Loading...
1994-01-18 Council minutesPage No. 3888 January 18, 1994 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, January 18, 1994 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, was held at 7:30 o'clock P.M. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. Mayor Mertensotto called the meeting to order at 7:30 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: Mayor Mertensotto, Councilmembers Huber, Koch, Krebsbach and Smith. AGENDA ADOPTION Councilmember Smith moved adoption of the agenda for the meeting. Councilmember Koch seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmember Smith moved approval of the minutes of the January 4, 1994 regular meeting. Mayor Mertensotto seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Abstain: 2 Koch, Krebsbach CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Krebsbach moved approval of the consent calendar for the meeting, revised to move the following items to the regular agenda, acknowledgment of Park Commission minutes, plans and specifications for Ivy Falls Creek, Arndt final plat, and support for the Dakota County North Urban Regional Trail, along with authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein. a. Acknowledgment of the Treasurer's monthly report for December. b. Acknowledgment of the minutes of the December 1, 1993 NDC -4 meeting. c. Acknowledgment of the Fire Department monthly report for December. d. Adoption of Resolution No. 94 -03, "RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE SOLICITATION OF BIDS FOR REFUNDING CITY HALL CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION." Page No. 3889 January 18, 1994 e. Acknowledgment of the Public Works monthly report for December. f. Approval of the issuance of a sign permit to Sign Art for installation of a 925 square foot unlit sign for ACT, Inc., at 2411 Pilot Knob Road. g. Approval of the list of contractor licenses dated January 18, 1994 and attached hereto. h. Approval of the list of claims dated January 18, 1994 and totaling $969,079.79. Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PARK COMMISSION MINUTES Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she supports the Park and Recreation Commission's concept, as discussed in its January 11 minutes, that tot lots should be used for tree farms when they are no longer used as tot lots. Councilmember Krebsbach moved to acknowledge the minutes of the January 11 Park and Recreation Commission meeting. . Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 NORTH URBAN REGIONAL Council acknowledged a memo from TRAIL Administrative Assistant Batchelder regarding a request from Dakota County for a letter of support for the concept of the North Urban Trail (NURT). Responding to a question from Councilmember Krebsbach, Assistant Batchelder stated that it is not exactly known where the trail will go and that the County is just asking for support for the concept. He informed Council that Dakota County is currently is currently working on plans for two regional trails - the South St. Paul Riverfront Trail, and the Northwest Regional Trail (Soo Line trail), which will eventually connect the Harriet Island /Lilydale Park with the Mendota Bridge. He explained that the county wants to provide an east /west access trail to connect the two regional trails. He informed Council that if Page No. 3890 January 18, 1994 Marie Avenue is used, the likely connection will be Valley Park. Councilmember Smith stated that she is concerned about regional trails running through the city, and pointed out that MNRRA is also working on a trail. She asked how the trail would impact the residents on Marie or Wentworth if it were located along those streets, and stated that she would be reluctant to grant any concept approval if there will be any impact on residents. Assistant Batchelder responded that the trail would not have a regional trail intensity level and that Dakota County refers to it as an access trail. He explained that the trail has not yet been designed but that there may be some impact on residents. Mayor Mertensotto asked if the proposal has been discussed with the MNRRA, stating that there should be coordinated effort so that there is no duplication. Assistant Batchelder responded that the county has hired a consultant who is to make an independent recommendation. After that recommendation is made, the County will bring the matter back to Council. Mayor Mertensotto directed that Assistant Batchelder raise the question of coordination with MNRRA and Council's concerns by letter to the county's consultant and at the next trail committee meeting. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that her concern is the connection and what kind of impact it would have on Mendota Heights residents. IVY FALLS CREEK Council acknowledged a memo from Assistant Engineer Eckles recommending approval of the plans and specifications for the Ivy Falls Creek improvement project and requesting authorization to advertise for bids. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the objective of Council was to have all easements in place and all appeals resolved in advance of awarding a contract for the project. He asked whether Council can notify the bidding contractors Page No. 3891 January 18, 1994 that the city has sixty days to award the contract. Public Works Director Danielson responded that 60 days is a standard in the contract, and suggested that perhaps the city should specify that the city reserves up to 90 days to award the bid. He explained that if bids are requested in January and they are too high, there would still be time to re -bid the project and complete the work in 1994. Councilmember Huber moved adoption of Resolution No. 94 -04, "RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE IVY FALLS CREEK AND ADJACENT AREAS (IMPROVEMENT NO. 91, PROJECT NO. 6)," on the condition that the bid specification expressly provide that the city reserves a 90 day period from the acceptance of bids to the award of a contract. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 FINAL PLAT, IVY KEEP Councilmember Huber moved adoption of Resolution NORTH (ARNDT) No. 94 -05, "RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR IVY KEEP NORTH." Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Abstain: 1 Mertensotto ST. THOMAS ACADEMY Public Works Director Danielson informed Council that representatives of St. Thomas Academy asked that their presentation on the results of their environmental study be tabled because of the weather. HEARING - FRIENDLY HILLS Mayor Mertensotto opened the meeting for the IMPROVEMENTS purpose of a public hearing on proposed street, curb and gutter and drainage improvements to serve the Friendly Hills First Addition. Council acknowledged letters supporting the project from Mr. & Mrs. Gail Smith, 2123 Fox Place, Mr. & Mrs. Russell Johnson, 2156 Aztec, and a letter opposing the project from Mr. Bradley Herbert, 2158 Fox Place. Assistant Engineer Eckles gave a brief history of proposed Friendly Hills improvements, Page No. 3892 January 18, 1994 informing the audience that originally all three of the additions were included within the proposed project. He stated that as the result of public hearings, the project was divided into two parts, and the hearing this evening is to consider improvements for just the First Addition. He informed Council that he had sent a letter to all affected property owners and received six responses back. Mayor Mertensotto asked for questions and comments from the audience. Mr. Gene Schiff, 2196 Aztec, stated that he moved to Friendly Hills fifteen years after the neighborhood was developed and has a general knowledge of the neighborhood. He explained that sump pumps were installed in all of the homes when they were built and those pumps should have been removed and replaced by the owners because they did not work properly. He asked if any of the property owners have a "beaver system" now which needs to be resolved. Engineer Eckles responded that this is the case and that no one should be pumping basement water into the sanitary system. He stated that many people are pumping basement water into their yards. He explained that french drains will be installed in some areas, driveway aprons will be repaired and aprons will be installed where none exist now. He informed the audience that the total project cost is estimated at $347,000 - $241,000 of that cost is attributable to street construction and $106,000 to storm sewer installation. He stated that under city policy, storm sewer costs are assessed, and a large portion of the street cost would be paid through the city's infrastructure replacement fund. He explained that it is proposed that the infrastructure replacement fund contribute $134,000 to the project, that $6,000 be contributed from the city's storm water utility fund, and that the remaining $206,000 be assessed. He stated that assessments are proposed to be spread equally and each lot is proposed to be assessed $3,500 for the project. Engineer Eckles reviewed drawings of the proposed project and explained the city's Page No. 3893 January 18, 1994 street rehabilitation and reconstruction policy. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the city has a street reconstruction program and once property owners pay for a blacktopped street and it needs reconstruction or an overlay in the future, the city will contribute 50% of the cost of reconstruction to urban standards. If a project is not constructed to urban standards, there is no financial participation by the city. He informed the audience that the proposed project is not designed to correct basement drainage problems but will include a french drain system where storm sewer is not available in case property owners wish to drain their sump pumps into the system. Dr. Thaddeus Chao stated that he supported the project at the original hearing because of the drainage problems expressed by Mr. Ken Radke, but he expressed concern over some of the wording in Engineer Eckles' letter. He asked what guarantee the residents have that the assessment will not exceed $3,500 per lot. Mayor Mertensotto responded that a feasibility report is not the design of the project - the plans and specifications have not yet been prepared. He explained that the original estimate was $3,750 per lot and Council asked the engineering staff to see if that could be reduced to $3,500. He stated that Council can control the project amount by saying it does not want to proceed if the bids are over the estimate. Mr. Mike Blake stated that he will receive minimal benefit because his lot drains away from the proposed french drain system and asked why he must pay the same assessment as lots which will receive greater benefit. Mayor Mertensotto responded that when Mr. Blake sells his home at some future time a buyer will ask if there are any problems in the neighborhood that will affect the property value. He stated that if there is a neighborhood drainage problem it will impact property values. Mr. Blake stated that lots outside of the boundaries of the project will benefit as will Page No. 3894 January 18, 1994 Mendakota Park and the businesses along Dodd Road and South Plaza Drive and the city's fire station. He felt that these properties should also be assessed. He further stated that people are assuming that the project will solve the water problems, particularly those on Lots 1-4 on the other end of Aztec, but that the drainage problems on the Radke lot are caused by the culvert between the lot and the bank. He felt that the bank should be assessed since it will benefit. He stated that the last neighborhood petition showed 23 owners against the project and 24 in favor and that he opposes the project unless it is redesigned to include all properties which he feels will benefit. He stated that the water comes into the neighborhood from other areas and that the park drainage washed out Hokah last spring. Mayor Mertensotto responded that if the storm sewer portion of the project is expanded it would cost much more than the work which is currently proposed, and properties cannot be assessed unless they are within the project area. He explained that the original project proposal was for street reconstruction but it was expanded to include storm drainage improvements because of the comments made at the public hearings. Mr. Blake stated that the proposed project will not repair the problems that people want fixed - one problem is street reconstruction and the other is the water problem that exists in Friendly Hills. He stated that Friendly Hills has had a bad problem with water because of the way it was built and the swamps it was built on. He further stated that the street reconstruction will not fix those problems but the people on Aztec believe it will. He also stated that most of the people in Friendly Hills do not want the streets to be brought up to urban standards. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the Friendly Hills streets are 29 feet wide and that she would hate to see them widened. She asked if it is possible to keep the streets at their current width and perhaps realize a cost reduction. Engineer Eckles stated that the standard is 33 feet wide with curb and gutter and what is Page No. 3895 January 18, 1994 being proposed is to add one foot of blacktop and extend the curb out, but the blacktopped width could be kept at its existing width if Council desired. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she was an advocate of expanding the project to take the drainage from the bank property and that she would like the project to alleviate as many water problems as possible. Councilmember Smith stated that she understands that additional work will be done outside of the project area and that those costs will not be included in the project, such as improving the water retention on the fire station site. Engineer Eckles responded that about $6,000 in storm utility funds would be used for those improvements, which are included in the project cost but will not be assessed. Mr. Blake stated that in the original hearing discussion, everyone was proposed to be assessed equally because everyone benefited equally, but in this proposal he gets no more benefit than the property owners on Dodd or the outlots next to his which are not being assessed. He asked Council to cancel the project, contact the neighborhood for suggestions and come back in a month with a different plan. He felt that Council did not listen to the neighborhood at the prior hearings and should have polled the neighborhood. Councilmember Huber stated that he believes Mr. Blake is correct in saying that a certain level of neighborhood support is the sense that property owners think they will be getting some relief from basement water problems. He asked what the rationale is to not include the businesses along South Plaza and Dodd in the project. Engineer Eckles responded that the current fire station site is being included in the project, modifications will be made to improve drainage from the old fire station site, and the pipe from Mendakota Park is very small and can be easily hooked into the storm system. These costs will be supported by the storm water utility fund. He informed the audience Page No. 3896 January 18, 1994 that the main purpose for the storm sewer portion of the project is to accommodate the street reconstruction project. He stated that the businesses are not part of the street project which is what is driving the storm sewer portion. Also, he stated that the city would have difficulty in demonstrating a legal benefit to those properties whereas the neighborhood will certainly see an increase in value. He further stated that if those properties are included and assessed for the proposed improvement it would be difficult to do improvements to those properties in the future and assess for them. City Attorney Hart stated that the businesses would only receive legal benefit from the project if they are diverting water from its natural flow. If water is not being diverted, they have no liability. Mr. Dan Harrington stated that there are 59 homes in the project area and 26 owners signed a petition against the project, 23 signed a petition in favor of it and 2 signed neither. He stated that he has difficulty in seeing where he will receive $3,500 in benefit and informed Council that the homes on the east side of Aztec had water in their basements even before their slabs were poured. He further stated that the basement water problems at Lots 6-8 will not be fixed by the project. He informed Council that he opposes the proposed project. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council could continue to expand the project but somewhere along the line must make a decision on whether to proceed with a project or not. He again explained that this is not a storm drainage project but rather a street project that was expanded to include drainage improvements because of comments at the hearings. He stated that he does not believe people expect their water problems to be resolved but are looking for whatever help they can get. He further stated that Council's interest is to help a neighborhood maintain its property values. Mr. Chris Matekewitz, owner of Lot 18, stated that he is in favor of the street and curb and gutter improvements, stating that sand and Page No. 3897 January 18, 1994 debris come down the street into his yard and curb and gutter will eliminate the problem. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the project can be just a street overlay project at an approximate assessment rate of $1,500, but the city would not contribute funding to the project. He stated that the property owners should let Council know if this is the type of project they want. Mr. Brad Herbert, 2158 Fox Place, stated that he opposes the project and that he has no water problem. He stated that if Council approves the project, the streets should remain at their existing width. Mr. Connolly, 2153 Aztec, stated that he opposes the project but that the street should be patched. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that at one of the hearings Council stated that it did not want to poll the neighborhood because this would pit neighbor against neighbor. She explained that the project was expanded to address as many of the water problem issues as possible and stated that residents should inform Council if there are any pieces of information that it should be aware of. Public Works Director Danielson explained that this is the feasibility hearing and detailed design work has not been done. He stated that during the design phase staff would talk to the neighbors and identify and try to solve problems they raise in the final design process. Councilmember Smith stated that she agrees that some of the problems are caused by other properties and that some of those problems have been addressed with the improvements being recommended for the park and fire station properties. She further stated that she wants to be sure that whatever is done will solve the problems to the best extent possible. Engineer Eckles responded that there are always gray areas in a project and there is always water coming from an area that is not assessed. He explained that staff can look at Page No. 3898 January 18, 1994 the points raised by Mr. Blake if Council feels the project needs to be changed. Mr. Tom Weinzettel stated that the problem with the park was raised at the last hearing - the city engineering staff said that there is only an 811 pipe from the park, but water comes out at about 50 psi rather than a trickle. Mayor Mertensotto informed the audience that if the city were to just do an overlay project, it would not tear up that project in the future to do a storm sewer project. Mr. Weinzettel stated that he is against an overlay project and that he thinks the park property should pay one-third of the project cost because it is water from the park that is tearing up the streets. He suggested doing nothing until it can be determined if water from the park can go somewhere else. Engineer Eckles responded that staff looked at the park drainage and that it is not necessary to oversize the system to handle the water, but rather just to connect the pipe to the system. He explained that water from the park drains the same way that the property has always drained but that it just gets to Friendly Hills faster now than it did before the park was developed. Mayor Mertensotto stated that perhaps the best approach would be to do nothing. He stated that cost is apparently a factor and that it is unfortunate that it took so long to come to this point. Councilmember Krebsbach agreed that the First Addition streets are in the best condition of the Friendly Hills streets. Councilmember Smith stated that if nothing is done, the city should continue with some of the improvements near the fire station, etc. There being no further questions or comments, Councilmember Smith moved that the hearing be closed. Councilmember Koch seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Koch stated that she is inclined to agree to do nothing at this time. Page No. 3899 January 18, 1994 Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the streets which are in very bad shape should be improved, such as Decorah and Pontiac and suggested doing an overlay. She felt that it would adversely affect the neighborhood to do nothing and that at some time the city will have to improve the streets. She stated that the expansion of the project to include drainage problems has become a major problem and felt that Council should set a time to again look at doing an overlay - perhaps bringing the project back in September or October. Councilmember Huber stated that the neighborhood opinion is about evenly divided about the project. He further stated that he would like Council to consider whether everyone who should be assessed is proposed to be assessed and then look at the First Addition improvements. He stated that only a few additional properties would be included, those on Dodd and on South Plaza. He stated that the problems will not go away and about half of the property owners indicated a willingness to contribute $3,500 for the improvements. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she thinks the key is whether the project will improve property values by $3,500. She suggested calling a moratorium and setting a go/no go point - perhaps when 65% of the owners are in favor of a project. She felt that the residents would approve of an overlay project and are in favor of doing something. Councilmember Huber pointed out to the audience that Council is very clear in indicating that it is not trying to solve basement water problems and stated that he does not want to start all over again in a year. A lady in the audience who was in favor of the project stated that right now Council can say to leave it alone, but the issue will come back. She stated that if only an overlay is done, drainage from Dodd Road will erode the streets and the city will have to look at improvements again in five to ten years. She also pointed out that if Council waits two Page No. 3900 January 18, 1994 years to do a project, the costs will only rise. Councilmember Krebsbach moved to set a six month moratorium on street reconstruction and address the entire Friendly Hills community again after that time. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council must address some of the issues raised this evening, such as whether the city is creating the drainage problems on Hokah, and those issues will be addressed. Administrator Lawell stated that the engineering staff will be very busy with projects this summer and suggested that it may be better to bring the matter back later in the year. Councilmember Huber stated that staff should look at the area this spring and summer to see what affect the heavy rains will have. Councilmember Smith agreed that more information is needed, and asked that the residents come forward with their concerns and that staff continue to survey the entire neighborhood. LEXINGTON HEIGHTS Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator APARTMENT FINANCING Lawell in response to a request from Mr. Jim Riley for refinancing of the Lexington Heights Apartment project. Council also acknowledged a letter from G. Terrence McNellis, from Piper Jaffray, Mr. Riley's representative in the transaction, regarding Mr. Riley's request that the city enter into a joint powers agreement with the City of Maple Grove in order to have one issuance of bonds rather than two. Mr. Riley, present for the discussion, stated that the request is a continuation of the refinancing done in 1990. He explained that a similar project was undertaken in Maple Grove at that time and both projects were included in the initial bond issue - interim financing was used because interest rates were so high. He stated that the joint powers agreement is proposed in order to get lower financing, and informed Council that there is no liability to Page No. 3901 January 18, 1994 the city. Once the financing is completed, there will be totally separate bond issues for the Maple Grove and Mendota Heights projects. City Attorney Hart stated that joint powers agreements are generally just procedural and informed Council that he has quickly reviewed the agreement. He explained that it is primarily a procedural method to avoid duplication of issuance costs. He further stated that any costs that the city incurs must be paid by the developer and this condition must be a part of the developer's agreement. Mr. Riley stated that he agrees to submit a $2,500 deposit to cover city costs in connection with the project, but felt that the other fees have been taken care of in the previous bond issue. He stated that there was no requirement for any other fees to be paid to the city at the time of original issuance and that he did pay additional fees in 1990. Councilmember Smith asked if there would be any affect on the city's bond rating. Mr. Riley responded that there will not be any affect and that the bonds will be AAA rated. He informed Council that he currently has FHA financing for the project. Treasurer Shaughnessy informed Council that the issuance will not affect the city's bond rating at all. Mayor Mertensotto asked if Mr. Riley is saying that he does not want to pay a fee, and pointed out that the city has a fee schedule for housing bonds. Mr. Riley responded that he had not anticipated having to pay a fee since what he proposes is a continuation of the original bonding. He explained that the only reason he is doing the refinancing is because of the financing cost. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that Mr. Riley will receive a benefit if the city approves his request and stated that the city should share in the benefit. He pointed out that the city is not obligated to do anything and that stated this is a new proposal because Mr. Riley is refinancing for a benefit. Page No. 3902 January 18, 1994 Mr. Riley stated that the fee was paid once and he is not getting any additional money from the issuance, but rather it will be changed from a 7-day low floater to long term financing. He stated that he made it clear in 1990 that that was an interim solution. Mayor Mertensotto responded that perhaps this is the reason why the city charged only half of the required fee in 1990. He asked what the total fee requirement is. Treasurer Shaughnessy responded that the full fee is $35,000. He informed Council that Mr. Riley paid the expense of issuance and a $17,000 fee in 1990. Mr. Riley stated that he is not benefiting from the refinancing and the proposal will just replace existing bonds with other financing. He informed Council that the financing costs will go way up but financing will be locked in for 30 years. Councilmember Smith responded that when interest rates go up in the future, on average Mr. Riley's costs will go down. Mr. Riley stated that he does not think the intent of the city's policy was to charge the fee every time something is refinanced, and that it was not required when the project was originally financed. He did not feel there is any justification to charge now since he paid a fee in 1990. He stated that he cannot increase the bond issue and that he must pay any expenses. He further stated that he had not planned on the added expense and cannot increase the bonds by the cost of refinancing. He informed Council that those costs are about $400,000. Administrator Lawell informed Council that there are some fire and life safety improvements which must be done at the Lexington Heights Apartments, estimated to cost between $25,000 and $30,000. He stated that those costs must either be added to the cost of financing or be made out of pocket by the owners. Page No. 3903 January 18, 1994 Mr. Riley responded that he has agreed that he will do the work if it is actually required but that there is a difference of opinion between he and the fire marshal as to whether they are required. He informed Council that he has agreed to have the issue resolved before the financing is finalized. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that the disagreement between Mr. Riley and the fire marshal is not before Council and is a different issue. Councilmember Smith asked what the standard practice has been for bank refinancing to lock in a rate by a new mortgage. Attorney Hart responded that in many instances, if there is an extension in the term, a fee is payable at that time. If it is because of interest rates, the policy varies from bank to bank. He stated that what Mr. Riley is requesting is really an amendment of an existing bond issue. He did not think there is a clear comparison between what is proposed and home mortgaging. Councilmember Huber stated that the city would be giving value to Mr. Riley and would be lending its credit to him. Mr. Riley stated that he has already received that value and is not going for new bonds. He explained that he originally financed the project in 1983, via housing revenue bonds, using construction financing at that time because interest rates were 9 to 10% and went to low floater FHA financing in 1990. He stated that it was always intended to use long term financing and the rates have come down enough now. Mayor Mertensotto responded that if the bond amount is the same as in 1990, the fee would be $35,000. He stated that Mr. Riley has already paid $15,000 and felt that he should be willing to pay the other $20,000 now. He pointed out that the city would be lending its credit to Mr. Riley, and stated that when the ordinance stipulating the fee structure was adopted it was intended to apply to any developer making a request to the city. Page No. 3904 January 18, 1994 Mr. Riley responded that Maple Grove is not requiring a fee other than reimbursement for its costs. He stated that his argument in 1990 was that no fee was required in 1983 and that he was not increasing the amount of the issue. He felt that the rationale for the fee was to help the housing stock in the city and stated that it was his understanding in 1990 that the fee he paid at that time would cover the issue. He stated that the city receives $300,000 in real estate taxes annually from the Lexington Heights Apartments. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council could give Mr. Riley credit for the fee paid in 1990 but that he doubts Council would have agreed to 50% of the fee with no future charge. He asked if the bonds must be paid off if Mr. Riley sells the project. Mr. Riley responded that they do not need to be paid off and that the proposed financing will actually reduce the value of the project. Mr. Riley stated that he is just changing the financing from short term to long term which does not affect the city at all and there is no additional expense to or credit extension from the city. He stated that there is more personal liability for 7 day low floaters, and although he would rather stay on the low floater, his partner, Northland, does not want to. Councilmember Huber stated that there must have been some agreement and rationale in 1990 and that he does not see how the city can ask for additional fees now. He further stated, however, that this does not mean that Council should not negotiate some fee for the value that the city would be lending to Mr. Riley at this time. Mr. Riley responded that the city has no additional exposure and that while Council can ask what it wants and he must pay it, he can see no rationale for a fee. Councilmember Smith asked what the mechanism is to accomplish what Mr. Riley is requesting and what the city must do. Mr. Riley responded that he needs authority from the city to change the financing. Page No. 3905 January 18, 1994 Administrator Lawell stated that the matter is before Council this evening for concept only and if Council is willing to consider the request further, a request to schedule a public hearing will be brought to Council in February. Attorney Hart explained that the affect of what Mr. Riley is proposing is merely a change in the interest rate but procedurally it is a new bond issue. Mayor Mertensotto stated that in his opinion, the financing should be left as it is unless the city would receive an additional fee. He stated that the fee required by ordinance in 1990 was $35,000 and Mr. Riley paid $17,500 of that amount. It was the consensus to agree to the concept and to direct staff to provide documentation on the 1990 action and fee to Council as part of the February 1 agenda. NORTH KENSINGTON PARK Council acknowledged a memo from Assistant Batchelder regarding a Park commission recommendation for approval of a concept plan that includes tennis courts at Hagstrom-King Park, additional landscaping at North Kensington Park to accentuate the pond, the forested hill and existing trail with an option for future ice skating. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he understood that North Kensington would be kept as a passive park, but now the Park Commission is suggesting using the north part of the park for some kind of active use. Assistant Batchelder responded that there was never an understanding on what would happen with the park and there was some disagreement as to how it should be designed. He stated that the discussion was put on hold until such time as there could be input from the neighborhood. He explained that while there has not been a neighborhood meeting yet, the Park Commission has discussed the matter for two meetings and decided that they wanted some concepts. Councilmember Smith stated that it was her impression that the park would be developed to comply with the needs of the area. She Page No. 3906 January 18, 1994 pointed out that those needs must be determined before a concept can be developed. She stated that at the time when North Kensington was graded, it was her specific statement and understanding that the grading was temporary, pending a more definite design and use definition. She further stated that grading and seeding were to be just a temporary erosion method, and pointed out that landscaping, as proposed, will be expensive. She asked if landscaping has been budgeted. Assistant Batchelder responded that there is referendum money remaining to make improvements to the park, but there is a limited amount of money available. Councilmember Smith stated that she has been cautioning the Commission for a number of years to be sure that money would be available in the referendum to develop North Kensington. She pointed out that at the time when Kensington and the area south of Mendota Heights was approved, it was approved as a compromise which included more density than Council preferred. She explained that at that time, her rationale for agreeing to the density was that North Kensington Park could be used to function as a back yard and open space for the development, and reduce the density. She felt that it would be appropriate to construct a shelter in the park to provide a place where residents could have social gatherings. Assistant Batchelder responded that the specifics of the plan for the park have not been decided yet. Mayor Mertensotto stated that if the bond issue has been programmed, no money will be available for a shelter. Councilmember Smith responded that she thinks a picnic shelter in the park is very appropriate, to serve the immediate neighbors. Assistant Batchelder stated that the Commission is recommending taking a concept to a neighborhood meeting for open space with landscaping, and is not recommending a parking lot and tennis courts for the park. Page No. 3907 January 18, 1994 Councilmember Smith responded that she does not see funding for anything else and that she is not willing to commit funds for additional tennis courts in Hagstrom-King Park until there is a plan for North Kensington. Mayor Mertensotto suggested holding a neighborhood meeting before doing a concept plan. He asked how much money would remain if tennis courts and parking are built in Hagstrom-King Park. Assistant Batchelder responded that there is about $80,000 in referendum funds remaining and that tennis courts at Hagstrom-King would cost about $40,000. He also stated that there is the possible commitment of raising the power poles in South Kensington Park, which would cost about $25,000 but could be funded through the Special Park Fund. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Special Park funds could be used for development of North Kensington, after meeting with the neighborhood, since $25,000 of referendum funding was reserved for raising the power poles. He suggested that a neighborhood meeting be conducted and that the Park Commission make a recommendation after that meeting. Councilmember Huber stated that there is about $6,000 to $7,000 available for spending, which is about what was spent on improving most of the neighborhood parks. He felt that the city's position has been to suggest some ideas on what could be done and then try to get neighborhood feedback. He stated that the Park Commission is saying they think it is prudent to give a couple of options at the meeting because it is difficult to hold a meeting with nothing to show as to what will fit in the space. Councilmember Smith responded that the only things she saw in the concept plans was some landscaping and a possible skating rink. Assistant Batchelder responded that the Friendly Hills rink is the only one that serves the south part of town. He explained that the real issue before the Commission was whether North Kensington should be an active or passive park - future skating came in when Page No. 3908 January 18, 1994 the commission suggested landscaping the park so as not to reduce the options for future active use. Councilmember Smith stated that she does not foresee people south of Mendota Heights Road not needing a more passive space in ten years. Mayor Mertensotto stated that there are many people living in the vicinity of the park who do not have back yards and would possible welcome an area where they could have relatives and friends come. He suggested holding a neighborhood meeting to see what the residents have to say. ENGINEERING STAFFING Council acknowledged a memo from the City Administrator regarding the resignation of Assistant City Engineer Klayton Eckles and engineering department staffing concerns. It was the consensus of Council to schedule a Council workshop for discussion of engineering department staffing and other issues. The Council expressed its appreciation to Engineer Eckles for the contributions he has made to the city and wished him success in the future. BOARD OF REVIEW Council acknowledged a memo from the City Clerk regarding the need to schedule the annual Board of Review. Councilmember Krebsbach moved to schedule the annual Board of Review for Tuesday, April 5 at 7:00 P.M. Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 RESCHEDULED MEETING Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Lawell regarding the need to reschedule the March 1 Council meeting because it conflicts with the date of precinct caucuses. Councilmember Smith moved to reschedule the March 1, 1994 City Council meeting to Thursday, March 3, 1994. Councilmember Koch seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page No. 3909 January 18, 1994 ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Council, Councilmember Krebsbach moved that the meeting be adjourned. Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 11:10 o'clock P.M. zo Xathleen M. Swanson City Clerk ATTEST: --9- /44�-�-4t Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor LIST OF CONTRACTORS TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL January 18. 1994 Asphalt License Pine Bend Paving Concrete License H.W. Cook & Sons Kelleher Construction B.R. Moline Masonry'Inc. Neeck Construction Axel Ohman Simon Bros Cement Co. Zellmer Masonry Excavating License Bollig & Sons, Inc. Carlson Sewer Co. Inc. Commercial Utilities, Inc. Fogerty Excavating Inc. Kuper Excavating Company Mack's Excavating Plymouth Plumbing Rumpca Sewer.& Water Inc. Stocker Excavating Sun Excavating Thompson Plumbing United Water. &.Sewer Co. Gas Piping License Apollo Heating & Ventilating A. Binder & Son, Inc. Burnsville Heating & A/C Cronstroms Heating & A/C Dependable Indoor Air Quality, Inc. Egan Companies Erickson Plumbing, Heating & Cooling Flare Heating & A/C Gavic & Sons.Plumbing Genz -Ryan -Plumbing & Heating Harris Contracting Company Horwitz, Inc. J & H Gas Services Inc. Judkins Heating & A/C Martens /Sammon Heating Minnesota Plumbing & Heating Inc. Jim Murr Plumbing PBBS Equipment Corp. Plymouth Plumbing Rouse Mechanical, Icn. St. Marie Sheetmetal Inc. Thermex Corp. Thompson Plumbing Twin City Furnace Co., Inc. Fred Vogt & Company General-Contractors License Automatic Sprinkler Corp. R.L. Johnson Co. Falcon Fire Protection Gateway/ACG, Inc. Jannings Acoustics, Inc. Olsen Fire Protection, Inc. Schindler Elevator Corp. Viereck Fireplace Sales Viking Automatic Sprinkler Co. Western Steel Erection, Inc. HVAC License Apollo Heating & Ventilating A. Binder & Son, Inc. Burnsville Heating & A/C Cronstroms Heating & A/C Dependable Indoor Air Quality Egan & Sons Co. Erickson Plumbing, Heating & Genz-Ryan..Plumbing & Heating Harris Contracting Co. Judkins Heating & A/C II Krinkie Heating*& A/C Martens/Sammon Heating & A/C Minnesota Plumbing Inc. Rouse Mechanical Inc. St. Marie Sheetmetal, Inc. Thermex Corporation Twin City.Furnace Co., Inc. Fred Vogt & Company Drywall License Berg Drywall Olympic Wall Systems, Rubbish License Highland Sanitation Ken Oehrlein Sanitation Roadway.Rubbish Triangle Rubbish Service Inc. Cooling Co. Cigarette License FinaServe, Inc. Snyder Drug #42 SOS Convenient Mart Somerset Country Club Tempco Mfg. Tom Thumb Store #264