Loading...
2006-01-17 City Council MinutesPage No. I January 17, 2006 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, January 17, 2006 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 8:30 o'clock p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Huber called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Huber, Councilmembers Duggan, Krebsbach, Schneeman and Vitelli. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of the agenda for the meeting, revised to remove item 6k, Moen-Leuer development contract. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmember Krebsbach moved approval of the minutes of the regular meeting held on December 20, 2005 as amended. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Abstain: 1 Huber Councilmember Duggan moved approval of the minutes of the regular meeting held on January 3, 2006 as amended. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Schneeman moved approval of the consent calendar for the meeting along with authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein. a. Acknowledgement of the Minutes from the December 14, 2005 Airport Relations Commission Meeting. b. Acknowledgement of the Minutes from the January 10, 2006 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting. c. Acknowledgement of the NDC4 Meeting Agenda. Page No. 2 January 17, 2006 d. Acknowledgement of the Monthly Fire Department Report for December 2005. e. Acknowledgement of the Treasurer's Report for December 2005. f. Authorization to issue a purchase order to Prairie Restorations for buckthorn removal from city parks. g. Authorization for Fire Captains Jeff Stenhaug and Keith Stein to attend the 2006 Fire Department Instructors Conference. h. Authorization for execution of an amendment to Gun Club Lake Watershed Joint Powers Agreement to allow the City of Eagan to establish staggered terms for its members and alternates. i. Authorization for execution of the 2006 Joint Powers Agreement for traffic markings, street sweeping, crack sealing and seal coating. j. Approval of the issuance of a temporary liquor license for St. Peter's Church for March 10 in conjunction with a church fund raising event. k. Approval of the issuance of sign permits to Niemala's Sign and Graphics for the replacement of signs at SuperAmerica at 1080 Highway 110 and at 1200 Mendota Heights Road. 1. Approval of the list of contractor licenses dated January 17, 2006. m. Approval of the list of claims dated January 17, 2006, and totaling $1,203,131.90. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Huber informed the audience on the Supreme Court decision on the Par 3 litigation. COMMISSION Mayor Huber informed the audience that Council conducted APPOINTMENTS interviews of a very strong slate of commission candidates this evening and debated about who to appoint. He recommended that William Dunn, Robin Ehrlich and David Sloane be appointed to the Airport Relations Commission, that Tom Krause be appointed to the Parks and Recreation Commission, and that Maureen Harms, Mike Povolny and Joe Lally be appointed to the Planning Commission, all effective on February 1. Councilmember Schneeman moved the appointments of William Dunn, Robin Ehrlich and David Sloane to the Airport Relations Commission, Tom Krause to the Parks and Recreation Commission, and Maureen Hanns, Mike Povolny and Joe Lally to the Planning Commission, effective on February 1. Page No. 3 January 17, 2006 Councihneinber Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 ISAIAH PROJECT Ms. Judy Rhein, 522 Dodge Lane, and Dr. Tom Norris, 626 Pondview Court, were present to inform Council on the Isaiah Project and invite the Councilmembers and residents to attend the ISAIAH Southeast Caucus Roundtable on February 28. PILOT KNOB SITE Council acknowledged a memo from Operations & Projects Coordinator Kullander regarding the scope of services for site restoration for the Pilot Knob site. Council also acknowledged a proposed consulting contract from Great River Greening for assisting the city with restoration of the site. Mr. Fred Harris, from Great River Greening, was present for the discussion. Mr. Kullander informed the audience that Great River Greening presented a resource management plan for the Pilot Knob site to Council in October. The site was acquired in December, and staff asked Great River Greening to prepare a scope of services to assist the city with restoration of the site. Mr. Harris stated that Great River Greening is a non -profit organization that works on restoration of native habitats throughout the Twin Cities area. He reviewed the scope of services, stating that for each of the next three years they propose to implement the restoration plan at the costs identified and has set up not to exceed amounts in the scope of services. They propose to implement the plan in 2006. The projected cost includes some additional fees for removal of the trees that had been planted by MnDOT in the right - of -way - a subset of trees would cost $11,500, and GRG needs to discuss with MnDOT alternate ways that might reduce or eliminate those costs. GRG also proposes to do some additional work, such as overseeing subcontractors who will be doing some of the work because GRG does not have some of the needed heavy equipment. GRG's fee will be up to $3,000 to write an RFP and oversee contractors. They also propose to do some fundraising, at an estimated cost of $14,000 for 2006. He stated that he is confident GRG can reach its fundraising goal of at least $78,000 by the end of 2007. He reviewed the identified tasks for 2006 -2008 and informed Council on what administrative services will be provided. Responding to questions from Councilmember Krebsbach, Mr. Harris stated that the first year involves removing woody plants, burning the site and spraying it with herbicides. The entire site will Page No. 4 January 17, 2006 be seeded in the second year. GRG will do the grant writing and will meet with organizations such as the Dakota Community to request funds for the restoration work. He hopes to raise at least $78,000, which would be applied to each of the first two years' implementation work to reestablish prairie and savannah. Councilmember Vitelli stated that on this project there will be a source of funds, including city funds and grants, and there will be an expenditure of funds. He recommended that the city establish an account in the city's accounting system for Pilot Knob. The city can then begin to track sources of funds and expenditures. Council can be briefed on planned versus actual revenues and expenses. Staff should bring that plan to Council at the next meeting. Any money received from agencies and grants would go into the fund. Council should also get the Parks and Recreation Corm-nission involved and have them help get grants and give Council recommendations on whether this is the way to proceed. Mr. Harris will put together a time and materials contract with not to exceed amounts. Mr. Harris responded that he will be itemizing everything they do and reporting the hours they spend. Councilmember Krebsbach asked what Council is committing in terms of dollars. Mr. Harris responded that the plan is $130,000 for the plan and paying GRG to implement. Councilmember Vitelli stated that Council should commit to a plan for 2006 and have a plan now for 2007 and 2008 so that Council knows roughly what the costs will be and can fund them. Mr. Kullander stated that the proposal for the first three years lays out how the site is prepared and the second year includes the trail, overlook and parking lot, and the end of second year and the third year will be putting in the native species and seeding. The original plan is for a nine year plan, but the heavy expenditures are in the first three years. Some of the items anticipated for the first three years could be delayed if Council is not sure of getting the funding GRG hopes for. Councilmember Schneeman Mr. Kullarder did a good job presenting the proposal to the Parks and Recreation Commission and they are involved and informed on this. Page No. 5 January 17, 2006 Councilmember Vitelli asked who is in charge of the grants and developing the requests for grants. Mr. Harris responded that GRG has several staff members who would be involved in writing grant requests. They would be written on behalf of Mendota Heights and the city would receive the money. Councilmember Duggan stated that there has been a great deal of support for Pilot Knob. Page 8 of the presentation states that funds promised as of January 10, 2006 total $29,000. He asked if GRG knows when some of that money may be available. This would be a major contribution to the implementation cost of $32,900. Mr. Harris responded that he does not know if all the organizations will be able to put the money up right now or not. As soon as GRG has a contract, they will be contacting those organizations to find out what their timeframe is. Responding to a question from Councilmember Duggan, Mr. Kullander stated that there are strings attached to the $10,000 that Dakota County has promised. It has to be for capitol improvements. Preparing the site and taking out the vegetation is not capitol improvement. Putting in the seed and constructing trails and a parking lot would be eligible. That money would probably be used in year two. Councilmember Duggan asked if MnDOT may defray or forgive the fee for tree replacement. Mr. Harris responded that MnDOT indicated that if GRG can Regarding removal and replacement of the MnDOT trees, he stated that if something else can be planted in place of the trees they may forgive the costs. Part of the problem is that some of the trees are in the area where the overlook will be built. He needs to continue his discussions with MnDOT to find the most cost effective way to remove some of the DOT trees. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that when the city goes into the contract, GRG will provide oversight, administration and fund raising. In the budget, GRG lists $32,000. She asked if that would include overseeing the burning of the site. Mr. Harris responded that GRG will actually be doing the burning. Page No. 6 January 17, 2006 Mr. Kullander stated that in the worst case (if unsuccessful in getting any other grants or donations), the city would be responsible for the $32,000 construction costs. Any grants and donations would offset that cost and costs in future years. GRG does part of the work and hires contractors to do the work they do not have the equipment for. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she would like something more clear in terms of what the city is paying for and what it expects GRG to deliver. Mr. Kullander stated that GRG would be responsible for implementation of the plan to restore the site, writing grant applications and looking for grant money. The city would be obligated for some costs. Many of the grants state that their money cannot be used for grant money. Responding to a question from Councilmember Krebsbach, Mr. Kullander stated that the recommendation from staff is to enter into an agreement with Great River Greening to proceed with the restoration plan as presented and outlined in the Scope of Services for the first three years of improvements that were taken from the original plan presented to Council in December. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she wants to be sure what restoration means. Mr. Harris responded that the actual tasks of the on the ground work are listed as implementation. All the costs involved in being on the site and doing the work are restoration and are identified on page 7 of the contract. Councilmember Schneeman moved to enter into an agreement with Great River Greening to proceed with the restoration of the Pilot Knob site, as identified on Page 7 of the agreement, and to direct staff to prepare a three year financial plan as recommended by Councilmember Vitelli. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Duggan recommended that Mr. Harris contact the MAC for funds since they dramatically benefit from what the city is doing with the site. He stated that fundraising is 16.5% of the total cost. He asked Mr. Harris if 16% is the typical cost. Page No. 7 January 17, 2006 Mr. Harris responded that he wanted to be conservative in his estimates and did not list all of the foundations and corporations he expects to contact. He expects to be spending about 10% in relation to what is actually gained. INFILL REGULATION Council acknowledged an Infill Study Update from City Planner Stephen Grittman, who was present for the discussion. Assistant Hollister informed the audience that Council held a joint workshop with the Planning Commission last fall and gave the planner direction to prepare an infill study regarding the further subdivision of existing single family lots and direction to prepare a report on rental housing regulations. They are both on this evening's agenda. Planner Grittman informed the audience that at the workshop, Council asked for some additional information related to discussion as to the city might regulate or address resubdivision. He prepared a couple of analyses. One was to further investigate the idea of requiring that resubdivision of existing single family lots consider some definition of average or median lot size in the neighborhood as a threshold for subdivision. He had originally suggested 80% of the median lot size within 350 feet. Council asked for additional study to determine what would happen if the threshold was changed to 60 or 70% of the median lot size and what would happen if the neighborhood definition were changed from 350 feet. He reviewed a table analyzing how those changes would affect five example parcels. For a few of them it increased the potential for subdivision in terms of lot count. As the percentage threshold was lowered the size that might be defined as a minimum lot was lowered, but it was not significant. One of the parcels that has been of most interest has been the Schuster property. They submitted an application for subdividing that parcel into three lots. He studied that parcel for both the different percentage median size as well as increasing the buffer area (definition of neighborhood). At the original calculation that he provided in his original report, the 80% of median would have been 35,895. The Schuster parcel is a little over 60,000 square feet so there could be no additional subdivision under that neighborhood definition. As the median is decreased to 60 %, the parcel could be split into two lots, but there is an existing structure and that would have to be removed or relocated. He also provided more definition of what parcels might be subject to the regulations and reviewed a snap summarizing which parcels in the city might be eligible for subdivision under current regulations. Of the 58 parcels, two thirds of them have structures on them that appear to allow Page No. 8 January 17, 2006 further subdivision. About one third have a structure or slope or wetland that would interfere with resubdivision. About 35 to 40 parcels are re- subdividable in their existing condition. He reviewed a graphic that showed the impact of changing the buffer area for the five sample lots. Councilmember Duggan asked Mr. Grittman if he is comfortable with the 350 foot definition of neighborhood, which is two or three houses around someone. He asked if Mr. Grittman is more comfortable with a 500 foot or 1,000 foot buffer. Mr. Grittman responded that he originally started out with the 350 foot definition because that is the number in state law for notification for plats, etc. It would be hard to set a single number that would apply equally as well in one neighborhood as another. The larger that area that is included, the great the notice area would be. Councilmember Duggan stated that major boundaries are not crossed in the Schuster neighborhood with a 1,000 foot buffer. He asked if the people living there consider that their neighborhood. He also asked Mr. Grittman if he thinks that is closer to neighborhood or if he would rather use 500 feet. Mr. Grittman responded that in the Schuster neighborhood, 1,000 feet seems to well. When there are areas of large lots, 350 feet will only be one or two lots away. In some other areas, that would include many more lots than someone living there might not consider neighborhood. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that in as a standard, 500 feet might be a reasonable standard. Mr. Grittman responded that if Council is looking for a standard, 500 feet is probably reasonable. He reviewed how the 500 foot standard would apply to the identified parcels. Ms. Joan Olin asked why there were only five properties analyzed in the chart. Mr. Grittman responded that Council had asked him for more information, and he selected the five parcels because they were different sizes and in different areas of the city. Responding to a question from Ms. Olin, Mayor Huber stated that Council is reviewing the additional information this evening and is Page No. 9 January 17, 2006 not being asked to go ahead with a different ordinance. This is the next phase of a study. o'uncilmember Vitelli commented that Mr. Grittinan selected the five parcels at random and was not guided by Council, and it is just a sample. Ms. Olin stated that the difference between applying 350 feet and 1,000 feet is significant to the property owner given the value of lots in Mendota Heights. If the buffer is increased to 1,000 feet for her property, a lot more of the 15,000 square foot lots are included. If the buffer is 500 feet, it includes only the large lots. She considers Mendota Elementary to be in her neighborhood. She walks on Marie and Victoria Curve and that is part of her neighborhood. She asked if the ordinance would change with development. If her lot develops at 19,000 square foot lots before the Rolfs develop, will the median go down. If they develop their property first, the Rolfs could have more lots than if they developed first. Mayor Huber responded that the answer would change depending on which parcel develops first. People could feel pressured to develop first or last. Councilmember Vitelli commented that the ordinance would be serving its purpose. It would be balancing the lot size with the neighborhood. Ms. Olin asked if Council is going to change the comprehensive plan if this is adopted. The definition of R -1 would have to be changed. Mr. Grittman responded that he has made recommendations for comprehensive plan changes primarily related to integrating the idea that the city is going to take neighborhood context into determining what lot size should be in a particular neighborhood. If Council proceeds with the proposal, a comprehensive plan would be needed. Ms. Olin commented that three of the Council people live in neighborhoods of 15,000 square feet lots, and she feels that size lots works well for Mendota Heights. Mr. Scott Miller, 1021 Wagon Wheel Trail, stated that his property was not included in the study. He stated that the 350 feet came from city codes that have lots of 4,000 to 5,000 square feet. The minimum buffer for Mendota Heights should be 1,000 square feet because of the standard 15,000 square foot lot sizes. He asked why the chart of Page No. 10 January 17, 2006 the five lots did not include the number of lots that could be developed under the current R -1 lot size requirement. He asked why the study did not include the Metropolitan Council study of October 2005 was not addressed. That stated that cities should be looking at higher density. Twin homes and condominiums could be considered on the large pieces of land in order to provide open space. He asked who will contact everyone who would be affected by changes in the ordinance to inform them of what is proposed. If the city wants more open space, it should compensate the property owners for their losses. He suggested leaving the ordinance as it is since only 37 properties would be affected. Mr. Paul Schuster stated that he feels it was a good attempt by the planner and Council to come up with an equation that would address the issue but he feels the equation was developed just to enforce opposition by a small amount of people. He stated that he did not realize there are only 37 possible subdividable properties and suggested that they should be treated one by one. He asked if Council would allow any deviations if this is put into law. Mayor Huber responded that as with any variance request, they are taken on a case by case basis. Councilmember Duggan stated that Council does not have proposed ordinance language yet. There is nothing a structure or language that says what the city will do with larger lots. Council is trying to determine in what direction to go. Mayor Huber stated that he would be surprised if Council has ever granted variances for lots to be than 15,000 square feet. He did not know if Council would be as rigid if there is an ordinance change. Mr. Schuster felt that Council is going down the wrong path with these equations. He could come up with an equation that would allow his parents to have three lots. Councilmember Schneeman stated that Council is gathering information and she wishes there were a much simpler way of doing this. Council will need to do a lot of thinking on this issue. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that one of the standards Council has always used is character of the neighborhood. Council is trying to see if there is a way to quantify that in terns of lot size. Page No. 11 January 17, 2006 Mr. Schuster commented that the 1,000 foot neighborhood definition for his parents' lots includes part of Highway 110. Planner Grittman responded that is what shows up in the county database for the parcels and there must be some legal description anamoly. Mayor Huber pointed out that Valley Park is included within the 1,000 feet for the Hess property but Marie Park is not. He felt that Valley Park should not be included. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that one of the things this points up is that once there is an application that becomes the epicenter of a neighborhood versus what might naturally be considered a neighborhood. Councilmember Duggan stated that Council should have a listing of the 58 lots that are subdividable based on 30,000 square feet and 200 feet of frontage. Mayor Huber responded that what is being discussed is additional information from the planner. He does not want the moratorium to last the entire year, but thinks Council should simply accept the report and decide where to go at a future meeting, as there is still some information to gather. Mr. Jim Weisbecker, 695 Wesley Court, asked if anyone considered using the street frontage in the calculation. The Schuster property has considerable street frontage and it looks like there are two vacant lots. Their property looks significantly different from the other lots in the neighborhood. He asked whether subdividing the property and putting it into context with the neighborhood would have a negative impact on the neighborhood or the city. The last time he was before Council, several Councilmembers commented that the infill study had nothing to do with the Schuster property and was asked for long before they requested subdivision. He was very surprised when the study came out and the Schuster property was one of the focus properties. He asked if, at some point in time during preparation of the study, Mr. Grittman was specifically asked to look at the Schuster property. Mayor Huber responded that the properties were looked at at random. Councilmember Duggan stated that Council requested an infill study in March or April of 2005. The study was originally going to be available in September, but because there were conflicts it was i Page No. 12 January 17, 2006 delayed. The study was requested before the Schuster application was submitted. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that infill development has been an important issue for the city for years. Councilmember Duggan stated that one of the major challenges in completing the city's comprehensive plan in 2002 was what to do with about 23 infill sites. Council addressed concerns about what to do with infill at that time but did not have an answer then. Mr. Weisbecker stated that it had been stated at the last discussion on the issue, there was a comment that Council would not be changing rules to make it retroactive and it would not affect the Schuster request. If Council approves any of the proposals it will have a huge impact on that request. Mayor Huber stated that there have been different comments made by either Council or staff. He asked the city planner if pre-existing application be subject to the new rules that came in during the moratorium. Planner Grittman responded that would be a decision of Council. Council could subject them to the new rules or could have the zoning take affect at any particular time. The mere fact of an application does not vest them in the previous zoning. Acting Attorney Tami Diehm stated that the Schuster application was formally withdrawn, so there is no application pending before the city at this time. Councilmember Duggan stated that he would be uncomfortable with denying them the opportunity to come before Council with an application which Council requested them to hold off on until Council could look at the infill study. Mayor Huber responded that Council felt it needed to take action at the December 20 meeting because of concern over the 120 day rule. Council's action would have been one of two things — there would either have been a withdrawal or a denial based on the fact that the city going through the study. RENTAL HOUSING Council acknowledged a report from Planner Grittman regarding REGULATION rental housing regulation. Page No. 13 January 17, 2006 Planner Grittman stated that Council had asked for information relating to potential regulation of rental property in the community and he prepared some background information. The issue seems to have been raised because of a single piece of property and neighbors' concerns over use of the property, in particular relating to on- street parking and the exterior use of the property. There are some ordinances in place that might be used to regulate single family or rental properties with respect to parking, noise, lights, outside storage and other outside uses of property. The alternative to using existing ordinance language to regulate rental property would be to consider a rental property licensing ordinance. He looked at ordinances from several cities, and Shoreview seemed to be the most complete. The advantage of a rental licensing ordinance is that it gives the city another layer of enforcement. Owners who do not comply with the licensing have their licenses pulled and lose their ability to use the property for rental purposes. The disadvantage is that a rental ordinance can be very staff intensive. Given the level of complaints that have been recieved, the ordinances currently in place might provide the city with the ability to enforce existing regulations without establishing a rental licensing program. Councilmember Vitelli asked if the cities that have established licensing programs found them to work. Mr. Grittman responded that most of them are pleased with the results. Most of the rental licensing programs have been established to address problems that occur with multi - family properties. Councilmember Vitelli asked if it is easily determined when a residence becomes rental or if one has to go through the legal bantering about getting into people's lives. Mr. Grittman responded that there are reviews of county records that could be done to find out what properties are being used as rental properties. Councilmember Vitelli stated that it seems that the occurrence of someone buying a single family residence with the intent of renting it may have become a phenomenon that occurs as interest rates are low. He asked if that tendency will go away as interest rates rise. Mr. Grittman responded that he would assume that it would be interest rate sensitive and rental rate sensitive as well. Page No. 14 January 17, 2006 Councilmember Vitelli stated that one thing that is happening is what is called flipping in real estate. It is happening with homes valued below $250,000 when a speculator comes in and finds an appraiser who will give an appraised value of $250,000, whereas it is worth $200,000. He gets a loan for the $250,000, does a cash transaction with the owner and has money in his pocket rather than an investment in the house. Council should be alert to that happening in the city. It has already happened in Mendota Heights. In an instance he is aware of, they used the proceeds to do some remodeling internally to create more bedrooms so that more families can live there and rented it out. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she feels that rental licensing would snake some sense. At least two homes she is aware of have had problems with rentals. The ordinance would be targeted towards properties that were bought for speculation. She felt it would be better to adopt rental licensing rather than waiting for problems. She suggested that Council look at adopting the regulations this summer after there has been an opportunity to determine how many rental properties there are in the city. Planner Grittman responded that he would think Council would want input from the administrative staff to determine what level of staffing would be needed to administer the ordinance. He does not know how many rental properties there are in the city. Councilmember Vitelli stated that it would be a good idea to ask staff to give Council an idea of how many rental properties there are. He agreed that the key question is whether the city can enforce and staff it. Mr. Ned Rukavina, 1704 Vicki Lane, thanked Council for doing a study. He stated that other cities have adopted regulations and he encouraged Council to do the same. Rental properties affect property values, which is why he is present this evening. He stated that there are two rental properties in his neighborhood and there are code enforcement issues and issues of parking and safety. He stated that Council should ask the police department how many hours they are putting in on the calls they are receiving. There are significantly more rental properties in the city than people think there are. Councilmember Duggan asked Mr. Rukavina if he is able to determine the degree of deterioration in the property that is challenging him. Page No. 15 January 17, 2006 Mr. Rukavina responded that he can tell by how the lawns are being maintained and how the driveways are shoveled and the type of fence materials that have been put up in the yards. Owner occupied homes do not have cars parked on their grass. Ms. Pat Kaplan, 1710 Vicki Lane, stated that she was the leasing agent for one of the homes. The owner of that home owns three houses in Mendota Heights. There are six adults living in the home. They are very nice neighbors, but there are six cars there. Every week there are at least six to eleven cars there parked in the yard and in front of the house and her house. It is not so bad this year because there has not been much snow. There are cars parked on both sides of the street all the time and cars are never parked in the garage. There was discussion over homesteading requirements and how to determine what properties are rental properties. Councilmember Vitelli asked staff to follow up on homesteading and who the house is homesteaded to. It was the consensus to accept the report and direct staff to report on costs of enforcement and how many rental properties there are in the city. Councilmember Krebsbach suggested that staff contact Shoreview to see how well the ordinance works and if there is anything that can be taken out of it. Councilmember Schneeman stated that as an alternative, Council could adopt an ordinance restricting parking on the street between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. GOAL SETTING Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Danielson regarding scheduling of a goal setting workshop for 2006. It was the consensus to schedule the workshop for February 11 from 8:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. at City Hall. ANNIVERSARY UPDATE Council acknowledged an update from Administrator Danielson regarding the city's Fiftieth Anniversary Celebration. Administrator Danielson informed Council that Councilmember Duggan has been working hard with a committee over the past several months to put together a plan for celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of incorporation of the city. He stated that he provided Page No. 16 January 17, 2006 a list of things Councilmember Duggan and the committee have been working on for Council to discuss and for the community to hear about them and volunteer their help. Many of the items involve the expenditure of funds. Councilmember Duggan stated that this is also the fifteenth year of Celebrate Mendota Heights Parks, and the direction from Council last year was that the park celebration and fiftieth anniversary be a combined celebration. Council reviewed the events and activities described in Administrator Danielson's memo. Mayor Huber stated that this is an event to celebrate Mendota Heights and he is concerned that this not become a campaign event. Councilmember Duggan responded that there will not be any speeches, just introductions to recognize that people took the time out of their busy schedules to celebrate with Mendota Heights. The only speech would be by him or the Mayor to thank people for coming to the celebration. He stated that he will send letters to the politicians who have been invited to inform them that they are invited as guests but there will be no speeches or campaigning. They can be in the parade, but there would not be any signs on the cars to identify who is in them. Councilmember Schneeman stated that responses have already been received from some of the individuals. She pointed out that Council is a non - partisan body and it is an election year and she is afraid of what will happen if politicians from the major parties come. There is no way to prevent them from campaigning. It should be kept to city officials and former city officials. Councilmember Vitelli asked what the objective is of inviting the Governor and his opponents and other politicians. This is a city celebration, and if they are invited they will have the expectation of having the opportunity to talk to people from a stage. He felt that the invitation should be withdrawn and that the dignitaries should not be invited. He stated that he would be willing to send them a letter. Mayor Huber stated that Councilmember Duggan has suggested having the politicians ride in the parade but with no banners on the cars, but in June most people will know who Tim Pawlenty and Mike Hatch are. At the same time if Rick Aguilar is riding in the parade, few people will know who he is. He stated that if they are Page No. 17 January 17, 2006 invited but told they would not be acknowledged until the end of the event, it is likely they will not attend. He was concerned that this would become a political event. Councilmember Duggan stated that he will send the invitees a follow-up letter stating that this is a non-partisan, non-political city celebration and they are welcome to come without political signs and tee shirts. They would be welcomed without politicizing. Mayor Huber acknowledged that Councilmember Duggan has put a tremendous amount of energy and effort into the celebration but he is concerned. He is just concerned about it becoming political. He suggested that perhaps there should not be a parade. Councilmember Vitelli that it would be acceptable to him for a clarification letter to be sent to the politicians. There was discussion over a dignitary reception for the dignitaries by Mendakota Country Club. Councilmember Duggan stated that he will contact Mendakota and cancel the reception. There was discussion over conducting fireworks. Councilmember Duggan stated that if he does not raise enough money, there will not be any fireworks. Mayor Huber stated that he is concerned about soliciting donations. He felt having elected people do fund raising puts everyone in a difficult position and could create some conflicts of interest either real or imagined. He stated that he understands that some letters have gone out but he does not think there should be follow up calls on the letters. Councilmember Duggan responded that the letters for the sponsorships are the same as has been done each year for the park celebration. The recreation programmer received just under $4,000 for the park celebration last year. The city has budgeted $10,000 for the anniversary celebration. Council could decide to increase the budget to $22,000, or some of the events can be eliminated. Mayor Huber stated that he has a real concern about elected officials soliciting money. He would not want to do any follow up calling to people who have not responded. There are two expensive items proposed for the anniversary celebration, the fireworks and the historical booklet. Fireworks are expensive and people can go to see Page No. 18 January 17, 2006 fireworks almost any time. He would like Council input on those items. He would rather not do fireworks than solicit funds for them. Councilmember Vitelli agreed with Mayor Huber about elected officials or staff soliciting hinds. There is a created expectation and a risk or reciprocity when the city asks, for example, the Town Center developer for contributions. He would rather avoid any fund solicitation and would rather forget the dignitaries and the fireworks and the reception and just increase the park celebration activities and have a band and a dance. Councilmember Schneeman stated that she does not care about the fireworks but is concerned about logistics. There will be between 300 and 400 children in the baseball tournament from 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The parents who have talked to her have indicated that they want to take the children home after the tournament and come back to the dance. Maybe all those people would rather stay at the dance than go to the fireworks. She suggested that the dance go until 11:00. Attorney Diehm stated that she thinks it is fair to make a distinction between accepting contributions from businesses and actively soliciting contributions from businesses. In other communities and in talking with the League of Minnesota Cities the most common way to do this is to set up a non -profit group within the community to plan events and do fund raising. It is appropriate for a city to spend some money for a community festival, but if a non -profit is set up, it would eliminate many of the concerns raised this evening. There was discussion over whether Council should adopt resolutions accepting all donations. Councilmember Duggan stated that Mr. Feffercorn came to the city to say that he wants to contribute to the celebration, as did several other businesses. He stated that he is uncomfortable because "he thinks he is hearing Council impugning the integrity of people coming to the city to give a gift to the city." He stated that no one is twisting their arms. He does not have a problem doing away with the fireworks but does have a problem with accepting a $1,000 donation from Dave Libra but not accepting donations from others. No one will be giving more than that. Mayor Huber stated that letters have gone out and they cannot be taken back. Some money has come in or been promised. There should not be any more calls or letters. Page No. 19 January 17, 2006 Attorney Diehm stated that there is a distinction that can be made between accepting gifts and being uncomfortable with actively soliciting gifts. She does not think there is a legal problem with it and there is no legal conflict of interest. There may perhaps be a perceived conflict of interest that Council may wish to avoid. That would change Council's actions in going forward in not following up on solicitations. If businesses come forward to contribute, Council may choose to accept those gifts if they want to. There is often a case where a Councilmember serves in another capacity in the community, and in this case Councilmember Duggan is soliciting as a member of the anniversary committee. Council must decide if they perceive that as a conflict. Perhaps a different committee member should make subsequent visits. Councilmember Krebsbach suggested accepting donations that come in but that Councilmember Duggan do no follow up calls or letters. She asked if there is anyone else on the committee who can do that. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he would like to see the name of a person who is responsible for organizing and making each activity a success. The events that are proposed are all good community events. Councilmember Duggan responded that he can answer that question after the next committee meeting. He reviewed the tentative events for Council and the audience and stated that registration forms are going out for volunteers and participants in early March. The fiftieth anniversary history booklet would be an expanded version of the quarterly city newsletter and would cost about $6,500, which is about $2,500 more than the normal newsletter cost. Councilmember Vitelli stated that Finance Officer Schabacker should be designated to handle all of the income and expenses. Also, there is a risk of putting too much demand on staff time. He recommended that Administrator Danielson ask each department to develop a plan based on this celebration and put a line item in the budget called 50th celebration where they can indicate how much labor and expense will likely be spent based on the requirements that are being handed them. Council should recognize what those costs are and should be given and review a financial statement every month. In the end, Council is responsible if the expenses exceed funding. Page No. 20 January 17, 2006 PAY EQUITY REPORT Council acknowledged a memo from regarding the city's pay equity report. Administrator Danielson explained that under state law, the city must be in compliance with the comparable worth law and must file the report with the state this month. The report must be approved by Council, signed by the Mayor and submitted to the state. Councilmember Vitelli moved to authorize the Mayor to execute the pay equity report. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Vitelli stated that Councilmember Duggan's enthusiasm will make the 50th Anniversary Celebration a great success. His comments this evening focused on trying to be in control of things, and he hopes Councilmember Duggan's enthusiasm is not dampened. Councilmember Duggan extended congratulations to Chris Campenen for winning several prizes at a statewide dance competition. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before Council, Councilmember Duggan moved that the meeting be adjourned. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 11:30 p.m. KatlAeen M. Swanson City Clerk ATTEST: Jo a�yor