Loading...
2004-08-17 City Council minutesPage No. 1 August 17, 2004 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, August 17, 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 Acting Mayor Schneeman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The following members were present: Councilmembers Duggan, Krebsbach, Schneeman and Vitelli. Mayor Huber had informed Council that he would be late. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Councilmember Krebsbach clarified that the revised agenda showed the addition of a new item, the Lexington Avenue trail. Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of the agenda as revised for the meeting. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmember Duggan moved approval of the minutes of the regular meeting held on August 3, 2004, as amended. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR The following items were pulled for separate discussion: d. Park & Recreation Commission Minutes Acting Mayor Schneeman stated that Greg Springer, President of Mendota Heights Athletic Association (MHAA) gave an excellent presentation to the Commission. She is pleased that he will continue to be in contact with the Commission in relation to youth programs. CONTRACT WITH HLB TAUTGES REDPATH IIj Ij V-810 I U kyj 1 90-11MOTOMW Page No. 2 August 17, 2004 Councilmember Krebsbach noted that a related item that is also part of the Consent Calendar is the Council's annual contribution of $10,000 to MHAA. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she supports up to $15,000 for consultant services to help establish the new accounting procedures now required by GASB 34 that is federally mandated. Finance Director Schabacker stated that in addition to what is provided in the City's regular audit, there will be government -wide financial statements that includes all of the City's infrastructure. Councilmember Duggan stated that one of his concerns is safety and training. It is his understanding that the vendor is prepared to offer training. No additional insurance is required. The reason for this purchase is an investment against annual costs to have these services performed for the City. Councilmember Vitelli asked if the price of $9,000 is a good price. City Administrator Danielson stated that in checking eBay, staff was unable to find a comparison, but Snap -On Tools sells this equipment for more than double the price obtained by the City. The equipment is in excellent condition. Councilmember Duggan stated that in the process of determining the size sign being approved, it was discovered that there is no limit as to the number of signs allowed in the B4 District. He would like the Council to work with staff to review the sign ordinance in that regard. Secondly, he would recommend the front of the building also be painted white, as well as the pillars. Acting Mayor Schneeman asked the time frame the illuminated sign can be on. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that it can be on all night. She added that she would abstain from voting on this item because she did not vote to approve the PUD change for this signage. She stated that her vote will be for all items Rtl Page No. 3 August 17, 2004 on the Consent Calendar with the exception of the Mendota Plaza sign for Tuesday Morning. Councilmember Duggan recommended that a condition be added to the approval of the item in this consent calendar that the illuminated sign shall be extinguished at midnight until the next dusk. Police Chief Aschenbrener stated that this ordinance allows the Police Department to shut down drub labs permanently once they are found and dismantled. No one would be able to use the property until hazardous material cleanup meets the standards of the Minnesota Department of Health. He added that no labs have been found in the City to date. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she wanted the item pulled for public information and commended Chief Aschenbrener on the clarity in which the issue was presented. This has been more of a problem in out -state Minnesota. Councilmember Vitelli asked if a lien can be placed on the property to pay for the cost of cleanup and if this provision is clearly spelled out in the ordinance. Chief Aschenbrener stated that it is his understanding the City has the authority to place a lien on the property. City Attorney Schleck stated that such a provision is not specifically stated in the ordinance, but other ordinance provisions allow the City to recover costs. Councilmember Duggan referred to page 3 and asked for clarification of the word "precursor." Chief Aschenbrener stated that a precursor is an item that goes into the manufacture of an illegal drug. Many are common household items or items sold over the counter. Councilmember Vitelli commended the Police Department on its handling of recent burglaries and is receiving outstanding publicity. Chief Ashenberger reported that the Tip Line is open at 651- 255 -1170. Anyone who notices something strange or has information is urged to call that number or the police station at 651 -450 -1111. Mayor Huber arrived at the meeting. Page No. 4 August 17, 2004 Chief Aschenbrener reported that the signal at Highway 110 and Highway 13 may cause some traffic stacking problems, but is being monitored by Mn/DOT. Councilmember Vitelli moved approval of the consent calendar for the meeting, revised to move item j. to the regular agenda, along with authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein: a. Acknowledgement of the August 3, 2004 City Council Minutes as amended, and Airport Relations Workshop Minutes b. Acknowledgement of the July 14, 2004 Airport Relations Commission Minutes c. Acknowledgement of the July 30, 2004 Cable Commission Minutes d. Acknowledgement of the August 10, 2004 Parks & Recreation Commission Minutes e. Acknowledgement of the July 2004 Treasurer Report f. Authorization of the Mayor to sign the professional service contract with HLB Tautges Redpath g. Authorization for payment of the 2004 MHAA contingency h. Authorization for purchase order for Tire Changer, Tire Balancer and Brake Lathe purchase i. Authorization for a building permit for sign cabinet replacements at Courtyard by Marriott at 1352 Northland Drive j. Authorization to permanently appoint Firefighters k. Personnel Code Issue 1. Adoption of Resolution No. 04-56 "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL PERMIT TO TURNERS GYMNASTICS CENTER FOR TEMPORARY SIGN in. Adoption of Council policy on City Elections n. Adoption of Resolution No. 04-57 "RESOLUTION APPOINTING 2004 PRIMARY ELECTION JUDGES o. School Resource Officer p. Clandestine Lab Ordinance q. Approval of Contractor List r. Approval of Claims List Page No. 5 August 17, 2004 Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 MENDOTA PLAZA SIGN Mayor Huber asked if the Tuesday Morning sign would be the only sign at Mendota Plaza that would have a condition of a timer for illumination. His concern is that all of the business signs be handled consistently. Councilmember Duggan answered that he believes there is also a limit on the hardware store. There was a discussion about hours for lighted signs. He suggested the motion be adopted as presented and ask staff to report to the Council on what controlled lighting is in place for signs at Mendota Plaza. Councilmember Duggan moved the resolution as it stands for authorization for a building permit for a sign at Mendota Plaza for Tuesday Morning Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Abstain: 1 (Krebsbach) SCHOOL DISTRICT PRESENTATION School Superintendent John Longtin, School District 197, introduced three of the School Board members present to explain the school bond referendum set for vote on Tuesday, September 14, 2004: Dr. Lonnie Bennett, Chair; Board Members Kent Moglur and Max Saucedo. Mr. Moglur stated that the bond referendum request will be for $56 million to be invested in buildings. It will primarily be directed at the high school and five elementary schools in the district. There is also a $10 million technology levy that is part of the request to maintain an infrastructure to keep current with technology needs. The technology levy would equate to approximately $100 per year per student. Building maintenance items would be approximately $31 million of the $56 million. The schools identified for maintenance work have had no significant infrastructure investment in the buildings in over 40 years. The age of the buildings range from 34 to 70 years old. Some of the buildings have the original heating and ventilating systems. The intent is to not build another new school in the district for at least 10 to 20 years. The enrollment in the district Page No. 6 August 17, 2004 has been stable and not varied from 10 years ago. This investment will also construct spaces (no addition of square footage) that will meet particular needs, such as special education and storage spaces for special equipment needed for special programs. Approximately half of the investment would be used at Henry Sibley High School for structural and instructional needs. The average size classroom at Sibley is 600 square feet; the state recommendation is 850 to 900 square feet. There will not be a significant increase to the school footprint but some addition to common areas. The timing of the bond issue fits well with current low interest rates, which makes it attractive to do this work before it becomes more expensive. Councilmember Krebsbach asked if air conditioning would be added to any of the buildings. Board Member Secedo stated that air conditioning would be added to the elementary schools with the goal to use those buildings for extended programs during the day. Air flow needs to be increased to meet current standards for air quality and prevent mold. Superintendent Longtin stated that homeowners want to know how the referendum will affect them. They can go to the school district website at www.isdl97.or , click on voter to reach the bonding site. Homeowners can enter the value of their home and a calculation will be shown to the dollar on how the referendum would affect their home. Homeowners can also call 651 -681 -2383. As an example, a $500,000 home would see a tax increase of approximately $550 per year. Councilmember Duggan asked if roofs need to be replaced. He would not want to see the school district come back in a few years needing money for roof replacement. Board Member Cecido answered that the school roofs have been inspected and analyzed and roof work is not anticipated. Councilmember Duggan suggested that information be relayed to voters to help build support for the referendum. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE 890 BARBARA COURT Council acknowledged the request of Mr. Garretson to build a storage shed on an adjacent vacant lot to his property. Accessory structures are not permitted on lots without a principal structure. Staff responded to Mr. Garretson that he could combine the two lots in order to Page No. 7 August 17, 2004 build the shed. Assistant Hollister noted Councilmember Duggan's correction that the second sentence of the second paragraph in the staff report be deleted. Mayor Huber asked the reason this request was not reviewed by the Planning Commission. Assistant Hollister stated that zoning defines principal and accessory uses in each zone. In the R -1 zone, the principal structure is the house. The distinction is important because that is what allows the City to only allow accessory structures when a principal structure exists. Most communities do not allow an accessory structure on a lot without a principal structure, as provided in Sectionl2 -1D -A and Section 12 -113-2 of the ordinance. To allow it would be to negate any difference between a principal and accessory structure. Councilmember Vitelli also questioned this item being on the Council agenda. No application has been submitted. An application should be made and reviewed by the Planning Commission. Assistant Hollister stated that staff's concern is that two adjacent lots could fall into separate ownership in the } future. That could create a situation of an absentee landowner of an accessory structure that could be used for a purpose other than residential on a residential lot. Minnesota statutes do not allow a use variance, which is what this would be if the lots are not combined. If a zoning amendment were proposed with a public hearing, it would be possible to make a provision in the ordinance to for this type of circumstance. There is some risk to combining the two lots in that rules and standards change, if in the future he would want to split the lots again. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he would recommend combining the two lots to build the shed or build it on the lot where his house is located. He would not be supportive of changing ordinances to build a shed. The Planning Commission may also have good ideas on how to accomplish this goal. The consensus of the Council would be to have an application for a zoning ordinance amendment to accommodate this situation with appropriate protective Page No. 8 August 17, 2004 conditions to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and proceed through the established City review process. INFILL STUDY City Administrator Danielson stated that this item is in response to the concerns raised at the Council's goal setting session regarding infill in certain areas of the City. City Planner Stephen Grittman stated that the three objectives for the study are: 1) set a consistent set of parameters to allow or prohibit various types of infill, including flag lots, "tear- downs," and potential resubdivisions in certain areas; 2) identify options for zoning and land use policy treatment for golf courses and other areas that serve as non- public open space. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that her concern is about large, deep lots that create flag lots where houses are built in odd locations that are not consistent with the neighborhood. People with large lots are going to want to split them. She would like to avoid situations where houses are built in the middle of the block. The City has established a certain pattern of development, and infill houses should conform to the established pattern. Also clear definitions are needed for "tear- downs" and remodels. There are also situations to consider, such as when people want to sell their property together. That is an upcoming issue. Councilmember Duggan added that maintaining the character of the neighborhood is a concern. He would also like to understand what impact the court decision on Lake Elmo could have on Mendota Heights. Councilmember Schneeman asked about development with covenants. Mr. Grittman stated that the City has no authority over private covenants, but sometimes the covenants conflict with City standards. That will be included in the study. Councilmember Vitelli agreed with the staff report's objectives for the study. He would like to see the study focus on Nos. b. and c. as listed in the staff report. CASE #02 -11 Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Ross ROSS FEFERCORN Fefercorn for review and approval of a PUD Final Development Plan for Landscaping and Signage of Town Page No. 9 August 17, 2004 Center, "Village of Mendota Heights." The Town Center plan is bounded by Highway 110, Dodd Road and Oak Street. Mr. Fefercorn presented a landscape concept and signage design for the town center project. Specific plans have been developed for each of the outlots in the project. Once the concept plan is approved, bids will be taken Market Square is a basic of the Town Center design. The main entrance would consist of lawn, sidewalk, and a fountain and plaza area with landscaping. Then a walkway with seating benches would also be landscaped. The closest area to Highway 110 could be a stage or performance area or exhibit area. Parking is provided around the square. Mr. Fefercorn showed a series of pictures and maps with specific types of landscaping in each area and outlot. Councilmember Krebsbach asked if the landscape proposal is at public expense. Mr. Fefercorn stated that is correct but noted that for Outlots D, E and F, landscaping costs will be part of the proposed building development. The outlots are public outlots. If the concept is approved, a report will be brought back to the Council on what can be achieved with the Council's $400,000 budget for landscaping. Councilmember Vitelli stated that the plan is excellent, but he would like to see the Council agree on a base budget and items that should be included in the base budget or should be deferred to a later time. There may be other sources of funds, such as Metropolitan Council. Also donations could be collected for names engraved on pavers. He also recommended developing alternates A, B, C, listing desired items by priority to avoid misunderstandings in the future. Councilmember Krebsbach agreed and suggested prioritizing the outlots. The most important is the commons green space, Outlot F; then Outlot A, the entrance; and Outlot G, a second entrance. Outlot E is surrounded by private residential and would not offer as much use to the public. She would, therefore, consider Outlot E as less of a priority. Outlot D is on Dodd and visible. By establishing Outlot priority, it will be clear what is to be included in the base budget. Page No. 10 August 17, 2004 City Attorney Schleck stated that what is being discussed is inconsistent with the Development Agreement. What was contemplated was a plan for civic and green spaces that would be established at the same time. There would be one plan that everyone agreed to. Secondly, at the time the Development Agreement was negotiated, it was never contemplated that public funds would be used exclusively for landscaping what are essentially private facilities. The Development Agreement calls for submission of one plan to be reviewed through the normal City process. There would be no discussion of price. The City would decide appropriate landscaping for an appropriate development. The first step in the process is to finalize the one plan so there would be no question about what is to be done. Following approval of a plan, the City agreed to contribute a fixed amount of money. At that time the Council felt it appropriate to contribute $400,000 toward landscaping, but at no time was that intended to be the entire amount that would be spent on landscaping. One of the reasons the Development Agreement was set up in this way is so that if two Outlots were completed and the money spent, there would be money left to complete it. This binds the developer to the plan and if there are changes, the developer has a responsibility to come back to the City for approval. A concept plan and replacements depending on bids makes the outcome of the plan speculative. This sets a fixed price for the City -- $400,000 for landscaping plus $87,000 for trails. In establishing one plan, the Development Agreement provides incentive to the developer to present a reasonable design that is not overly extravagant. The incentive is also there for the developer to find some alternative funds. Mayor Huber stated that Mr. Fefercorn has presented a number of concept plans that the Council has encouraged. However, he agreed with the mechanism of funding and keeping the City's contribution reasonable. He has no problem with obtaining bids to find out pricing information. City Attorney Schleck clarified that the process can include looking at concepts. What needs to happen is that one plan is agreed upon and is approved through the City review process. Councilmember Vitelli stated that from review of concept plans, a final plan will evolve that will be approved. Page No. 11 August 17, 2004 Mr. Fefercom stated that the economics of the redevelopment agreements they are involved with have been fairly specific. There is not an open number for a future decision on what the developer's contribution will be. Everything was defined. He does not recall exactly what the Agreement does say in terms of the developer's contribution. However, the developer has paid for architectural and signage plans. Once plans are begun for his company's building, it is not unreasonable to contribute to make it a better place. Part of the planning process is to make sure there is a balanced budget, which he is committed to. He is in the process of meeting with a landscape architect to look at costs for the plans presented at this meeting. Councilmember Krebsbach clarified that the budget Mr. Fefercom is talking about is the $400,000 to be paid by the City. No additional funding is being planned for landscaping by the developer at this time. Mr. Fefercorn agreed that is correct. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the City needs to identify the base line amount of landscaping that can be achieved with the $400,000 budget. Her prioritization of outlots is to identify areas where the public would most benefit. Mayor Huber stated that ultimately the provisions in the Development Agreement will be applied. It has been three years since the Agreement was executed Councilmember Duggan asked if staff has identified funds for the $400,000 landscaping budget. Administrator Danielson responded that there is a Town Center budget, which is funded from a number of different sources. The $400,000 will come from TIF funding for green space, and money is being budgeted for maintenance. The trail funding is at $74,800. Councilmember Duggan requested that costs be reported for all of the plans that have been presented. He would also like to further explore what plans are being discussed for Dodd Road. Councilmember Vitelii stated that it is clear the $400,000 is identified and is in hand for this project. He is confident the process is on track, is impressed with the plans and that a final plan within budget will be achieved. � i Page No. 12 August 17, 2004 Signs Mr. Fefercorn stated that a written sign criteria has been submitted to staff. It describes in detail the types of signs that can be used and specifically where they can be placed. Tenants will be required to submit sign plans. A lettering type has been selected for the entire development for addresses. The high priority signs are on Outlot A, B, the bank and the entrance at Market Street. He showed a proposed plan for an entrance monument sign and directional signs throughout the development. The main monument sigh would be the same sandstone color brick as City Hall at Dodd Road and Highway 110. The same sign may be located at Market Street and other locations if necessary. A metal kiosk would be used for informational signs of various events. It is suggested that blade signs be added to light poles that could be changed seasonally, or used to announce events. The sign plan showed details for building signs and company signs that face Market Square as well as informational signs of various types that would be used throughout the Town Center. MOBILE LIBRARY Administrator Danielson reported that he discussed with Mr. Kipp the possibility of a mobile library with Dakota County Commissioner Patrice Batalia, who is also a library board member. If the Council is interested in a mobile library coming to the City, staff is seeking input on suggested stops. Mr. Kipp stated that taxes to the county would pay for this service. There would be no cost to the City. Town Center would be a location that would serve seniors. It was the consensus of the Council to support this effort and direct staff to discuss likely stop locations with library officials who would have a good idea of locations that best serve residents. RECESS The Council recessed for a brief break. WATERS DRIVE BUSINESS PARK AGREEMENT Council acknowledged the request of Anchor Bank to be the "permitted assignee" of the Development Agreement Page No. 13 August 17, 2004 executed between the City and Klingelhutz Development Co., dated June 14, 2004 for the development of Waters Drive Business Park. An assignment to Anchor Bank would only occur if Anchor Bank took title to the property through foreclosure. Anchor Bank would then assume all responsibility of the Development Agreement. There would be no liability or costs to the City. As stated, the Development Agreement does not stipulate this provision. Anchor Bank is requesting this clarification to the Development Agreement. Without this provision, Anchor Bank will not release construction loan funds. City Attorney Schleck stated that the provision means that with transfer to Anchor Bank, the development could go forward with a new developer without further City approval. Mayor Huber noted with many previous development agreements the City has entered into in the past, he does not recall this issue being raised. He would like staff to fully explore what this provision would mean before the Council approves it and he signs it. Councihnember Krebsbach stated that the action requested is to agree to the provision after consultation with the City Attorney. Anchor Bank has indicated it would proceed with the project in compliance with the Development Agreement. Mr. Schneider stated that he does not mind the City reviewing the language. He emphasized that Klingelhutz in 30 years has never had a foreclosure with many project. Anchor Bank has made this part of the loan. City Attorney Schleck stated that many banks do not view this detail as Anchor Bank does. At this time, the Agreement states that if assigned to any other party, it must be approved by the City Council. This provision allows automatic assignment to Anchor Bank without Council approval. Councilmember Vitelli moved that the Mayor be authorized to sign the document permitting Anchor Bank to be a "permitted assignee" provided he is in agreement with the language after consultation with the City Attorney and City Administrator. Page No. 14 August 17, 2004 Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PARKS PLAN Councilmember Vitelli stated that rather than separating the park fund from the maintenance fund, direction and guidance can be provided to keep maintenance expenditures at approximately $70,000 per year and $300,000 in reserve. It should all be in one pot. The reserve could decrease to $200,000 to decrease City expenditures. Mr. Kullander stated that the Parks Commission would like to establish a five -year plan, from 2005 to 2009. Under that plan, projects have been identified that would total approximately $900,000. In looking at infill and park dedication fees projected for the next five years, the park budget would fall short by $340,000 for these projects. The request is Council approval to identify another funding source in the amount of approximately $70,000 per year to make up this shortfall. Councilmember Vitelli asked the purpose of keeping $300,000 in reserve. If $30,000 to $40,000 can be trimmed from the plan, additional funds would not be needed. He asked if these items would be impacted by GASB34 requirement. Finance Director Schabacker stated that at this time the City's infrastructure assets are not on the books. With GAS1334, they will be on the books and depreciated over the course of their useful life. Mayor Huber stated that the booking of depreciation does not implicate cash to fund a liability as a result of depreciation. Mr. Kullander stated that the Special Park Fund is only accumulated through park dedication fees from single - family lots. In 2000, the Council allocated cell tower revenues for three years to offset costs for maintenance that the Park Fund could not cover. If the reserve is depleted, there is no money for any project. A request would have to be submitted to the Council for each project. Mayor Huber stated that if the reserve is spent, it would not mean the Parks Commission would cease to exist, but it would have to operate differently. The Parks Commission Page No. 15 August 17, 2004 has made a compelling argument that equipment put in 15 years ago is wearing out. The Council will consider that issue and funding will be part of that consideration. Councilmember Schneeman stated that the City needs to review what is being used and what is not. Activities change. Also, it is very costly to operate lights for skating rinks, when there are very few people skating. She would like to see one large central skating rink. The parks need to be in better condition with more up -to -date equipment. Councilmember Duggan noted that in a document he read from the League of Minnesota Cities, park dedication fees must be used in the area where they are generated. Assistant Hollister clarified that cities have the right to impose development fees if there is a rational connection between the fee charged and the cost created by the development. The park dedication fee is allowed under the theory that new development creates new need for parks. Once collected under that rationale, the City is obligated to use the money for park improvements. He would not go so far as to say that park dedication fees collected from a development must be used in the same area the development is located. It can be applied more generally. The Park Fund maintained a $400,000 balance in the past. The $300,000 balance is a decrease. The Parks Commission sees it as an endowment. A minimum balance that generates 2.5% interest every year allows expenditure of interest earned, although not much can be done with $7,500. Parks Commission projects are then either funded through dedication fees or by a direct request to the Council. It was the consensus of the Council to lay this matter over until after the budget workshop discussions. IC It il.�i�] SOMERSET PROJECT City Engineer McDermott reported that two bids were received for the Somerset project. The low bid from Amt Construction is in the amount of $1,455,528.80. Their bid is higher than the Engineer's estimate of $1,360,000. Arnt Construction is a reputable firm with excellent references. Staff is recommending the bid be awarded to Arnt Construction. The biggest difference is in the concrete curb Page No. 16 August 17, 2004 and gutter cost. Concrete prices have increased across the board this year. Mayor Huber noted that a third bid was received, but because it came in after the deadline, it could not be considered. Councilmember Vitelli moved to approve the bid award from Arnt Construction in the amount of $1,455,528.80, for Somerset Area and Somerset Court Reconstruction, Job Nos. 200203 and 200218, Improvement No. 2004, Project Nos. 1 & 3, as recommended by the Public Works Director. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 LEXINGTON TRAIL City Engineer McDermott stated that this item is to approve plans and specifications and authorize advertisement for bids for the Lexington Avenue trail improvement. The Parks Commission has requested that the shoulder on Wagon Wheel Trail be widened to provide a temporary pathway between Lexington and I -35. Also the request includes using park dedication funds. Mayor Huber stated that adding more asphalt to Wagon Wheel Trail would be a big issue for residents in that area. Councilmember Krebsbach agreed and stated that she would like to see the trail up to Lexington but not widen Wagon Wheel at this time. As the Council had just received the information on this matter at this meeting, it was the consensus of the Council to lay this matter over to the next Council meeting. Councilmember Duggan moved to lay this item over to the September 7, 2004 City Council meeting. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Discussion: Page No. 17 August 17, 2004 Mr. Kullander stated that the approval requested is for the Lexington Avenue Trail that is funded by the county and the state. The Parks Commission requested an addition to that project. If the Council is not comfortable with the Commission's request, bids can be authorized for the trail from Wagon Wheel to Mendota Heights Road on Lexington City Engineer McDermott stated that the City has been working with Roger Manthe to purchase property. He has agreed to sell the easement so the trail will be 10 feet from the road. Councilmember Vitelli withdrew his second to the motion. Councilmember Duggan withdrew the motion. Councilmember Schneeman moved to approve final plans and specifications and authorize advertisement for bids and authorize staff to negotiate easement acquisition for Lexington Avenue Trail improvement, Job No. 9903. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 COUNCIL COMMENTS On behalf of the Council, Mayor Huber expressed sincere sympathy to Councilmember Duggan on the loss of his brother. Administrator Danielson reported receipt of a phone call inviting Councilmembers to a tour on the Mississippi, next Thursday, August 19, at 1:00 p.m. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before Council, Mayor Huber adjourned the meeting. TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 11:30 p.m. K thleen M. Swanson City Clerk ATTEST: V, 9 � / =�� Jo ub L