Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting was duly held at the Woodbury City Hall, 8301 Valley Creek Road, on the 26th day of February, 2003.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor William Hargis called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Audience, staff, and Council pledged allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.
ROLL CALL
Upon roll call the following were present: William Hargis, Michael Madigan, Peter Rekow, Cheryl Hurst, and Michael Charron. Others Present: Barry Johnson, City Administrator, Jim Lammers, City Attorney; Dwight Picha, Community Development Director, David Jessup, Public Works Director, Tom Syfko, Consulting Engineer, and Barry Peters, Consulting Engineer.
Mayor Hargis welcomed those watching at home to join the Council meetings and call City Hall if they need information. He also referred to the manila brochures located on the chairs entitled "Welcome to the Woodbury City Council Meeting" and noted there are Public Input Sign-Up Sheets, and invited audience members to sign them and give them to a staff member if they wished to comment during the meeting. He also noted that the times listed on the Agenda are only estimates and that items may be addressed by the Council earlier or later than those times listed.
OPEN FORUM
There were no speakers.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Hargis explained that Consent Agenda items are considered routine and are adopted by one motion in an affirmative vote of the Members. He said there is no separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member or citizen so requests, in which event the item(s) will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered during the Discussion portion of the agenda.
Moved by Mayor Hargis, seconded by Member Rekow, to approve the Consent Agenda, Items 6A through 6P.
Item A To approve the minutes of the January 22, 2003 and February 12, 2003 City Council meetings.
Item B To approve Change Order #1 for the Central Park indoor playground - Lookout Ridge for a total reduction of $20,667.00.
Item C To approve Change Orders #16, #17 and #18 for the Woodbury Central Park/Washington County Library Project for a total addition of $28,441.00.
Item D To approve the City of Woodbury and Washington County Maintenance and Operations Agreement.
Item E To approve submitting the revised NPDES Industrial Permit Application, Attachment 2, to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency by March 10, 2003. To approve the SWPPP, Attachment 3, for the Industrial Permit, to be kept on file at the public works maintenance facility.
Item F To approve the Final Plat for Wooddale Business Center, Case No. 03-02, subject to the following conditions:
Item G To waive the building permit fees for the rental units for Pond View Townhomes/Duffy Development in the amount of $49,470.13.
Item H To adopt the following resolution: RESOL. NO. 03-49
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF WOODBURY, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY REPORT, WAIVING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT HEARING, ORDERING THE PROJECT, AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE 2003 STREET SEAL COAT PROJECT
Item I To approve Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $46,543.25 to Tower Asphalt Inc. for the 2001F Street Improvement Project.
Item J To adopt a motion approving the quotations submitted by F. M. Frattalone Excavating & Grading Inc., BNR Excavating Inc., Danner Inc., Carl Bolander & Sons Co. and Burschville Construction Inc. Furthermore, it is recommended the Council allow staff to enter into an agreement with the low quote provider on an "as needed" basis, that is available in the time frame specified by the City, to conduct storm water pond and ditch maintenance tasks throughout the year 2003. The actual cost of the work completed will be based upon the number of hours actually taken to complete the project but will not exceed the annual budget amount.
Item K To adopt the following resolution: RESOL. NO. 03-50
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF WOODBURY, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, WAIVING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT HEARING AND ORDERING THE PROJECT FOR THE RADIO DRIVE AND PINEHURST ROAD TRAFFIC SIGNAL
Item L To adopt a motion approving Work Order No. 18 in the amount of $2,262.50 associated with the I-494/Tamarack Road Interchange Project.
Item M To adopt the following resolution: RESOL. NO. 03-51
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF WOODBURY, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, AUTHORIZING A CONSULTANT CONTRACT WITH SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. FOR THE TAMARACK ROAD FROM BIELENBERG DRIVE TO SEASONS PARKWAY STREET IMPROVEMENTS S.P. 192-102-09
Item N To adopt a motion approving the quotations submitted by Earl F. Anderson, Gopher Sign Co., M-R Sign, Newman Signs and 3D Specialties. Furthermore, it is recommended the Council authorize staff to purchase the products identified within the budget, on an "as needed" basis from the individual low quote per unit provider throughout the 2003 sign maintenance program.
Item O To adopt the following resolution: RESOL. NO. 03-52
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF WOODBURY, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, ADOPTING THE CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT FOR WOODLAKE OFFICE PARK
To adopt the following resolution: RESOL. NO. 03-53
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF WOODBURY, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, ADOPTING THE CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT FOR STONEMILL FARMS 1ST ADDITION
To adopt the following resolution: RESOL. NO. 03-54
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF WOODBURY, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, ADOPTING THE CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT FOR DANCING WATERS PHASE 1A (PORTIONS OF DANCING WATERS 1ST & 2ND ADDITIONS)
Item P To approve the Abstract of Bills for February 13, 2003 in the amount of $503,303.14 and the Abstract for Bills for February 21, 2003 in the amount of $515,440.04.
Voting via voice:
Cheryl Hurst - aye
Michael Charron - aye
Michael Madigan - aye
Peter Rekow - aye
William Hargis - aye
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Dwight Picha, Community Development Director, outlined Council Letter No. 03-95. This hearing was continued from the last City Council meeting as staff was still working on the conditions of approval and an agreement regarding the overall project design. There were also some specific questions from the Council that they wanted addressed.
David Newman of Arboretum Development, 1521 94th Lane Northeast, the addressed the Council. He said an arboretum is a displayed collection of plants and including educational components. They are defining about 40 acres for the arboretum. There can be different features within the arboretum. There can be fields, prairies, areas of formal gardens. The 10 or so acres at the entrance is intended to be the formal areas. They are planning on rose gardens, formal greens, shrubbery around the edges and they are trying to be sensitive to the pipelines. In other locations there will be orchards and formal trails. The wetlands also become an important part of the arboretum.
Jim Hagstrom of Savanna Design addressed the Council. They are an award winning landscape architecture firm and they have designed some of the gardens at the U of M Arboretum. He said there will be some natural features for birds and butterflies. Near the community center, there will be a more formal horticultural garden, which includes perennials, a more traditional European garden with roses. There will be three or four different garden experiences in this area. There will be a formal large green area, which will have a strolling path around it. There is a walking path going out through the prairie and ending up in a small oasis circle area. A wildlife display area is also included.
Mr. Newman stated that the arboretum will be located adjacent to the community center. The educational component is still being worked on, but they are anticipating some types of maps or displays so that people can go through the arboretum and learn what they are seeing at the community center. The U of M told them not to put tags or labels on specific plants because some people will take the tags with them so they will remember what they saw. He said there will also be 13 different neighborhood gardens, some of them with water features. They will all have seating areas. There will also be two community centers in the development. All the gardens will be connected by pathways.
Steven Seidel, Executive Director of Habitat for Humanity, addressed the Council. He said that Habitat is committed to producing affordable owner-occupied housing for families whose incomes are below 50% of state median. This is accomplished by relying very heavily on volunteers, donated materials and contributions from the private sector. He said that getting this done into this development will be a model for how affordable housing and Habitat amenities work. He said there will be 30 units of housing that will be sold to those families who qualify. He said that one of the ingredients that is essential to this project is the fact the City's commitment to affordable housing has been essential to make this package work.
Mr. Newman stated there will be 30 units of long-term affordable housing. The details still needs to be worked out with staff as to how to maintain the affordability over a long period of time. The starting price is $114,000 and the housing will be integrated throughout the site, with some of the units being constructed in the first phase.
Mr. Newman referred to the environmental issues and said that under the Phase 1 environmental language, the assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property. He said that there was farming activities on this site, which include certain types of pesticides and chemicals, so they had a Phase 2 done. They tested the soils in the site and attempted to test the ground water as well, but unfortunately the well wasn't working and they couldn't get a water sample. The tests indicate that there are very low concentrates of DDT. They tested the soils further and they were able to get a sample of the ground water on the second test. The test indicated there weren't any chemicals in the ground water. Two agricultural chemicals were detected in a composite soil sample and they were located in the area where there was a storage shed that maintained chemicals. They are in discussions with the Department of Agriculture and they have indicated that they are agreeable with this approach. A couple more soil samples will be taken to ascertain that the chemicals are limited to a certain area. It is then their intention to take about 10-20 cubic yards of dirt and spreading it among the open area with a fertilizer spreader. The Department of Agriculture will then give them a no action letter.
Mr. Newman referred to the question of infiltration and stated that there have been some further modifications to the grading plan to address infiltration issues. They are also conducting infiltration studies. He believes they will meet the City's satisfaction with regard to infiltration matters.
Steve Kernik, Environmental Planner, addressed the Council. He said that after the Powers Lake and Fish Lake subwatershed study, staff has come to an agreement that the approach that should be taken for infiltration is to set standards for each individual subwatershed in the City and develop those standards in conjunction with the South Washington Watershed District. The problem for this site is that there isn't standards yet developed for this particular watershed. Staff felt that the standards that were applied to the Powers Lake subwatershed would be the most stringent that the City would apply to any subwatershed. This includes 76% reduction of post development runoff, which equated a predevelopment runoff condition. Staff felt if they could meet that standard on this site, which drains to Colby Lake (one of the lower quality lakes in the City), they would be agreeable to that. Bonestroo did an analysis of this site and it turns out that it does not meet the Powers Lake watershed standard and have not met the predevelopment runoff rate. On the north part of the site, the percentage is 43% reduction, and overall it is about 35% reduction. Staff originally talked about rain gardens, French drains along the sides of the road and back yard swales for this site. As there was concern about infiltrating water close to buildings in this kind of density, they looked at utilizing large basins on the site. They are lined on the bottom, and the sides have been left to natural conditions, so that there will be infiltration out the sides of the basins. He doesn't believe that the standards for this area will be as stringent as the Powers Lake area, as it is a totally different system. He believes that it would take about a month to two months before there could be a standard for this area. He said that there is more infiltration on this site than is done on typical developments.
Mr. Picha said that staff met with the developer and prepared conditions of approval which were submitted to the Council members. The negotiations centered around the issues of affordable housing and the overall roadway component costs of this project. Staff has agreed that the housing component would be 30 affordable housing units, with the exact language and conditions would be negotiated as part of the development agreement for Phase 1. One of the things the developer wanted was on the overall charge for major roadways, which are Lake Road and new Cottage Grove Drive, the developer would be charged $9,000 per acre for those future roadway improvements and that the City would agree to allow them to do private engineering of the utilities and streets within the project, and that the City would consider reductions in certain fees for the affordable housing units, which includes reducing the cost of building permits and charges for sewer and water, estimated to be about $6,700 per unit.
Mr. Picha stated that an agreement has been reached on the growth management allocation. It is consistent with the approved document from the City Council.
Moved by Member Charron, seconded by Member Madigan, to close the public hearing.
Voting in favor: Charron, Hurst, Madigan, Rekow, Hargis
Voting against: None
Absent: None
Member Rekow reminded the Council, members of the audience, and viewers at home that he has his homestead on property that adjoins the Bailey property, and to avoid any possibility of conflict of interest, he is recusing himself from discussions and action on this item.
Member Madigan said he is comfortable with the growth allocation numbers. He complemented the developer and staff for coming together on an agreement. However, he said he understands that the item of private engineering has been left open. He does not view this as a departure from the usual engineering system, but an exception is being made in this development because of the benefit to the City. Mr. Johnson replied that the City has done private engineering in the past, and as part of the way to find a way to lower costs and provide the affordable housing component that the developer has proposed, he believes that he will benefit from doing the engineering privately. The City agrees to give him that opportunity. The City will still inspect the improvements at the end of the process.
Mr. Johnson commented that at a future meeting, he will be intending to propose to the City Council more general policies that in similar instances in the future, the City would be willing to do the same kind of thing in return for similar kinds of cooperation from a developer in providing affordable housing. This matter will be discussed at a future workshop meeting.
Member Madigan referred to condition no. 41 with regard to storm water and said that the City will be setting volume requirements for this subwatershed. If there are different volume requirements in the South Washington Watershed District Central Draw Project and Flood Storage Area Maps, there could be a conflict. He asked if there were volume requirements in those documents. Mr. Kernik replied that there are not. This condition applies to just rate requirements which insures that the Bailey Lake lift station won't get flooded out. Member Madigan asked if the reference to "and volumes" should be deleted from this condition. Mr. Kernik said that this was a good idea.
Member Madigan stated that this site as currently planned would infiltrate 76% of post-development volume, which is the Powers Lake standard, however it appears this site will not reach that amount. It also appears that alternative storm water treatments, like rain gardens, are not suitable for this site because of site conditions. He said that the only way to address the need to infiltrate more water is to infiltrate more with the existing storm water ponds that are there. He said it is important to retain the discretion to stipulate that the lining in ponds could be eliminated if the need arises.
Mr. Newman stated that this was not true and that there are other alternatives that can be used to increase infiltration. He also noted that these ponds are lined to protect the wetlands. He thinks if these became infiltration ponds, they may inadvertently drain the wetlands. He also said there is no much clay in some areas that it would impossible to infiltrate. He said his consultants have indicated that the rate of infiltration for these soils that they used is about four times greater than what Bonestroo used in their modeling. Bonestroo uses standards set by South Washington County.
Member Madigan said he is not suggesting that you do not line ponds, but he is suggesting that the City will have the ability to address the issue if it comes up. He suggesting changing language in condition no. 42 to indicate that storm water runoff from the site crossing Bailey Road and flowing south shall not exceed predevelopment rates or volumes. Mr. Johnson noted that condition no. 42 only refers to drainage off of a portion of the site, and believes that the drainage that is going to the west and northwest is the concern. He believes that is covered more in condition no. 43 and suggested adding the language to that condition instead.
Member Madigan asked if the City shouldn't be including here that storm water runoff from the entire site shall meet the volume requirement that gets attached to it in the future.
Mayor Hargis asked the City Attorney to consider language that should be added to the condition to accomplish the goals discussed. Mr. Johnson suggested substituting "sufficient to prevent degradation of the water quality in receiving bodies off site, as determined by the City" for "where appropriate."
Member Charron asked if the levels of DDT found sufficient that it meets standards. Mr. Newman said that two chemicals were found in the shed area and the levels were fairly low, but high enough they required some remediation. The Department of Agriculture told them that if they disburse the chemicals over a larger area, this would be sufficient to address the problem. Mr. Picha commented that typically the City has not gotten the conditions of approval involved in this type of situation, as it is regulated by other agencies. Mr. Lammers also said that the City Council does not need to address this as a condition.
Mayor Hargis said that is happy with the arboretum being developed in the first phase and not in the second or third phase. He believes it captures the essence of what was represented to the group. He also likes the involvement of Habitat for Humanity and particularly the emphasis on the long-term affordability of the units. He also likes the transportation charge of $9,000 for the building of the roadways.
Mr. Lammers referred to condition no. 50 and stated that the major roadway charge was for a specific roadway improvements and he believes it should be expanded so its not just referred to simply as a major roadway charge.
Moved by Member Hurst, seconded by Member Madigan, to approve the Bailey's Arbor Planned Unit Development/Preliminary Plat, Case Nos. 02-20 and 02-87, subject to the following conditions:
General Conditions:
Landscaping:
Pathways, Sidewalks and Park Improvements:
Streets:
Utilities:
Stormwater:
42. Stormwater runoff from this site crossing Bailey Road and flowing south shall not exceed pre-development rates or volumes.
44. All residential lot lines shall be platted 1 foot above the 100-year high water elevation (HWL) of adjacent stormwater ponds or water features.
45. All stormwater ponding areas shall be platted as "Outlots" to a point 1 foot above the 100-year high water (HWL) elevation of all adjacent stormwater ponds or water features. Said Outlots shall be dedicated without restrictions to the City at no cost.
46. All homes adjacent to ponds shall have a lowest ground elevation a minimum of 3 feet above any adjacent water body's 100-year high water elevation (HWL).
47. All drainage and utility easements necessary for the conveyance and storage of stormwater across the Bailey Nursery property in Section 26 shall be granted to the City at no cost. If necessary, the Developer of the Bailey's Arbor Addition shall be financially responsible for all costs associated with the acquisition and purchase of said easements.
48. All stormwater ponds within the Bailey's Arbor Addition shall have a 10-foot aquatic bench around the entire perimeter as identified by the City's standard plate for stormwater ponds. Pond maintenance benches, aquatic benches, secondary aquatic benches, pond side slopes and access locations shall be provided at locations acceptable to the City or per the City's standard pond detail.
49. The Developer of the Bailey's Arbor Addition shall be responsible for the repair, maintenance and cleaning of all storm sewer facilities during all construction activities. The Developer shall also be responsible for all necessary repairs, maintenance and cleaning of all stormwater facilities once the project is completed and prior to the City's final acceptance of the infrastructure.
Roadway Funding:
51. Cottage Grove Drive (Ultimate and Interim):
52. Bailey Road (Interim Improvements)
53. The Developer shall be responsible for a traffic signal area charge of 4.5 cents per square foot of net developable area for future traffic signal installations.
with modifications/clarifications to Conditions No. 41, 43 and 50:
41. Stormwater runoff rates shall be consistent with the requirements of the South Washington Watershed District Central Draw Project and Flood Storage Area Maps, June 2002.
43. Final Plats for Bailey's Arbor shall incorporate alternative stormwater management practices where appropriate sufficient to prevent degradation of water quality as determined by the City. Such practices shall focus on infiltration of small storm events.
50. The Developer shall pay the costs of constructing Lake Road and Settler's Ridge Parkway. Said costs shall be paid based upon a rate of $9,000.00 per net developable acre in the Urban Mixed Residential District.
Voting in favor: Charron, Hurst, Madigan, Hargis
Voting against: None
Abstained: Rekow
Dwight Picha, Community Development Director, outlined Council Letter No. 03-96. This property is located at 7645 Military Road, with the property located on the south side of Military one-quarter mile west of Tower Drive. The application is for an addition onto their home which is zoned R-2. The proposal is to add onto the home which was built in the 1960s. The addition would be on the back of their home that would come within 34 feet of the rear property line. The current ordinance for the R-2 Estate area requires a 50 foot setback to both the front and back yards.
Mike McKenzie of the Planning Commission addressed the Council. The Planning Commission received letters and neighborhood comments in support of this item, there were no negative comments. The Commission had questions and concerns with regard to the location of the well and septic systems, and these were satisfied by the applicant.
Mr. Picha said that staff is supporting this variance and is recommending approval. Staff believes that this property, to have a reasonable use of it in today's standards, should be granted the variance. It is a difficult site because it is triangular in shape, and staff looked at other parcels that were similar in nature and most of them are much larger and would not have this type of situation. He said this is a R-2 Estate with a three acre minimum area and in some of the other urban districts, the City recently went from a 35 foot to a 25 foot setback, so most of the areas in the City develop now with 25 foot setbacks.
Ingrid Hanson, 7555 Military Road, addressed the Council. She said she lives directly west of the Kings. She said that with the R-2 zoning, there will never be a building up close to them. The closest thing they will ever get is a fence in the back yard. She believes that house should have never been built there in the first place. She said the house is too small. She also said the Kings are productive members of the community. They are the kind of people we would want to keep in Woodbury.
Lark King, 7645 Military Road, addressed the Council. He noted that there were very few triangles created along Military Road. He said of the 3-3 vote of the Planning Commission, the three people who voted against this cited requirements A and B as the reason for their vote. One of these is extenuating or unusual circumstances must apply. Mr. King said that of the 40,000 people in Woodbury, the are 13,000 to 14,000 residential parcels with 7 or 8 of them having triangles that were created by Military Road. Of the 7, they are the only one that would need a variance. The other criteria referred to hardship. He said the hardship is that the only place that they can expand to without a variance is to the west of the home. They would then have to replumb the house, move the natural gas supply, move the electrical supply, haul in a great amount of fill, require a lot of excavation work, and move at least two load bearing walls in the house. This would become extremely expensive to expand the house in that direction.
Moved by Member Rekow, seconded by Member Charron, to close the public hearing.
Voting in favor: Charron, Hurst, Madigan, Rekow, Hargis
Voting against: None
Absent: None
Member Hurst stated that the state has set up a system to allow cities to have variances. The City needs to look at these types of items on a case-by-case basis. She said she visited the parcel and indicated that it was not going to be subdivided. She also said that it is appreciated when homeowners reinvest in their home and maintain the City. She said the drain field is on the west side of the house, so you could not take out some walls without impacting the drain field.
Member Rekow asked if the long term plan for this area rural estate. Mr. Picha replied that this was the case.
Member Madigan noted that there has been a difference of opinion among Planning Commission members on variances. He asked if there was a different way that they are looking at the ordinances. Mr. McKenzie replied that this is correct.
Mayor Hargis suggested having a discussion with Mr. Lammers about how the ordinances are interpreted. Mr. Lammers stated that following this discussion at the Planning Commission, Gary Berg had asked him to put something together for the benefit of the Planning Commission to bring them up to date as far as the present case law is concerned. He said the court has relaxed its standards as far as variances are concerned, and they basically just require a finding that the proposed use is reasonable, but is simply not allowed by the ordinance, and it is a unique situation of some kind, and it does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
Mayor Hargis asked Mr. McKenzie if five of the six Commission members thought this was a good idea, but three thought didn't believe that the City had the authority to grant the variance, and the other three did. Mr. McKenzie said that this was a fair interpretation. He said that everyone was for it, but three didn't feel that based on the way that the law is written, that they could move forward with approving it.
Mayor Hargis stated if Mr. Lammers will be doing a memo regarding this and perhaps a discussion at a workshop meeting will be held to go over the new requirements. He doesn't believe that this item should be held up before having this discussion. Mr. McKenzie noted that this was the request by some of the members of the Planning Commission.
Member Madigan asked if the City should be looking at changing the zoning ordinance or is it just a matter of interpreting the factors. Mr. Lammers believes it is part of the process and the ordinance should be reviewed.
Mr. Johnson noted that as part of the Department Report, this item could be added to the next workshop meeting. He suggested also inviting the Planning Commission to the workshop to discuss this matter.
Member Charron introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOL. NO. 03-55
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF WOODBURY, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, APPROVING CASE NO. 02-88, A VARIANCE TO A REAR YARD SETBACK FOR CHRISTINE AND LARK KING, 7645 MILITARY ROAD
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member Hurst and upon roll call being taken thereon, the following voted via voice:
Michael Charron - aye
Michael Madigan - aye
Peter Rekow - aye
Cheryl Hurst - aye
William Hargis - aye
Mayor Hargis indicated that this item is not ready to go forward at this public hearing.
Moved by Mayor Hargis, seconded by Member Madigan, to table this hearing to the March 12, 2003 City Council meeting.
Voting in favor: Charron, Hurst, Madigan, Rekow, Hargis
Voting against: None
Absent: None
DEPARTMENT REPORT
Neighborhood Meetings
Planning Commission Scheduled for March 3, 2003
Public Hearings Scheduled for March 12, 2003 Council Meeting
Council Workshop Agenda for March 13, 2003
Other Meetings
Member Madigan asked if the stucco failures were being looked at from an ordinance standpoint. Mr. Johnson stated that the City is uncertain, as it the whole industry, as to the causes of this issue and what solutions are available. Given this uncertainty, is there any action that the City should be taking, such as a moratorium on building stucco homes. It may be necessary to inform applicants for a permit to build a house using stucco about the problems encountered. Staff is concerned that the City may not be performing its responsibilities if the City simply ignores this.
DISCUSSION
Steve Kernik, Environmental Planner, outlined Council Letter No. 03-98. There was a public hearing on this issue on December 9, 2002, which was required by the DNR, to put an outlet into Fish Lake. The City's projections at that time were that if they were to put in that outlet, the Powers Lake water quality would degrade beyond the 28 ppb goal set by the South Washington Watershed District. A task force was put together to examine the issue. This information was presented to the City Council at a Council workshop on February 11, 2003, where it was concluded if the City would infiltrate 76% of post-development runoff, it could meet predevelopment volumes for this watershed and have no impact on Powers Lake. Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt for the Powers Lake/Fish Lake subwatershed a standard of 76% reduction of post-development volume, and to approve the construction of the Fish Lake outlet. He believes there will be a similar process for all other subwatersheds in the City.
Member Madigan noted that the City is not doing this as an ordinance, and as such, are there any ramifications to not incorporating this as an ordinance now as opposed to waiting until they are all done. Mr. Lammers does not believe there is any problem in waiting until they are all done.
Moved by Member Madigan, seconded by Member Charron, to adopt a standard of 76% reduction of post-development volume for the Fish Lake/Powers Lake subwatershed and to approve the construction of the Fish Lake outlet.
Voting in Favor: Charron, Hurst, Madigan, Rekow, Hargis
Voting Against: None
Absent: None
OTHER ITEMS
Mr. Johnson commented that the discussions about the state budget and its implications for cities has tended to focus on certain things, but there are some other things involved that may have even more profound impact on the City than the loss of aid from the state. Staff has learned that one of the provisions in the Governor's proposal would require approval at a referendum for issuance of any debt by a city. This means that the City couldn't proceed, for example, with the Park Hills street reconstruction project because the City doesn't have the money to fund the assessed portion of it. The City would not be able to issue debt for it without a referendum. Nor would any public improvement debt, such as Lake Road or other significant improvements, be able to be issued without a referendum. The City would not be able to issue debt solely supported by revenue from the water system for new wells or water towers without a referendum. The City would not be able to issue equipment certificates to purchase the fire trucks that are in the 2003 budget without a referendum. He believes that the City should continue with the Park Hills process for now, as most people don't believe that the budget issue will be resolved until 11:59 on the last day of the session, if then. He said this will be discussed at the Council workshop.
Member Hurst asked what happens if the debt was in place before the bill is passed. Mr. Johnson replied that the bill is being drafted with language of March 1 as an effective date.
Member Madigan asked at what point is the City going to be talking to its representatives to express its viewpoint. Mr. Johnson said that a bill has not actually been introduced at this time. This is a conceptual at this time based on information that has come from the Governor's office. The wording of the bill is not very clear. He believes it is not a good idea to take the time of the representatives until the language is clearer.
Member Rekow asked if there was a sense from the representatives that they are on board with this. He said there was a tone of that when the Council met with them awhile ago. Mr. Johnson said that there seems to be some sympathy within the Republican caucus for that approach. He is not sure if many people are aware of this particular provision.
Mr. Johnson stated that out of the $4.2 billion budget problem, the Governor's proposal would only create permanent spending cuts that take care of $2.4 billion of that amount. The rest of it is one time things, which means in the next biennium, there is still a substantial problem.
Mayor Hargis commented that some of the proposals that he has read are consistent with sound or conservative financial management practices and certainly are consistent with what he understands to be fundamental Republican principles of governors. He said there is a knee jerk overreaction and some tendencies to micromanage things, where they don't have the expertise and are inconsistent with good management practices in the empowerment of putting the decision down for people who have the expertise and the facts and who are capable of making those decisions and making choices and priorities for a particular community. He doesn't think the legislature should, nor is capable of making decisions for cities and counties. They can set some principles and guidelines and they need to address some fundamental issues, but if they think they are going to solve their problem by micromanaging or taking it down to a level that won't work, they will create a bigger problem for everybody, including themselves. He thinks the City will have to bring up this message when the time comes.
Mr. Johnson said that the City should be concerned about a possible shift in the legislature as a whole, including the Republican caucus, where the outstate members of the caucus are starting to get very concerned about the impact of this on the outstate cities. If this is the case, and if they want to modify the impact of this proposal on those cities, there are only three alternatives. One is to raise taxes, another is to make cuts in other state programs, and another is to redistribute the cuts among the cities. He had noted earlier that the state has taken all of the City's aid. That is true as it relates to local government aid and market value homestead credit. There are a number of smaller aids in the City's budget which total about $450,000 - police and fire aid, affordable housing aid, PERA related aid, etc. - plus municipal state aid funds, which are about $1.7 million per year. There is still quite a bit of money that they still could take if they really want to. The City needs to be on guard that this doesn't get worse than it is. The administration has really distorted the cut in terms of how it is depicted by making it a percentage of a base that includes things that the cities can't alter and they can't use for general purposes. When the cut is compared to the general fund, the part of the finances that you can do something about, the percentage cuts become much larger. Woodbury is not affected anywhere near as greatly as many cities are. One mayor indicated that they could everything in their budget except public safety and he still wouldn't replace the money that was cut. He believes that Woodbury might be one of the targets for finding money to give to those types of cities.
Member Madigan commented that everyone accepts the fact that they all have to share in the burden, but it's the limitation of levy limits which unfairly impacts growing cities and violates the principal of letting each community decide for themselves what kind of service and service cuts they want to make. He doesn't want to wait too long to express the City's view on this item, because things in the legislature have a way of gathering momentum and taking on a life of their own.
Mr. Johnson said he was at a League of Minnesota Cities meeting today, in which their lobbyists made a good point. They said that cities should not respond emotionally to this issue, they should respond factually. He believes that the City should have this discussion at the workshop and maybe a subsequent discussion to formulate how the City is going to deal with these cuts, so that the City can tell the legislators how the City is going to deal with this and what impacts there will be. It should be stressed that if the legislature goes beyond those cuts, it will have even more severe impacts on services that would be higher priority.
Mr. Johnson said that the City is under a levy limit by hundreds of thousands of dollars, which is responsible financial management. The Governor's proposal for levy limits would tighten the levy limit down to base it on what your currently spend. This would send a message to all cities that they should spend as much as you can, because if there is a levy limit, you can never be comfortable spending anything less than that limit.
Member Hurst noted that the City survey indicated that people would be willing to pay a little bit more to have their City services maintained. She is also concerned with the City wage freezes, which goes against the Republican pay for performance. Member Madigan said he does not understand that with collective bargaining agreements, how can wages be frozen and not constitute a breach of the agreement. Mr. Johnson said it can't and if you have a multi-year labor contract, this wouldn't take effect for those employees until after that contract had ended, if there were still a wage freeze in effect. In the City's case, both of its bargaining units - the police and public service workers - their contracts are up at the end of 2002 and the City has been in negotiations with both of them. Staff will be bringing to the Council a contract settlement with the public works union for 2003, which would treat them the same for 2003 as all other City employees. He is not sure where the police contract is going to go, it may go to arbitration. For any contracts settled after the legislature would take action on a bill like this, it could freeze everything. The thing that concerns him is that while it wouldn't prevent employees necessarily from escaping the effects of this proposal, it would tend to send a message that if you organized and were a member of a bargaining unit under a multi-year contract, you would be more likely to be able to escape this kind of thing in the future. He said the City has a minority of employees in bargaining units right now and it could end up with absolutely everyone in a bargaining unit after this is over. This would have far worse long-term impacts than would be justified by the short term benefit of the proposal.
Members Madigan and Charron would like to see the City start conversations with the legislators so they know where the City is at.
Mayor Hargis indicated that he had the workshop meeting down as March 11, and not the 13th. Mr. Johnson said that he thought that meeting was changed for the Mayor.
Moved by Mayor Hargis, seconded by Member Madigan, to reschedule the March 13, 2003 City Council Workshop Meeting to March 11, 2003.
Voting in Favor: Charron, Hurst, Madigan, Rekow, Hargis
Voting Against: None
Absent: None
Mayor Hargis stated that the next City Council meeting will be on March 12, 2003, and that the last meeting in March will be held on April 2, 2003.
Mayor Hargis adjourned the Council meeting at 9:20 p.m.
Detailed information on agenda items is available on the February 26, 2003 City Council Agenda.