agreement available to Council by June 1, 2009. Councilmember Woodruff stated there had been mention of approving an arrangement with CRR for operating and management services for the Center. He is not objecting to entering into a contract with CRR, but lie wants to see a contract first. He thinks it's more appropriate to do the contract work after the Cities agree to the lease agreement. Shorewood can draft the contract and the Shorewood Council can consider the contract during its first meeting in June. CFT1 REGULAR COUNCIL MEF NUTES May 26, l Page 18 of 19 Administrator Heck stated he and Attorney Tietjen will work on modifying the Friends' lease and have a copy to Council on June 1st per Council's direction. It is his understanding that Council would like them to start working on drafting a contract for purchasing CRR management services. He recommended the motion be amended to direct Staff to negotiate a contract with CRR on behalf of Shorewood and the other Cities. Woodruff amended his motion to include authorizing Staff to enter into contract negotiations with Community Rec Resources and to draft a contract the Shorewood Mayor can sign and to bring it before Council for consideration. Councilmember Bailey agreed with Mayor Lizee's concern that the back-and-forth cycle will never end if there isn't a multi-Council special meeting. He expressed his reluctance to vote on the lease agreement during the June 3rd special meeting, noting the Shorewood Council meets on June 8"'. Mayor Lizee explained that some of the Council's only meet once a month. She wanted all the discussion to occur during the June 3rd meeting so all the Cities' Councils were very clear about what they were voting on. She wanted to move the resolution of the Center's operations along. Bailey clarified he was not opposing the meeting. He was uncomfortable having the Shorewood Council vote on the lease agreement during a joint meeting. He suggested the Shorewood Council vote during its June 8t" meeting. Other Cities' Councils can vote during the meeting if that's their preference. He indicated he would not be proposing any changes during the June 8"' meeting if Council has had the opportunity to review the lease agreement prior to the June 3rd special meeting and provide those continents to Administrator Heck in advance of the June 3rd meeting. Councilmember Turgeon stated she would prefer the Shorewood Council vote during its June 8t1' meeting. In response to a comment from Councilmember Turgeon, Mayor Lizee clarified that the Tonka Bay Council was discussing the special June 3rd meeting this evening and the lease approach was not on the agenda for Greenwood's June 2, 2009, Council meeting. Bailey seconded. Motion passed 5/0. 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff Administrator Heck stated he hoped to have a final accounting of the City Hall renovation project available for the next meeting, noting he was not promising that as lie was still waiting for the final change order. There is a little interior work that has to be completed. The punch list for the exterior will be done in the near future. The contractor will replace the sidewalk at the front of City Hall the latter part of the week. Director Brown stated work is progressing on getting the cellular antenna remounted on the SE Area Water Tower and the temporary cellular antenna is still at the site. Councilmember Bailey asked if Staff planned on preparing a post project review of the SE Area Water Tower rehabilitation project including issues and delays encountered. Brown explained paint samples were taken from the interior of the bowl of the tower, and they ware sent out to an independent lab for an infrared spectrometry test. The test results will provide information on what happened to the paint, and what the expected life of the paint is. It will help the City determine if a reduction in payment to the contractor is appropriate. Bailey stated the prairie grass around the base of the Tower looks very bad. Brown explained that based on feedback from a Public Works employee who is very knowledgeable about prairie grass, it's his understanding that prairie CITY 0'',! ~ ±,CULAR COUNCIL MEETIP. ti . J fES May: , Page 19 c 9 grass will get green later than turf grass. Brown noted the prairie grass has been watered by Public Works staff. He stated lie has discussed publishing something about prairie grass on the City's website and in its newsletter with the City's prairie grass expert, Joe Pazandak. Director Nielsen noted the residents' calls about the grass are being routed to Mr. Pazandak. In response to a question from Councilmennber Zerby, Director Brown stated Hennepin County was working on resolving the problem with activating the warning sirens when using an alternative test method. Hennepin County has stated the City's sirens are functional. B. Mayor and City Council Councilmember Woodruff stated at the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission full commission meeting last week Executive Committee members were nominated and elected. Patrick Hodapp, the City's representative, was elected to serve as Vice Chair. 12. ADJOURN Zerby moved, Turgeon seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of May 26, 2009, at 9:52 P.M. Motion passed 510. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Administrator/Clerk