Loading...
2004-11-16 City Council minutesPage No. 1 November 16, 2004 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, November 16, 2004 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 7:30 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 revised agenda for the meeting, further revised to delete item 61, ARC letter, and to add discussion on the proposed budget and levy for 2005. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmember Duggan moved approval of the minutes of the CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Schneeman moved approval of the consent calendar for the meeting, revised to move items 6i, taser acquisition, and item 61, City Hall monument signs, and item 6o, TIF amendment hearing, to the regular agenda, along with authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein. a. Acknowledgement of the NCD4 Meeting Agenda. b. Acknowledgement of the October 13, 2004 ARC Commission Minutes. regular meeting held on November 2, 2004. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Duggan moved approval of the minutes of the Canvassing Board meeting held on November 3, 2004. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Schneeman moved approval of the consent calendar for the meeting, revised to move items 6i, taser acquisition, and item 61, City Hall monument signs, and item 6o, TIF amendment hearing, to the regular agenda, along with authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein. a. Acknowledgement of the NCD4 Meeting Agenda. b. Acknowledgement of the October 13, 2004 ARC Commission Minutes. Page No. 2 November 16, 2004 c. Acknowledgement of the November 9, 2004 Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes. d. Acknowledgement of Fire Department October 2004 Monthly Report. e. Acknowledgement of October 2004 Treasurer's Report. f. Acknowledgement of the 13t" Annual Fire Awards. g. Acknowledgement of the Automatic External Defibrillator/Public Access to Defibrillation Update. h. Authorization for Purchase of AED Units. i. Authorization for Signatures for Transfer of Lexington Avenue Trail Right of Way j. Authorization for Signatures of Delaware Avenue (CSAH 63)/TH 110 Intersection Documents. k. Approval of Repair and/or Replacement of City Hall and Police Department Monument Signs. 1. Approval of Purchase Orders for three 2005 Park Improvement Projects. m. Adoption of Resolution No. 04-87: "RESOLUTION SEEKING FUNDING FROM DAKOTA COUNTY FOR CONTINUATION OF THE COMMUNITY LANDFILL ABATEMENT PROGRAM" n. Adoption of Resolution No. 04-88: "RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE AMENDMENT OF THE TAX INCREMENT PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT." o. Adoption of Resolution No. 04-89: "RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR STREET RECONSTRUCTION AND REHABILITATION IMPROVEMENTS ON SUNSET LANE, RIDGEWOOD LANE, IVY HILL DRIVE AND MAPLE PARK DRIVE FROM IVY HILL DRIVE TO SYLVANDALE". p. Approval of the list of contractor licenses dated November 16, 2004. q. Approval of the list of claims dated November 16, 2004 and totaling $535,600.22. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 TASER ACQUISITION Council acknowledged a memo from Chief Aschenbrener requesting authorization to purchase five Taser units, cartridges and training for the police department. Page No. 3 November 16, 2004 Councilmember Duggan was concerned about a newspaper report about a child who had been hit with a Taser, and asked if the department really needs Tasers given all of the training they receive. Chief Aschenbrener responded that the police department operates under the same rules as St. Paul and Minneapolis. The rules on use of force changed dramatically in 1985 with a U.S. Supreme Court case that set forth when force can be used and under what circumstance. Minnesota state laws are direct derivatives. When the training budget for this year was developed, the police department decided that use of force training would be done in house and would be more intensive. Officer Lambert was selected as the training officer and he has undergone two intensive courses to bring the course in house. He is not yet certified in Tasers or beanbags, and the department will bring in an officer from Eagan to do the training. Tasers do not replace firearms or chemical agents. Part of the training program will be officers learning when it is appropriate to use Tasers. Mendota Heights would be keeping up with what is going on in the rest of the industry. After discussion, Councilmember Duggan moved to authorize the purchase of five Tasers and training cartridges from Uniforms Unlimited. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CITY HALL SIGNS Council acknowledged a memo from Operations and Projects Manager Kullander recommending the replacement of the two City Hall monument signs. Councilmember Duggan was concerned about whether there are ways to save money and if the replacement is needed. He noted that the Sign Art quote is considerably less than the quote from ASI Modulex to replace the signs, and is nearly $2,800 less than the ASI quote to repair the signs. He also noted that Councilmember Vitelli had raised the issue about the condition of the signs some time ago. Councilmember Schneeman responded that the signs are in terrible condition and need to be replaced. Councilmember Duggan moved to authorize the issuance of a purchase order to Sign Art for $6,208.36 for replacement of the City Hall monument signs. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Page No. 4 November 16, 2004 Nays: 0 TIF HEARING Council acknowledged a memo from Finance Director Schabacker recommending that a public hearing be called to consider an amendment to the tax increment plan for Tax Increment District No. 1. Councilmember Duggan asked why the request includes a recommendation to retain Ehlers & Associates for $5,000 to prepare the modification and if it can be fixed in house. Finance Director Schabacker responded that this would be the fourth modification on the district and they have all been done using consultants. Councilmember Duggan moved Adoption of Resolution No. 04-88, "RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC ]HEARING ON THE AMENDMENT OF THE TAX INCREMENT PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. J.." Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 LEVY/BUDGET Mayor Huber stated that a number of Councilmembers have received phone calls and comments from residents about the tax statements that were mailed out by the county last week. When Council went through the budget process this year, they faced a number of challenges. As part of the 2003 budget fix that the Governor and legislature put through, they eliminated local government aid. Since Mendota Heights no longer receives local government aid, the state took away $200,000 in market value homestead credit from the city and in 2004. The city has lost $400,000 over the past two years and has not had a chance to recoup it. In addition, the Parks Commission made a very compelling case for making sure the parks are maintained and the equipment that is in the parks. That equipment is about 15 years old and is showing some wear and tear. The commission wants to make sure the city keeps up its park, infrastructure. Last year, as part of dealing with levy limits, the city held its contribution towards employee health insurance to 5%. Health care went up considerably more than that. The city had been increasing its contribution by 10% for a number of years. This year's budget proposes a 12.5% increase. It appears that the insurance premium will go up by about 25%, which means that even if Council authorizes a 3% pay increase for next year, several employees will experience a decrease. Council has been fiscally responsible for Page No. 5 November 16, 2004 many years and is sensitive to what is going on with the tax statements and is also sensitive to employee and infrastructure needs. Council does not authorize spending money that does not need to be spent. Council has challenged themselves and staff to take another look at the proposed budget to see if there can be some cuts to take down the rate that was shown on the preliminary tax statements. A hearing on the proposed levy and budget will be held on December 6. He stated that the sense of Council is that there need to be some reductions. There have been some significant increases in valuations — for houses under $414,000, there is a homestead credit that is allocated on a dollar bases between the county, school district and city. With the school district passing the referendum, there are a lot more dollars in the school district tax, so there is a lot more of the homestead credit allocated to the school tax. Even if the valuations or tax rate did not increase, people would still see an increase in their city tax because of the shift in homestead credit allocation. He reiterated that the city has lost $400,000 over the past two years and there is significant infrastructure that must be planned for over the next two years, including the public safety radio upgrade. The proposed budget includes $135,000 as a reserve for the upgrades. There are also other infrastructure needs, like the trail system, that are included in the budget. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Cliff Timm stated that he visited Paul Haggerty's home and asked Mr. Haggerty to see his trees. He stated that he is concerned about the void in the bluff and Mr. Haggerty told him he is not planning on planting any trees at this time. He states that he represents many people who would like to see trees grow up on the bluff where others were taken out. Attorney Schleck stated that there is an outstanding demand from the city that Mr. Haggerty restore the bluff. Councilmember Duggan informed Mr. Timm that if Mr. Haggerty does not do something within a certain period of time, the city can prosecute. Park Commissioner Larry Craighead thanked Council for the Lexington trail that is being built and give his support to that. He stated that he has supported the trail construction for several years. He joined the commission in 1998 and has seen the issues of children running along Lexington. In February, 1999, he sent several letters to the city and the county and talked to the police chief and everyone supported finding a way to make Lexington more safe. The Park Commission passed motions supporting the trail and had Page No. 6 November 16, 2004 several neighborhood meetings. He stated that he believes the trail will make Lexington safer for walkers and bicyclists. He noted that there will be more discussion on the trail along the frontage road to Town Center and from Town Center to Marie Avenue. He also thanked Council for finding money to repave and repair some of the trails. Mr. Robin Ehrlich asked to address Council regarding Par 3. He stated that he submitted a petition status letter to the Park Commission and reviewed the petition, which he and William Haider have been taking around the community. They have accumulated about 400 signatures. He collected signatures in Evergreen Knolls, which is adjacent to the golf course, and also Park Place and Wachtler. In each household he stopped at, people wanted to sign the petition and everyone was strongly in favor of keeping the golf course. He then went to the Copperfield and Friendly Hills neighborhoods and everyone he contacted signed the petition and said they really wanted to keep the golf course. He told them that what they were really acknowledging that their taxes would increase and they were still overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the golf course. A week ago the Cherokee Sirloin Room had a golf outing and everyone who attended said what a gem the golf course is. He asked that something be done to save the golf course and stated that he felt a referendum would be well received. Councilmember Krebsbach noted that some of the addresses on the petition are from West St. Paul and some from St. Paul. Mr. Ehrlich stated that those were from people who attended the golf outing. This is not a formal petition, but rather an informal poll. Mr. Jim Losleben, 815 Hazel Court, stated that when he opened his tax statement he saw a 26.8% overall increase. The city tax showed over a 20% increase. He stated that he does not know anyone who is getting a 20% increase. Having sat on Council, he thinks Council needs to see what really needs to be in the budget and asked that Council take a hard look at it. Mayor Huber responded that there are some real budget challenges. The city lost a portion of its MVHC for two years and the League of Minnesota Cities is telling cities not to expect to get it back. The state is looking at a $1 billion deficit and he is expecting that the state will extend the market value homestead credit elimination. When the state stops funding the city, it puts the city in a difficult situation. Council is trying to keep up the city's infrastucture. Page No. 7 November 16, 2004 Council and several staff members are attending meetings with Dakota County on high impact partnership projects to see if there are ways to save money. Mr. Losleben responded that if his business costs go up he cannot pass them to his customers or they will go elsewhere. Councilmember Vitelli commented that no one has been added to the city staff for next year and is proposing a 3% wage increase. The Council, in his opinion, is doing a very good job of cost management. Mr. Losleben stated that when he was on Council and they hit those bumps in the road they found ways to keep taxes close to inflation. Mayor Huber responded that in discussions with staff, they suggested that some funds could be taken from reserves. He was concerned about bringing reserves down to low, such as the equipment reserve, and Council is reluctant to do that. There are some infrastructure things that were included in the budget and they have to be addressed at some time. Council has challenged staff to find ways to reduce the proposed budget. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that Council is of the mind that it needs to look at a way to reduce the levy. This is a city with low property taxes, partly because there is no recreation department or street lights. Council is looking to see if something can be taken out before adopting the levy. Councilmember Vitelli stated that Council lis looking at ways to reduce the levy that people received last week. That was a preliminary statement, and Council still has an opportunity to make a reduction in the levy that would affect the tax statements for next year. SWIMMING POOL FENCING Council acknowledged a memo from Assistant Hollister relative to continued discussion on a request from Mr. Richard Chapman for waiver from the fence requirement for swimming pools. Council also acknowledged an associated letter from the city attorney. Assistant Hollister stated that Mr. Chapman is building a new home in Hidden Creek Estates and is planning on installing a swimming pool. He met with staff and the city planner to see if there is a way to avoid having to put a fence around his swimming pool. He was informed that the city ordinance requires that outdoor pools be Page No. 8 November 16, 2004 surrounded by fences. Mr. Chapman appeared before Council in September. Council asked the city attorney to do some research. Attorney Schleck informed Council that he has been researching the issue, including contacting the League of Minnesota Cities about what other communities are doing and what their loss control specialists think about allowing a mechanical pool cover to be used instead of fence. The League did not have much information about what other cities are doing. The person he spoke with had not heard about any cities looking into doing this. The City of Grant is considering requiring mechanical pool covers in addition to fencing. He spoke to a loss control specialist at the League who informed him there was a case in Anoka where three young boys drowned in a pool in the city. What the court said that the city was not liable because the pool was not on public property. That was in the case of not having any fence or pool cover at all. The loss control specialist seemed to be of a mind that it is a policy issue for Council to address and Council should consider the potential for increased liability to the city by not providing a different kind of safety with respect to covering a pool. He had a conversation with an independent insurance broker and she thought most brokers would not carry coverage for a pool that does not have a fence, even if it had a mechanical cover. From his perspective, in all the people he talked to, no one said to him that this is a great idea. What Council is talking about is making sure that pools are safe for children and looking a the potential affect of changing the existing safety standard. Council should have some solid facts on which to base that decision and it is important to look at it on an overall basis for the city. This is the first time in his knowledge that this issue has come up, and there is no groundswell of people asking for it. Council should be careful about looking at changing an overall policy of the city on a small amount of data. At this point, he is not recommending that Council approve this from a legal or liability standpoint. Councilmember Vitelli stated that the court decided that since the pool was on private property, the city had no liability. He asked why Council should have concerns. Attorney Schleck responded that in that case, it was an issue about whether or not there should be an ordinance, because there was no ordinance. In this case, Council is talking about allowing a pool cover instead of a fence. The city's ordinance requires that there be a fence around a pool and that the fence have a closing and locking gate. He felt that in that case there is a barrier the city would be Page No. 9 November 16, 2004 developing — a barrier to access—and it takes the human factor out of it because the gate automatically closes and locks. He questioned whether the pool cover would close itself. He felt that as an overall policy, the city needs to make sure that the decision is based on solid facts rather than convenience. Councilmember Vitelli noted that Mr. Chapman had an attachment to his letter that Sunfish Lake's ordinance says that people can have a retractable cover or a fence. Attorney Schleck stated that he can contact Sunfish Lake. Perhaps they did not contact the League and the League does not know about the ordinance. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he went on the Internet and found a considerable number of cities that are considering changing their ordinances to accommodate retractable pool covers. That does not prove it is a good idea, but there are many cities considering this, particularly in the warm climates. Councilmember Duggan stated that he was required to have a fence around his pool and would have loved to have a retractable cover as an option. He has checked with several pool companies and they had two recommendations. One is that the property owner provide proof of insurance specific to the pool cover. That would protect the property owner and city. Another condition is proof of inspection of the cover on an annual basis. That would tell the city it has been examined mechanically. He stated that the city does not go out to check every pool fence to be sure it has a closing and locking gate. A mechanical cover is an improvement to a person's lifestyle and far more attractive than a fence. If the pool safety cover meets the requirements established by a national body in the United States and the homeowner is willing to do it, he feels the city would be going in the right direction. He asked if the ordinance language could be written so that it passes on the inspection and insurance obligation to a future home owner. Attorney Schleck stated that would impose a covenant on the homeowner, and technically by encumbering the property it could be consider to be partially condemning the property. Councilmember Duggan pointed out that the city has essentially done the same thing for homes built in the flight path by requiring that they inform future homeowners that the homes are in the flight path. He did not think that is considered condemnation. Page No. 10 November 16, 2004 Councilmember Krebsbach stated that Mendota Heights is a far more complex city than Sunfish Lake. She thought if the ordinance were amended there would be many more pools, and it would be too much of a risk to change the ordinance. Mr. Chapman stated that there was a pond on his property when he bought it and there is a pond that he made, and both represent hazards. He is asking that Council allow the homeowner to use his own discretion and choose between an automatic safety cover and a fence. He stated that all of Scott County does not require fences if people have mechanical covers. He stated that he will respect Council's decision one way or another, but he thinks it is logical to look at clear case history that there is no liability on government and that the city is immune from any lawsuits over private pools. Mayor Huber asked who the Scott County ordinance would impact and how the city would be impacted if Dakota County adopted a similar ordinance. He felt it would be odd for a county to take that action. Attorney Schleck stated that a city can be more restrictive than some other higher level of government. The Sunfish Lake ordinance, as he reads it, requires either a fence or both a fence and a mechanical cover. Mr. Chapman stated that he has a pool for seven or eight years and they have four young children. He would rather have a pool cover because it restricts access. Research indicates that pool drownings are in pools where the parents are not watching the children. He noted also that a fence will not keep teenagers out if they want to get in. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the variable that is removed that there is a fence so it is not other children who will drown in the pool other than those who are allowed on the property. Councilmember Schneeman stated that Council has heard a lot of conflicting information and would like to study it more. Mr. Chapman stated that most drownings occur in lakes, rivers and ponds and he has a pond on his land. The majority of drownings that have happened in pools would not have been prevented by fences. He did not think a fence is a better safety device for a homeowner than a mechanical cover. That coupled with the fact that the city is immune to lawsuits, makes this a judgment question. He stated that Page No. 11 November 16, 2004 both a fence and a cover would likely be better and he will have both if he cannot just have a cover. He did not think it makes sense to require a fence when a retractable cover is safer. Mayor Huber stated that one of the city attorney's roles is to be the watchdog and that is what he is trying to do. He stated that he is disinclined to put the city in a position of having to check to be sure a home owner has insurance continually in force. He asked Attorney Schleck if there is anything he can get from the League or elsewhere that would give him a higher comfort level. He stated if the city would not be exposed to liability, he would be fine with not requiring a fence in addition to the cover. Councilmember Krebsbach moved to deny the request to substitute a cover for a fence. Motion died for lack of second. Attorney Schleck stated that it is not a matter of making him comfortable. His job is to be the liability watchdog for the city, and it makes him concerned about these things. He thinks that what the League and the applicant said is correct. This is a policy decision for the city and Council must review the facts and decide what to do. Whatever decision the city makes, he wants to make sure Council feels it has a firm and factual basis for making the decision. Mayor Huber stated that if there were many cities in the state that allowed this, Council would not be having the debate. Councilmember Krebsbach felt that there needs to be a history over a longer period of time. The facts show that children drown because they area already inside the fence, and she felt there would be many more drownings if there were no fence. She is opposed to amending the ordinance. Mayor Huber suggested that if Mr. Chapman could come up with a number of cities in Minnesota that allow mechanical covers rather than fences, he would be willing to consider it. Mendota Heights is not a big enough city to be a guinea pig. He is reluctant to do it because there is no history in this state and the city is covered by LMCIT. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she would not change her position. Page No. 12 November 16, 2004 Councilmember Duggan stated that he does not think Council can 1 say it is okay just because Mr. Chapman does a survey, as no number has been determined as appropriate for acceptance in relation to a survey of the communities. Councilmember Schneeman stated that this is new technology and when the fence requirement was adopted this new technology was not available. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he is in favor of allowing the mechanical cover in lieu of a fence. There are two areas of water on the Chapman property. There are ponds on city property also, and they do not have covers or fences. The is certainly liable. Mr. Chapman's pond does not have any requirement for a fence. Also, if the pool is on private property, the city is not liable. He also believes that the mechanical cover is much more protective than a fence. When the cover is closed, no children can get into the pool When someone closes their pool fence, children can still get over the fence and into the pool. No one from the city checks to be sure that the mechanical gate closers are working. Mayor Huber recommended referring the matter back to staff to craft an amendment that is appropriate. Attorney Schleck stated that Council could technically grant a variance to Mr. Chapman, but that would be changing the standard. He stated that it appears that people think the cover would be safer than a fence and asked if that means that everyone who has a fence would be required to have mechanical covers. Mayor Huber stated that if it seems to be the will of the Council to go that way, he would prefer referring the matter to staff to craft an amendment in such a way as to grant to Mr. Chapman specifically the Councilmember Vitelli felt the city should define in the ordinance to pool safety cover that meets the requirements of the national testing group and add a paragraph that a pool safety cover may be installed in lieu of a fence. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that people would need to realize that if people put in a pool cover they must think about the level of responsibility the home owner would have. Page No. 13 November 16, 2004 Councilmember Duggan commented that this type of cover and pool j are self contained and he could not see himself building a new swimming pool as opposed to somehow modifying his pool to add a cover that would meet the standard. Any ordinance amendment should not require that people install mechanical covers. Staff was directed to draft an ordinance amendment for Council review in January. PERMIT FEE WAIVER Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Danielson with REQUEST respect to a request from Mr. Ken Petschel, 645 Quail Ridge Circle, for waiver of a building permit fee for restoration work required on his home as the result of rotting wood behind the stucco. Mr. Petcchel stated that he appreciates all of the help and advice Administrator Danielson gave him but that he disagrees with the memo. He stated that he has friends who live east of Park Place. In the spring, 2003, they advised him that they had a water test done and it failed and he should have his tested. He did have the testing done in June, 2003 and was advised that his house failed — there was water under his windows. He called the contractor who built his house in 1987, and the contractor said he could not help him. He advised he did not know who his insurance carrier was at that time. Mr. Petschel called city hail and was told the city had the contractor's license information on file. The building inspector called him the next day and told him the city was required to destroy the records after six years. That is erroneous. Mr. Petschel told the inspector that the city had the only record of the contractor's insurance. He felt that if the city is going to destroy that type of record, it should instead mail the information to the home owner. He told the inspector who the builder was, and the inspector told him the contractor is a fabulous contractor, yet Mr. Petschel's house had code violations. His builder paid $2,150.08 for the permit to build his house, and he does not feel he should have to pay $456.75 for a permit to fix the house. The repairs are the result of code violations. He stated that the inspector could have seen the violations from the street when the house was built. He disagreed with the Administrator's comment about requesting the fee waiver for restoration. It is not restoration, it is repair work because of code violations. He stated that to his knowledge, the city is immune from a lawsuit. Councilmember Duggan agreed with Mr. Petschel that the permit fee covers inspections, and if a problem develops in relation to a house, the owner of the house through the builder has paid the fee the first Ayes: 4 Nays: I Duggan Page No. 14 November 16, 2004 time. He felt that Council should deal with these issues on a case by case basis. He was comfortable with waiving the fee. Mayor Huber felt that it is a precedent issue and he is uncomfortable with it. He has a lot of concern over this would lead and what the standard would be to say no to the next person. Councilmember Schneeman stated that there have been several homes that have had to do stucco and window replacement, and it seems to be different builders involved. Councilmember Vitelli stated that if Council begins to open the door on this, it would have to set up a commission to review all the requests for permit fee waivers. He did not agree with setting the precedent. Mr. Petschel stated that he is concerned that Council does not appear to have a concern over the code violations. Councilmember Vitelli responded that he knows of contractors who, after the inspector inspects a basement, go back and put in drain tile. He stated that he does not know how Mr. Petschel could prove there the buiding inspector was remiss. Mr. Petschel stated that he has hired an engineer to document the work being done on his house and has testimony from a prominent builder and a stucco contractor that there are code violations. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she had feedback when she was campaigning that people are concerned about the cost of building permits. Councilmember Duggan moved to grant the applicant's request to waive the fee. Motion died for lack of second. Mayor Huber moved to deny the request. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Councilmember Duggan felt that perhaps there should be a small committee of citizens and staff to look at this issue to have better inspections, better protect the citizens and offset these problems, Page No. 15 November 16, 2004 particularly in view of disclosure requirements. He felt the matter should be placed on an agenda for discussion early next year. Mayor Huber was excused from the meeting at 9:00 p.m. PROPERTY MAINTENANCE Council acknowledged a memo from Assistant Hollister regarding the results of the October 16 bus tour workshop on the proposed property maintenance ordinance. Council also acknowledged a draft ordinance. Assistant Hollister gave Council and the audience a brief history on the proposed ordinance and a review of the workshop. Staff has edited the draft ordinance to reflect Council discussion and direction at the workshop. Staff will further revise the draft after this evening's discussion and recommends that Council schedule a public hearing by the Planning Commission in February. Acting Mayor Schneeman asked if any members of Council have any additions. Councilmember Duggan stated that the existing rubbish ordinance states that trash containers may be out for twelve hours on the day of pickup. He asked if there is a way the requirements regarding rubbish and recycling containers can be combined in one ordinance rather than in two ordinances. Assistant Hollister stated that Section 12 -5 -8 could be removed from this ordinance and added to the rubbish ordinance. Councilmember Duggan asked if all of the items that have been deleted from the draft are covered by other ordinances, such as retaining walls being maintained structurally sound and in good repair. He noted that the retaining wall on T.H. 13 shifted dramatically a few years ago. He felt that the language should be included in some ordinance. He was uncomfortable with not having a requirement to maintain retaining walls, given the weather in Minnesota. Assistant Hollister was not aware it is in any other ordinance. It was deleted as the result of the workshop discussion. Councilmember Vitelli stated that it was deleted because the question was, when does a wall become structurally unsound or not in good repair. Page No. 16 November 16, 2004 Acting Mayor Schneeman stated that staff is taking Council's comments and will respond to them. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that one of the challenges was not to make the ordinance to onerous. Council decided to go with what was identifiable and enforceable. She felt that the ones that were deleted are the responsibility of the owner and they will face the consequences of, for instance, not maintaining a retaining wall. Responding to a question from Councilmember Vitelli, Police Chief Aschenbrener stated that the issue of the number of cars allowed to be parked in a driveway ebbs and flows. It is strictly a matter of being able to get the cars off the street. He stated that 90% of the complaints he receives are related to unlicensed or non working vehicles. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmembers Vitelli and Krebsbach expressed appreciation to the residents for their re- election. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before Council, Councilmember Vitelli moved that the meeting be adjourned. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays:0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 9:12 p.m. Ka hleen M. Swanson City Clerk