Loading...
2003-11-18 City Council minutesPage No. 1 November 18, 2003 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, November 18, 2003 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 Cub Scout Pack 39, from Mendota Elementary School, presented the colors and led Council, the audience and staff in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of the revised agenda for the meeting. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmember Duggan moved approval of the amended minutes of the regular meeting held on November 4, 2003. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Abstain: 1 Huber CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Duggan moved approval of the consent calendar for the meeting, revised to move items 6, Airport Relations Commission minutes, 6f, cable equipment upgrades, and 6g, PUD amendment for home addition, to the regular agenda, along with authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein. a. Acknowledgment of the Fire Department monthly report for October. b. Approval for the issuance of a building permit for minor antennae modification on the AT &T monopole at Highway 55 and Northland Drive. Page No. 2 November 18, 2003 c. Authorization for the issuance of a building permit for parking lot modifications for the LCS Company at 1480 Sibley Memorial Highway, contingent upon verification by the Code Enforcement Officer of compliance with all applicable codes and grading and drainage review by the city engineering staff. d. Approval of a one year building permit extension request for 640 Second Avenue. e. Authorization for the issuance of a purchase order to Blaeser Landscape Design and Construction for its low bid of $4,780 for landscape work in boulevard areas at 645 North Freeway Road and 636 South Freeway Road in conjunction with the Freeway Road improvement project. f. Adoption of Resolution No. 03 -113, "A RESOLUTION SEEKING FUNDING FROM DAKOTA COUNTY FOR CONTINUATION OF THE COMMUNITY LANDFILL ABATEMENT PROGRAM." g. Adoption of Resolution No. 03 -114, "CORPORATE AUTHORIZATION RESOLUTION," to change bank signature authorizations. h. Approval of the list of contractor licenses dated November 18, 2003. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CABLE CASTING EQUIPMENT Council acknowledged a memo from Building Manager Guy Kullander regarding upgrades to the cable casting equipment. Mr. Kullander informed Council that the original cost estimate was based on information provided by Town Square Television on prices for similar upgrades that were done at two other cities. He then estimated the cost of the cable casting improvements and other upgrades that have been discussed through the past several years. The bids for everything that must be done were about $30,000, which is 40% higher than had been anticipated. If installation of the large size monitors or plasma screens in the lobby and large conference room is removed from the upgrades, all of the necessary upgrades can be accomplished for approximately $18,650, which is slightly more than the working budget approved by Council. Page No. 3 November 18, 2003 Councilmember Duggan moved to authorize the elimination of monitors in the conference room and lobby and authorize staff to proceed with the other upgrades. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 MINOR PUD AMENDMENT Council acknowledged a memo from Assistant Hollister relative to a request from Ms. Mary Weinberger for a minor PUD amendment and amended final plat to allow a 12 foot by 13 foot 5 inch porch addition at 1814 Victoria Road. Councilmember Schneeman asked if the Code Enforcement Officer has reviewed and engineering staff have approved the plans. Assistant Hollister stated that approval of the application by Council would be conditioned upon review and approval by code enforcement and city engineering. • 1 1 •' • I �•• • 1814 VICTORIA ROAD." Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CLAIMS LIST Councilmember Duggan asked for information on the payment of surcharges to the State of Minnesota. Finance Officer Schabacker responded that the city collects a state surcharge on all building permits and remits the surcharges to the State Treasurer on a quarterly basis. Councilmember Duggan moved approval of the List of Claims dated November 18, 2003 and totaling $255,147.76. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PROSECUTION SERVICES Council acknowledged a memo from Police Chief Aschenbrener regarding the selection of a prosecuting authority for the city. After brief discussion, Councilmember Vitelli moved to appoint the firm of Grannis and Hauge, PA as the prosecuting authority for the city, effective January 1, 2004. Page No. 4 November 18, 2003 Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 BLUFFS EAW Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Danielson regarding the EAW for "The Bluffs." Council also acknowledged a report from Barr Engineering regarding its review of the comments received during the 30 day EAW comment period along with a summary of the comments, a letter from Larkin and Hoffman Attorneys, on behalf of Minnstar Builders, requesting a 30 day extension on a decision on ordering an EIS, and a letter from Attorney James Yarosh, on behalf of John Allen, also requesting that Council postpone a decision on the EIS. Mayor Huber stated that this project first came to Council late in 2002 and an EAW was ordered in early 2003 and was completed in late September. A 30 day public comment period began with publication of the EAW in the EQB Monitor on September 29 and public comments were received through October 30. During the public comment period, 157 written comments were received, about a dozen of which were from governmental agencies. Barr Engineering was retained to review the EAW as it was being submitted by the developer and also to respond to the written / comments and make a recommendation to Council. Barr has done that, and as has been widely report, their recommendation is that the proposed project does have the potential for significant environmental effects. Tonight Council will discuss that recommendation. With respect to procedure this evening, he stated that there is a large audience present this evening for the discussion, and the process has had a 30 day public comment period which has closed. Anyone who wished to comment has had ample opportunity to do that. He stated that while this has been popularly portrayed as solely a cultural issue, the city received many comments from state and regional agencies, and from many residents, historical societies, etc. For a variety of reasons, including the fact that there was a 30 day comment period, and there is no fair way to allocate time to all the different groups and individuals who would like to comment tonight, the discussion will be restricted to Council and staff this evening. He stated that there was an article in the St. Paul paper today that indicated that there is the potential for litigation, and that will not weigh on Council's minds during the discussion.. It is understood that there is an appeal period in this process, and Council is not going to go to closed session on the matter. Page No. 5 November 18, 2003 Councilinember Duggan stated that his comments will be general, based on reading of all the comments. He stated that he counted 175 responses and 23 of them were the same letter from the same organization but with different signatures. Only 25 of the comments were from Mendota Heights residents, and he was disappointed that there was no more interest from residents. There were comments from about 40 government organizations and also organizations like the Green Party, Quakers and the Pilot Knob Preservation Association, etc. As he read the responses from the government bodies, one of his key thoughts was that permits, processes and procedures would be critical for the project to go forward. Only one government agency, the MAC, was unequivocally against the proposal. All of the other organizations and the majority of the respondents urge Council to require an EIS from the developer. Many of the people indicated they were unhappy with one acre being dedicated to a commemorative site, which led him to wonder what if a five acre dedication would be a mitigation. The EIS process asks Council to seriously consider mitigating factors as Council goes forward in the process. If there were a larger commemorative site area, that would reduce the number of buildings, but Council only has before it the plan that has been presented. The people who asked for an EAW claim that the site is sacred and is a burial site that contains the remains of their ancestors. He has been at the site at least three times and knows from reading all of the material that changes occurred on the site in the 1920's. As he looks at it geographically, he is not sure that the site is east of Pilot Knob and it is lower than it. The proposed site is closer to St. Peters and is lower than the highest point that everyone calls Pilot Knob, which is about 20 feet lower than it was originally. Council must consider where that 20 feet went. He complimented Dr. White for his historical information and thanked him for his assistance to the city. It is known that the Masonic Order cut off the top 20 feet of Pilot Knob, and that was the Pilot Knob that Seth Eastman depicted. If the Native American burials were three to four feet in depth, how many of that cemetery part has been lost from the top. That is a concern. When the Mendota Bridge was initially built, there was millions of yards or dirt moved. What impact did that have on the subject site and on the rest of Pilot Knob. The 106 Group dug down at 156 sites in the 25 acre parcel. He stated that he asked Administrator Danielson what the depth of those digs was. Administrator Danielson stated that he saw two digs that were at least two feet, but he did not confirm it with the 106 Group. Page No. 6 November 18, 2003 Councilmember Duggan wondered if the site that is proposed for development was ever a grave yard. If it was, Council would categorically walk away from this. Someone said to him that the top of the hill is still the hill, the side of the hill is still the hill, and the bottom of the bill is still the hill and he needs to take that into consideration. He wondered if any of the 17 acres adjacent to Acacia Cemetery was ever cemetery. He stated that he was uncomfortable dealing with the 1851 Treaty issue. He stated that if he were Native American, he does not know whether he would want to be celebrating commemorating the signing of the treaty. The Native Americans lost 35 million acres of land under the treaty, and he has been told that America rescinded the treaty in the 1860's. He proposed that Council bypass that matter at this time so that it does not lop side Council's thinking, and come back to it later on. Council knows that Pilot Knob is a historical, cultural site that was noted by Native Americans, historians, pilots, trappers, soldiers and sailors for its physical prominence. It is a natural landmark commanding views comparable to the Grand Canyon, "a place much visited." At a Council discussion on the proposed project last January, he asked how many people in the audience had visited the site in the past year, only three people raised their hands. He understands that it is private property and there are some constraints on visiting visit because of that. Councilmember Schneeman stated that the comments she will make are her own personal statements. She was asked to make a decision tonight on an EIS on the Garron Acacia parcel. The directive was to decide from information gathered from the EAW whether there was enough information to warrant an EIS. She has determined to the very best of her ability that because of the massive amount of information that was presented from very reputable agencies that are experts in their fields, that it is imperative to ask for an EIS. Her reasoning and decision were made before she read the consultant report. The issues that struck her are that there are significant environmental concerns, the run -off, the rivers, the impervious surfaces, historical and sociological impacts, the stunning recent finding and identification of bones and skulls as Indian remains by the archeologists. She asked why more than 50 homes were removed from Pilot Knob at great expense to taxpayers and stated that she believes it was because of noise and safety concerns and that she needs more information about that. The biggest issue for her is that the Mayor, Council, staff and Airport Relations Commission have spent many hours on airport related issues — noise complaints and airport noise are a very important part of the culture of the city. She stated that 99% of the calls and emails she has received asked �" Page No. 7 November 18, 2003 for an EIS. She is an elected representative of the city, and her constituents' opinions mean a great deal to her. She did not know all of the significant historical information and is now better informed. The Planning, Airport and Parks Commission are committed to not putting housing on the site. This has been a very long process, but in the long run, she feels that as collective group, an equitable and happy conclusion can be reached for this most beautiful and significant property in Mendota Heights and in the State of Minnesota. It is a unique and natural resource and it needs Council's full attention to all of the issues raised in the EAW. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she will not make a conclusive statement at this time but would like to add some clarifying information that does not seem to come through in the press. She is in her twelfth year on Council and has always been interested in the bluff. There have been bluff decisions probably twice a month in that time, so she is very familiar with the history of the area and basically what proposals have come before Council and been accepted or not accepted. With respect to the corridor, the MAC did remove 55 homes to create a corridor which is south of the subject property, and that was a place for the planes to fly. What has happened is that the FAA or the MAC has consistently moved the corridor more over Mendota Heights and has elected to have the planes turn at a 90 degree angle. She did not think the city has to relinquish any more property to the MAC. One of the factors that has generated a lot of concern and publicity for this area is MAC's interest in it. A concern she has about MAC's opposition to housing on the site is that ultimately is where the safety zone will be for the north parallel runway. It has very little to do with the existing runway pattern. Another point is that Mendota Heights has been very careful about the bluff. Although her original Bachelor's Degree was in history, she was not aware of the historic significance of Pilot Knob, but Council has instinctively wanted to protect the bluff. One of the things Council did not want on the site was a warehouse, and the property owner could attest that it could have been developed for a warehouse a long time ago. The Chairman of the MAC yesterday was quoted in the Minneapolis paper as seeing an industrial use as compatible. One of the reasons the site is still green is that Council did not find that use compatible. As the city planned for the area, at one time Council was interested in looking at the property for a park, but Acacia Park Cemetery did not want that use next to the cemetery. The city has instinctively been very respectful of the area and decided that housing was the appropriate use because it is human scaled. No one stepped forward until this year to say that the site was historic or that there was any burial Page No. 8 November 18, 2003 ground there. No one stepped forward to say that it should not be sold or that you cannot build on it. There was a for sale sign on the (` property for eight years. Not building or not using it for a developed use did not come forward, and within the last two years there was a proposal by a land preservation group joined by the Native American Community for an interpretive center and possible shops on the Pilot Knob area. Another issue that needs to be clarified is the Acacia portion of the parcel. That has been incorrectly viewed in the press as cemetery. She pointed out a letter to the editor from a doctoral student from New York about a year ago that was very irresponsible. Anyone who is responsible knows that the city was never going to use the cemetery as open space. Part of the ethic of getting a doctoral degree is that one be intellectually honest, and his comments were not intellectually honest. The city received a letter from a man whose son was buried at Acacia Cemetery many years ago, and he was concerned that the city was going to turn the cemetery into open space. The Acacia property has not been clearly identified: the property in the development is owned by Acacia Cemetery, but that land was never dedicated or used for cemetery purposes and Acacia Cemetery is a very willing seller. She asked if the federal government would buy the site if it becomes part of the national register. Attorney Schleck responded that if the site is proposed for the national register of historic places, it is simply designated as such and ownership doesn't change. Councilmember Krebsbach commended everyone who submitted responses for those comments. She stated that what it comes down to for her is to take a look at what should be preserved and what could be developed. What her decision will be tonight, she will hold in suspension until all of the Council members have a chance to speak. City Attorney Schleck clarified that the decision of Council tonight is whether or not the project has the potential for significant environmental effects. If that finding is made, an EIS will be ordered. Council will not be making a finding tonight that there is a need for an EIS but rather will be making a finding on whether the project has the potential for significant environmental effects. Throughout the Minnesota environmental review process, the purpose of the process is simply to develop information and decide what level of information Council has and whether more information is needed. The decision is whether or not the project has the Page No. 9 November 18, 2003 potential for significant environmental effects The environmental review process is an information gathering process. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he read with great interest the many memos that were submitted and then read and re -read what he considered to be the four most important documents because they comprise considerable research and history on the site and the subject. The first was written by Bruce White and Allen Woolworth and it was called "Comments on the EAW for The Bluffs Development of Pilot Knob." Another important document is from Collin Brownlow from Barr Engineer, titled "Environmental Assessment Worksheet and Supporting Documents, The Bluffs Mendota Heights. Another is a document by the 106 Group, written by Gerald Duffy, titled "Historical, Cultural and Archeological Evaluation and Determination of Eligibility of Pilot Knob for the Proposed Bluffs of Mendota Heights Development." Then finally, the recommendation from Barr Engineering in memo form which is dated November 13. They were the most important documents as far helping him understand the situation, the history and the cultural background and other issues. He stated that he learned a lot of history by reading the 106 Group document. His position is that an EIS should be undertaken. Mayor Huber stated that he is very proud of the Council members and staff and everyone who has gone about the review of difficult projects. They go after these things with a lot of interest, and while Councilmembers may not always agree, they do not make decisions because they loaf their way through the process and do not take a good look at all of the information that is provided and then come to a conclusion. This has been a long process. The issue that kept turning in his mind is that there is no doubt the decision Council will make tonight will have a very large impact on this process. He stated that he knows that it may be a defining decision. This process probably will not end tonight — the land is not going anywhere and it is an issue Council will be dealing with either with the current development or something else in the future. The decision Council is making tonight is whether the proposed development will have the potential for significant environmental impact. He was born and raised in Mendota Heights and he has learned a lot more about the bluff through this process than he had known. Barr Engineering has come forth with a very well written document pulling together all of the information that has been presented over the past year and has essentially said that Council needs to keep looking at this and needs to do further study. He stated that it seems to him that more Page No. 10 November 18, 2003 information needs to come out through the EIS process, and he supports the recommendation of staff and Barr Engineering. Councilmember Duggan stated that over the years the city gets involved in creating a Comprehensive Plan about every ten years. That is done very officially and very formally and thoroughly and it involves the Parks Commission making comments on preservation and enhancement of parks and the Planning Commission to identify sites that are left for development and what makes sense for those sites. This is a public process that involves the city planner, staff and commissions. Partly because they were just in a formation stage, the Airport Relations Commission were not very involved in the recent comprehensive plan update. The ARC has come out against this proposed project because of the noise. During the comprehensive plan process, neither the Council, Parks Commission or Planning Commission noted the need for acquiring or preserving Pilot Knob, nor was any representation made to them by any groups to do so. Maybe because the city has historic St. Peter's Church and because part of Fort Snelling is in Mendota Heights, it was felt that is enough. He stated that Mendota Heights prides itself in being a wonderful community, but it is lacking in history and this is an opportunity for the city to see what it can do. One question is how much land it takes to make history. Council did not have input on historical issues when the comprehensive plan update was in process. If this is indeed a sacred site, Council has a huge obligation to the Native American community. He believes there are state and federal laws that protect cemeteries from having anything built on them, and if that is the case, as Council moves forward it must keep that in mind. There are already two homes on the site, and he wondered whether they would be grandfathered if an interpretative center were built on the site. He stated that a presentation was made a few years ago for an interpretive center on the site that included a shopping component. Through the EIS process, if Council goes forward with that, there must be a determination where the sacred site is, and if this land is part of that sacred site, Council's hands are tied by federal and state law other than trying to make it a more comfortable area for people. That is what leads him closer towards supporting an EIS. He stated that he has been trying to see if there is a way to find a win -win situation for everyone. There has been a for sale sign on the land for a long time. The City Council decided in the 1990's not to allow a commercial building, the American Lung Association, on the site, and there was also a concept plan for an interpretive center. The comprehensive plan says this a good site for homes. One of the things that came clear to him through the process was that if this were to go forward, the developer has many hoops to Page No. 11 November 18, 2003 go through before he can turn a spade of dirt. He stated that he will support an EIS for this property, which he feels will benefit all of Mendota Heights by finding out more information. He stated that he is still challenged with trying to fmd a win -win situation and is hoping that by working with the developer, staff and organizations involved, perhaps there could be an open discussion on what might make sense for the site. Perhaps there should be a referendum asking the residents what their wishes are. He felt that Council should also give consideration to another 30 days to allow the developer to respond to the issues raised in the EAW. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she would also like to extend the comment period by 30 days to allow further comment and review by the developer. She stated that she does not know what an EIS would generate except possibly fiu-ther confirmation about the historic significance of what she believes to be called the Garron site. Councilmember Krebsbach moved to extend the period 30 days to allow response by the developer to the comments and that Council take its vote on the EIS 30 days from now. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Mayor Huber stated that if Council believes they have adequate information before them in the EAW process and the 30 day comment period that has transpired and the report from Barr Engineering, it could make a motion for the EIS. Attorney Schleck responded that if the Council determines that it has adequate information to make a decision, it must move forward and make a decision — there is no option. The only reason Council would extend the period for its decision, according the Minnesota Rules, is if Council determines that the information necessary to make a reasoned decision about the potential for environmental impacts is lacking but could reasonably be obtained in 30 days. It is not simply a blanket ability to extend the period by 30 days. It is an affirmative finding that the information is lacking and also a finding that the information could be obtained in 30 days. Mayor Huber stated that Council has been at this process for ten or eleven months, and the developer has had feedback from Barr already during their preparation of the EAW. He stated that he feels that Council has adequate information now and stated that he will not support the motion. Page No. 12 November 18, 2003 Councilmember Krebsbach asked if there is a 30 day extension and there is an opportunity for further response from the developer and Council then determines an EIS is warranted, can Council make that decision 30 days from now. Attorney Schleck responded that first Council would need to make a finding that information is lacking in order for Council to make a decision. Council must also make a finding that the information can be obtained within a 30 day period and at the end of the 30 day period Council would make a decision on whether there is the potential for significant environmental effects. Council must make the two findings first. If Council makes those two findings, then in 30 days Council must determine whether the project has the potential for significant environmental effects. Councilmember Duggan stated that, in he read through the materials, the indication from the two letters submitted on behalf of the developer this evening, the representatives of the developer believe they can address certain of the questions. One of them was surface water run -off. Noise is an issue they think they can address. Wildlife is a fairly new issue. There are pictures showing there is wildlife in the area, but how significant is that and would the wildlife move into the lower area if there were development. He stated that (' he does not know if the developer can address those issues in 30 days, but he would like to give him the chance. The process has been about 11 months already, and an EIS would take another eleven months. Anything that is done on that site will have an environmental impact. The question is how negative it would be and what can be done to minimize the impact of development. Part of the process of the EIS is what can happen to this plan and its impact on the site and not any other plan. The discussion in relation to the EIS is what can be done in mitigation in relation to the site and the plan. Attorney Schleck responded that the EAW and EIS are both parts of the environmental review process in Minnesota. The environmental review process is designed to identify the potential for significant environmental effects, and ,if found, to identify what those effects are, whether positive or negative, and to also identify potential mitigation measures that may be used to change those effects somehow. The environmental review process is not an approval or disapproval of the project. It is simply to gather information. It is somewhat rigorous in its process and its procedural requirements, but essentially the EAW and EIS work together to develop information. The decision before Council tonight is whether or not Page No. 13 November 18, 2003 the project as proposed, without changes, has the potential for significant environmental effects. If Council makes a fording that there is the potential for significant environmental effects, Council shall order that an EIS be prepared. The EIS is designed to go into much more depth than the EAW in terms of what the effects are, whether they are real, what are the consequences, the type, extent and reversibility of the effects, the potential cumulative effect of one effect and another effect combined, the extent to which any mitigation is available to a public regulatory body, and the extent to which somehow the effects can be controlled. One of Councilmember Duggan's questions is whether it is for the project or if Council can suggest changes. It is for the project as it is proposed. Mitigation measures can be suggested and incorporated into other governmental decisions. In addition to the decision Council is making tonight, there are site plan reviews and some variances and a replat. The environmental review process is designed to help gather information for Council to take into account as they make those other decisions. Councilmember Vitelli felt that Council has all the information needed at this point to determine whether there is the potential for significant environmental effect, and he will not support the motion that is on the table. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the motion on the table is not making a judgment on whether there is the need for an EIS. It is to give the developer, at his request, an opportunity to respond. This is a very deliberate process and one of the parties should not be denied the opportunity to respond. In fairness, to give 30 days to respond is very reasonable. Mayor Huber called for a vote on the motion. Ayes: Duggan, Krebsbach Nays: Huber, Schneeman, Vitelli Councilmember Vitelli moved that Council find that the project has the potential for significant environmental effects. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Mayor Huber stated that Attorney Schleck and city staff will prepare a resolution with findings for adoption at the adjourned meeting that has been scheduled for November 24. Mayor Huber informed the audience that there are times that Council votes a project in or out and directs staff to prepare a formal resolution for adoption at the next meeting. The November 24 meeting was scheduled by Council at its November 4. Page No. 14 November 18, 2003 Attorney Schleck stated that one of the reasons that Council would be passing the resolution on November 24 rather than tonight is that there is a requirement in the Rule that the city must send a written response to the proposer and to the people who have submitted written comments within five business days after Council's decision. If the written resolution is adopted next Monday, that would give the city time next Tuesday to send out the response within the five day decision period, but the decision is actually being made tonight. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 BUDGET WORKSHOP Councilmember Krebsbach asked if time of the November 19 budget workshop can be changed from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Councilmember Schneeman responded that she has rescheduled several things in order to be present at 6:00. It was the consensus to conduct the workshop at 6:30 p.m. COUNCIL COMMENTS Mayor Huber announced that the ribbon cutting ceremony for the new Village Commons senior facility on November 20 at 3:00 p.m. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before Council, j Councilmember Duggan moved that the meeting be adjourned to the \ budget workshop scheduled for 6:30 p.m. on November 19, with subsequent adjournment to 7:30 p.m. on November 24. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 1 • • • i • K thleen M. Swanson City Clerk ATTEST: Jo e M