Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 06/16/2009 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY,JUNE 16, 2009 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Phil Young, Council Members Brad Aho, Ron Case, Jon Duckstad and Kathy Nelson CITY STAFF: City Manager Scott Neal, Parks & Recreation Director Jay Lotthammer, Public Works Director Eugene Dietz, Community Development Director Janet Jeremiah, City Attorney Ric Rosow and Council Recorder Jan Curielli I. ROLL CALL/CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Mayor Young called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. All Council Members were present. II. COLOR GUARD/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Young thanked Boy Scout Pack 342, sponsored by United Methodist Church, for presenting the colors tonight. III. OPEN PODIUM INVITATION IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS Young added Item XIV.A.2. MOTION: Duckstad moved, seconded by Aho, to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried 5-0. V. PROCLAMATIONS /PRESENTATIONS A. RECOGNITION OF NEW CERT VOLUNTEERS Fire Chief Esbenson said we are recognizing 26 new CERT members tonight, which brings the total number of CERT volunteers in the City to 125. Assistant Chief Parker described the history of the CERT program and reviewed the extensive training the volunteers undergo. Captain Carlson introduced the new volunteers as they came forward to receive their certificates. Mayor Young thanked all the volunteers who participate in the CERT program. B. CHINA TRIP PRESENTATION Economic Development Director Lindahl presented a PowerPoint overview of the trip he and Mayor Young made to China in March. He reviewed the history of the relationship between the City of Eden Prairie and the city of Loudi, China. He said CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 16,2009 Page 2 during the trip exchange agreements were signed between the schools, the Chambers of Commerce and the two cities. He noted it was a fascinating trip and was very well received. VI. MINUTES A. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY,MAY 19, 2009 MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Duckstad, to approve the minutes of the City Council Meeting held Tuesday, May 19, 2009, as published. Motion carried 5-0. VII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. PARKS, RECREATION & NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Geri Napuck, Chair of the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission, gave an update on the activities of the commission during the past year, including the goose dispersal program, the grand opening of the Art Center, the Birch Island play structure, a trail assessment, the Miller Park Barrier-Free Playground, Round Lake Baseball Stadium, Staring Lake Amphitheater, and meetings with the Senior Advisory Council to review operations at the Senior Center. She noted the parks and recreation programs received high marks in the Quality of Life survey. She thanked the Council for the opportunity to participate in the analysis of the Senior Center operations and said the Parks Commission recommended the continued operation of the current Senior Center and also recommended the item not be analyzed on an annual basis. She reviewed the plans the commission has for the coming year. B. SENIOR CENTER OPERATIONS OVERVIEW & RECOMMENDATIONS Lotthammer said the Council asked staff to report back after receiving the recommendation from the Budget Advisory Commission (BAC) to look at closing the Senior Center and merging the programs into the current operations of the Community Center. He thanked the members of the Senior Advisory Council for the time they put in to help staff better understand the wishes and desires of the seniors. He noted the Senior Advisory Council meets on a regular basis and is a very active group that has put in over 500 hours of volunteer time. He reviewed the Senior Center facility, noting over$80,000 was spent last year for construction projects to upgrade the Senior Center. Two staff members manage the facility and all of the senior programs throughout the community. He reviewed the programs that take place in the facility and the 2008 revenue and expenses for those programs. He said wages and building operations are the largest share of the expenses, and they try to keep programs affordable to seniors. We have recently enacted some cost reductions in order to operate as efficiently and effectively as possible. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 16,2009 Page 3 Lotthammer said the Community Center is somewhat difficult to access compared to the Senior Center. During the summer months the Community Center is especially heavily used, and it is becoming a facility with rental opportunities as more people become aware of the space available there. He said many of the ongoing activities at the Senior Center are stored there from week to week but that would not be possible at the Community Center. He also thought if the Senior Center were closed it is a difficult time to find another use for the building. There would also be a loss of revenue from the cell tower leases at the building, and the Community Center would lose rental opportunities. He said the Community Center has space for some of the senior programs some of the time but not all of the programs. Lotthammer said they met with the Senior Advisory Council and formulated a recommendation to continue operation of the Senior Center as a separate facility because it has better traffic access,better and closer parking spaces,better access in the building and it has accommodations for physical limitations. He said they spent two sessions at the Parks Commission talking about the issue. At their last meeting they recommended to continue operation of the Senior Center as a separate facility and also said this is an issue they would like to be put to rest. Aho noted there was a lot of qualitative study and analysis presented,but he asked if there are any more quantitative results or analysis of costs. Lotthammer said he and Paul Sticha, Facilities Manager, sat down and reviewed the costs. He said squeezing some of the activities into the Community Center would result in extra expenses at the Community Center,but overall it was difficult to see what dollars we would save. Costs and revenues would transfer in some cases, but we might see a drop in revenue because he was not sure all the rentals would come over from the Senior Center. He thought there would be some potential savings but also some increased costs. Nelson said it sounds like the best we could hope for was to move part of the programs and asked if it would be possible to move all the programs to the Community Center and still have room for the current programs and rentals there. Lotthammer said many of the programs at the Senior Center are dependent on the facilities there. There are no kitchen facilities nor is there a wood shop at the Community Center like there is at the Senior Center. Moving all of the Senior Center programs to the Community Center would displace some of the existing Community Center programs. Nelson asked if that means we could not close the Senior Center and reproduce all the senior programs at the Community Center. Lotthammer said we could not move all of them and could not continue them in the same way. Young asked about the staff costs at the Senior Center. Lotthammer said there are two full time people that operate the Senior Center: the Senior Center Coordinator, and an administrative person who supports the facility and the programs. Young asked how much of the staffing costs could be eliminated if the senior services were moved to the Community Center. Lotthammer said we added duties on to the two positions after the last reorganization. If they were located in a different place, CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 16,2009 Page 4 the duties and amount of contact would be very similar to what is happening now. Young asked if we should not assume we would save the full amount of wages if we moved the program. Lotthammer said we would not save the wages as well as the expenses associated with the programs. He said a lot of the $74,000 in facility cost would go away, so that is where the savings would be realized. Young asked about the range of charges for room rentals at the Community Center. Lotthammer said it is $20-$50 per hour. Young asked how many rooms are available for rentals. Lotthammer replied there are four upstairs and two downstairs. Young asked what revenue we achieved last year from room rentals. Lotthammer said we took in about$40,000-$50,000. Young asked if part of the long term goal of the Community Center is to market those rooms. Lotthammer said there are two ways to use those rooms: one is to have our own City programs in there and the revenue for that comes in as programs and isn't reflected in rental dollars; and the second is by private rental of the rooms which gets coded as rental dollars. He said the revenue is probably at about 70% for programs and 30% for rentals. Young asked if one of the positions eliminated recently was in the Parks Department. Lotthammer said that was correct, and some of the scheduling and other duties had to be absorbed by other staff members. Case said it was frustrating to him because the entire issue of what to do with the Senior Center initiated out of a cost savings exercise when he thought it should have started as a discussion of what the community values about the Senior Center. He said we scrutinize the budget for other facilities,but we don't discuss getting rid of those facilities. He thought in a city like ours that is aging and in light of our future demographics we should actually have a Task Force to study how to expand the Senior Center and not discuss how to close it. He wanted to be definitive tonight in our support of the Senior Center. Duckstad said the issue of closing the Senior Center came to us from the BAC, and they help the City try to get through the economic turndown. They took a good hard look at it because they want to do what is best for the taxpayers. It has been a healthy thing to take a good look at it, and we owe a duty to take a look at any issue that comes from our commissions. Nelson said most of the costs continue regardless of where the programs are held, and it sounds like we are maybe spending an additional $10-$14,000 a year to have a Senior Center. The Senior Center really provides a value to the City of Eden Prairie for a large segment of the population. She was in agreement with the conclusion that the Parks & Recreation Commission came up with that the Senior Center provides value, is the right place for the programs, and is cost effective. Young said he agreed with Council Member Nelson's conclusion. He agreed there are some costs to run the facility but also that not all the services and programs could be transferred. He thought the analysis was an exercise worth doing, not only because it was a recommendation from the BAC but also it is incumbent on the CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 16,2009 Page 5 City Council to ask these types of questions. We have to at least have a dialogue to show we are looking into these issues. He thought the Senior Center should stay open and he did not see any value in bringing the issue back. Aho agreed it was good to look at programs and analyze them periodically, and we owe it to our residents to do those reviews. He thought the benefits of keeping the Senior Center open outweigh the small amount of savings that would happen because of closing it. He was also not interested in reviewing this every year; however, a periodic review of all our programs is in order. Young said we don't need a motion on this because all Council Members have made comments and the sentiment is that the Senior Center should stay open. He didn't think the issue will come back to us any time soon. VIII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. APPROVE CONTRACT WITH HTPO FOR REDESIGN OF THE STARING LAKE PARK EAST ENTRY, BALLFIELD RECONSTRUCTION & PARKING LOT ADJACENT TO CUMMINS GRILL HOMESTEAD C. APPROVE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF CHANHASSEN FOR DELL ROAD MILL AND OVERLAY PROJECT D. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2009-38 APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDER ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR FLYING CLOUD DRIVE TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS E. APPROVE ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE PHASE II NPDES STORM WATER PERMIT PROGRAM F. APPROVE ELECTION EQUIPMENT CONTRACT BETWEEN HENNEPIN COUNTY, CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE AND SCHOOL DISTRICT 272 G. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2009-39 DECLARING PROPERTY AS ABANDONED PROPERTY H. APPROVE NEILL LAKE BERM STUDY I. APPROVE AGREEMENT WITH SEH FOR DESIGN ANALYSIS AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR LOWER RILEY CREEK STABILIZATION AND EROSION RESTORATION J. APPROVE FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATION BYLAW CHANGE Regarding Item VIILB., Case said he was concerned that Mr. Gertz was the most knowledgeable person about the configuration of the parking lot. He wanted to CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 16,2009 Page 6 make sure that he or someone else with similar expertise would be in close contact with the designer. Neal said Mr. Gertz was involved with this project for four to five years to put together the design for the parking lot. This was the design that was approved by the City Council, and it is all consistent with that. MOTION: Duckstad moved, seconded by Aho, to approve Items A-J on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS /MEETINGS A. VACATION OF EASEMENTS FOR LOT 12, BLOCK 4, HILLCREST COURTS 2ND ADDITION (RESOLUTION NO. 2009-40) Neal said official notice of this public hearing was published in the May 28, 2009, Eden Prairie News and sent to six property owners. The property owners have requested the vacation of a portion of the drainage and utility easements to correct easement encroachment of their driveway. The driveway still meets the zoning requirements of at least 3 feet from the side lot line so there is no variance required. He noted this is a housekeeping matter. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Duckstad, to close the public hearing and to adopt Resolution No. 2009-40 vacating a portion of the drainage and utility easements lying over, under and across Lot 12, Block 4, Hillcrest Courts 2nd Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Motion carried 5-0. B. T-MOBILE CELLULAR TOWER-EP HIGH SCHOOL by T-Mobile Central LLC. Request for Site Plan Review on 67.33 acres. Location: 17185 Valley View Road. (Resolution No. 2009-41 for Site Plan Review) Neal said official notice of this public hearing was re-published in the June 4, 2009, Eden Prairie News and re-sent to 146 property owners. A proposed 120-foot T- Mobile cellular tower will replace an existing 100-foot light pole on the northeast side of the Eden Prairie High School football field. The light fixture will be reestablished on a new monopole at the 100-foot height with the cellular antennas placed above. The purpose of the site plan review is for a cellular tower greater than 80 feet tall. He said this item has previously been to the City Council,but an error in mailing the public hearing notices for the Planning Commission at its April 27t' meeting caused it to be brought back to the Planning Commission and then back to the City Council tonight. Jeremiah said Mr. Steve Carlson from T-Mobile is here to answer any questions. She noted staff did ask the applicant to explore all the possible alternative locations again with the School District. There were no comments from the audience. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 16,2009 Page 7 MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Case, to close the public hearing and to adopt Resolution No. 2009-41 for site plan review on 67.33 acres. Motion carried 5-0. C. THE RIDGE AT RILEY CREEK 3RD ADDITION by A.J. Rouse, LLC. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 3.4 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 3.4 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the R1-13.5 Zoning District on 3.4 acres and Preliminary Plat of 3.4 acres into two single family lots, one outlot and road right of way. Location: 9820 Sky Lane. (Resolution No. 2009-42 for PUD Concept Review, Resolution No. 2009-43 for Preliminary Plat) Neal said official notice of this public hearing was published in the June 4, 2009, Eden Prairie News and sent to 15 property owners. This is for a two lot single- family development. The plan will require a front yard setback waiver from 59 feet to 30 feet. When 40% or more of a block is developed, the required setback shall be equal to or greater than the average setback of the principle structure on either side. The existing house is setback 88 feet and a 30 foot setback is permitted for the vacant lot to the north. The waiver allows more of the existing trees in the rear yard to be preserved. The 120-Day review period expires on August 18, 2009. The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the project at the May 11, 2009 meeting. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Duckstad moved, seconded by Nelson, to close the public hearing; and to adopt Resolution No. 2009-42 for Planned Unit Development concept review on 3.4 acres; and to approve 1 st Reading of the ordinance for Planned Unit Development district review with waivers, and zoning district amendment from R1- 13.5 on 3.4 acres; and to adopt Resolution 2009-43 for preliminary plat on 3.4 acres into 2 lots, one outlot and road right of way; and to direct staff to prepare a development agreement incorporating staff and commission recommendations and Council conditions. Case said he was very familiar with this lot and asked why we did not take the opportunity to have an easement brought up to our land to protect the trees along the creek since we don't get that opportunity except during redevelopment. He asked why we did not extend it another 20 feet to match the line that we have. Jeremiah said we set aside Outlot A. Case asked if Outlot A was new to them. Jeremiah said Outlot A is being dedicated out of these two parcels, but she did not know why it isn't matching Outlot A to the north. Case said any time we get an opportunity to put land into a conservation easement he would hope we would take advantage of that. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried 5-0. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 16,2009 Page 8 D. PRECIOUS METALS DEALER'S LICENSE APPLICATION Neal said official notice of this public hearing was published in the June 4, 2009, Eden Prairie News and sent to 15 property owners. Wedding Day Diamonds, located at 8320 Crystal View Lane,has applied for a Precious Metal Dealer's license. A public hearing for the issuance of a Precious Metal Dealer's license is required by City Code Section 5.71, Subd. 10. Notice of the public hearing was published in the June 4, 2009 Eden Prairie News and mailed to 15 property owners. A precious metal dealer is defined as any person engaging in the business of buying secondhand items containing precious metal, including, but not limited to,jewelry, watches, eating utensils, candlesticks, and religious and decorative objects. The Police Department has completed background investigations on the owners and the business and recommends approval of this license. He said Chief Reynolds is here tonight to say a few words about why we are doing this and what some of the issues are. Police Chief Reynolds said we go through this process because of the potential of passing stolen items through establishments like this. He said this is an application for a precious metal dealer's license only, not a pawn license. We performed a background investigation of the business which also has a retail store in the Prairie Center area. We checked on their business relations and they are held in high regard. He said all police departments we checked with reported favorable relationships with Wedding Day Diamonds. The Police Department recommends the City Council approve the application for a Precious Metal Dealer's license. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Case, to close the public hearing and to approve the Precious Metal Dealer's license for Marquis Jewelers, Inc, DBA: Wedding Day Diamonds. Motion carried 5-0. X. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Duckstad, to approve the Payment of Claims as submitted. Motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Aho, Case, Duckstad,Nelson and Young voting "aye." XI. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 9.07, RELATING TO DANGEROUS DOGS AND DESTRUCTION OF DOGS Neal said a change in Minnesota statutes necessitated minor revisions to the City Code specifically with respect to the opportunity of a hearing in the designation of a dangerous or potentially dangerous dog. This ordinance reflects the changes in state law. He thought it was important to give a little more information about this ordinance, so he asked Chief Reynolds to make comments about what is changing. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 16,2009 Page 9 Police Chief Reynolds said it is just a slight amendment to the current dangerous dog ordinance to bring it into line with the changes made to the state statute that clarify how the owner could appeal the designation. Aho asked if we have had to use the ordinance in the City. Reynolds said we have. We currently have one dangerous dog in the City and we are comfortable with that one. The owner has taken measures with the dog and it may be that the dog could be re-evaluated to downgrade its status. MOTION: Duckstad moved, seconded by Nelson, to approve the first reading of an ordinance amending City Code Section 9.07, relating to dangerous dogs and destruction of dogs. Motion carried 5-0. XII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS XIII. APPOINTMENTS A. STUDENTS ON COMMISSIONS Neal said we received 15 applications for the 2009-2010 Students on Commission program. Commission Staff Liaisons met to review and discuss the applications. The attached appointment recommendations are based on the students' stated Commission preferences and the quality of their applications. All 15 student applicants are being recommended for appointment. The Fall Students on Commission term is from September 2009 through December 2009. The Winter/Spring term is from January 2010 through April 2010. An orientation session will be held during the late summer. MOTION: Case moved to appoint to the Arts & Culture Commission: Eric Wiig and Renee Roden for the Fall term; Duckstad moved to appoint to the Conservation Commission: Gretchen Askew for the Fall and Winter/Spring terms; Julia Wang and Michelle Wu for the Fall term; and Stephanie Korman for the Winter/Spring term; Aho moved to appoint to the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission: Mehta Tahnay and Sam Clark for the Fall term; Nelson moved to appoint to the Heritage Preservation Commission: Alexis Smith for the Fall Term; Case moved to appoint to the Human Rights and Diversity Commission: Adam Liter for the Fall and Winter/Spring terms; Muna Shire and Ali Fardowsa for the Fall term; and Julia Wang for the Spring term; and Duckstad moved to appoint to the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission: Spencer Lasley and Pranay Rao for the Fall and Winter/Spring Terms; and Richard Ericson for the Fall term. Young seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. XIV. REPORTS A. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS 1. Southwest LRT Alignment Update—Council Member Nelson CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 16,2009 Page 10 Nelson said the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA) has proposed a change to the proposed route of the Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT)between the Golden Triangle and Southwest Station. There were issues about how the route crossed the freeway entrance ramps and the sharp turn crossing Flying Cloud Drive. She said the Technical Advisory Committee met and came to a conclusion about what might have to happen. City staff and Council Member Nelson met with several business owners in the community last week to see what their thoughts were about the potential change. She noted there is a letter from the Chamber of Commerce in front of the Council Members that reflects the discussion at those meetings. The business community preferred the Technology Drive location because they felt that location in connection with some bus transit would keep the light rail line on schedule and would meet the needs of all that area. Jeremiah said the option we have discussed for the past few years was to come into this area from Southwest Transit following Prairie Center Drive and then cutting through near our water tower, Eden Road and up through Flying Cloud Drive. There are a number of issues with that alignment that created difficulties because there are a lot of grades in the area and it would go through several private properties. At the time of the Major Center Area (MCA) study we did have a preference for that alignment because it provides greater walkability and is more central. After a more detailed environmental impact analysis the County raised concerns with the southerly alignment so we looked again at the Technology Drive alignment. With the northerly route there would be $3,000,000 in construction savings and possibly as much as $10,000,000 considering the impact of purchasing additional property. It is also a more direct route and has less of an impact on private property. She thought this is a less risky alignment, although it is a little less desirable from an economic development standpoint. Young asked what the HCRRA needs from us tonight. Jeremiah said the HCRRA is not asking for formal action;however, staff believes it would be helpful to have a motion. The Policy Advisory and Technical Advisory Committees will be asked to make a final decision on a locally-preferred alternative. Staff is very interested in getting the Council's feedback on whether the change makes sense. Young asked if we would be endorsing it as it is presented on the aerial photograph because he was concerned about the issues regarding infringement on the Rosemount and Costco properties. Jeremiah said this is just the first look at how this might work, and there is still a lot of room to look at the details as to whether it is located on the north side of Technology Drive for the entire way and exactly where the station would be located. The Council might also want to put in a contingency to continue working with property owners to mitigate the impact. Young said we should not only work with the property owners but also with the HCRRA so they understand the property owners have some strong objections. He would like to see other options for the northerly alignment. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 16,2009 Page 11 Aho asked if there is anything that is preventing it from being on the north side just north of Costco and Rosemount. Jeremiah said we have not met with Xcel and Gander Mountain so they are not aware of this option; however, we have additional meetings set up for the future. MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Duckstad, that the City of Eden Prairie City Council recommends the northern route along Technology Drive in preference over the southern route, but would also recommend we work with property owners there to come up with the best design that has the least impact on the property owners. Motion carried 5-0. Nelson said she will bring this back to the Policy Advisory Committee when it comes up. 1. Former Council Member Billy Bye—Mayor Young Young said former Council Member Billy Bye passed away recently. On behalf of the City Council,he offered condolences to the family, and noted our usual policy is to lower the flag to half-staff. MOTION: Nelson moved, seconded by Case, to lower the flag on Wednesday, June 17, in memory of former City Council Member Billy Bye. Motion carried 5-0. B. REPORTS OF CITY MANAGER Neal said Governor Pawlenty released his recommendations today on unallotment, and we will be touched by that via the market value homestead credit program. That credit is canceled for us for 2010-2011 which means a loss of$456,414 in 2010 and $511,416 in 2011. We have not depended on these credits for our ongoing operations, but rather have included the money in our capital spending. We will have to reconcile our CIP to reflect that change. Nelson asked if this had an impact on any of the state aid money for the police and fire pension funding. Neal said that is an area where we had some potential vulnerability but we understand at this point that money will not be impacted. 1. City Attorney RFP Process Neal said he would like any thoughts, ideas or concerns from the Council on how we ought to conduct the RFP process this year. In 2006 we did an RFP for both the civil and criminal side of the contract. We had an application, received proposals and had a committee that interviewed applicants and made recommendations back to the Council. During that process we awarded a three-year contract to the Gregerson, Rosow firm and committed that we would do an RFP process again in 2009. He said after CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 16,2009 Page 12 receiving the Council's feedback tonight he will put together a process and bring that back to the Council on July 21. We would then go through the process during the second half of the summer and fall and award the contract sometime this fall. Young thought we should go through the RFP process for both civil and criminal. He didn't think we need to go through the same lengthy process we did last time. He thought it was important that the City Manager and Police Chief interview applicants and pass on information about them to the Council. He thought the applicants' experience in this area is important, but he didn't think we need to get back ranked recommendations. Case said we would probably want some numbers back, but he would want to look at qualitative data as well. He thought we should continue to hear from the Police Department about what they need for prosecutorial services. Nelson said the one piece of data she would like to have in addition to the differences in conviction rates would be the cost per conviction. Aho agreed it would be prudent to review the contract and look at an RFP process on both sides,but also not look at it in as much detail as last time. He thought it should be reviewed by staff rather than having Council Members attend all the meetings. We could then take staff's recommendation along with the numbers. Duckstad agreed we don't have to use a lengthy proceeding and could rely on a recommendation from the City Manager and the Police Chief. He would want to review experience and costs so we have some idea of the cost to the City. Young asked staff to get as much information to the Council as is easily available. He thought a certain level of qualitative information would be important. 2. Status Report on 2009 Capital Improvement Projects and Expenditures Neal said Council Member Duckstad asked staff to put together a report that provides item by item status of capital expenditures from the 2008-2009 budgets. He distributed the report and noted it is organized by the particular fund the projects are paid out of and by project name. He said some projects are two-year projects so there are some 2008 figures. He said the bottom line of the report is that we have $38,800,000 of capital expenditures planned over the two-year period, $18,000,000 of which is in the Pioneer Trail project. Young asked if the $18,000,000 for Pioneer Trail is all our cost. Rodney Rue, Engineering Department, said that is the total cost for the project for the County, Federal, and City governments. Young said we have had other CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 16,2009 Page 13 projects on our CIP list that aren't entirely our expense, and he wanted to make sure that is clear. C. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR D. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR E. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR 1. Riverview Road Repair Options Neal said Mr. Dietz is on vacation so Rick Wahlen, Director of Utilities, will give an update on this item. Rick Wahlen said after the recommendation on Riverview Road at the last City Council meeting staff was asked to investigate the extent of repairs needed to provide an interim solution for Riverview Road. He said the roadway to be repaired between Homeward Hills Road and Sonoma Road is about 1800 feet in length. He said there are two options, the first is to do a reclaim and pave where the road would be milled out six to eight inches down to the base course. That option would make the road like it was when it was new and would cost about$80-90,000. The second option would be cheaper and would not involve milling out,but would not last as long as the first option. The second option would cost about$60-75,000. He said staff recommends the first option as it would be a better, more durable road, and the costs for the two options are actually quite close. He noted the residents obtained another proposal from a different contractor that would cost about $60,000. He said that amount would have to be adjusted for various items the residents' contractor did not include, such as striping, shoulder repair, signage and traffic control, so it comes out to about the same figure. Nelson said she concurred with staff because it doesn't make sense to spend almost the same amount and get less time out of the road. It does seem to be what the neighborhood was discussing, and the costs sound reasonable. Aho concurred with the staff recommendation. Duckstad also agreed with the recommendation. F. REPORT OF POLICE CHIEF G. REPORT OF FIRE CHIEF H. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY XV. OTHER BUSINESS XVI. ADJOURNMENT CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 16,2009 Page 14 MOTION: Duckstad moved, seconded by Case, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. Mayor Young adjourned the meeting at 9:02 PM.