Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 03/23/2010 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2010 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 Gene 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 Cub Scout Pack 497, sponsored by the Eden Prairie AM Rotary, for presenting the colors. III. OPEN PODIUM INVITATION IV. PROCLAMATIONS /PRESENTATIONS A. DWI ENFORCEMENT AWARD Police Chief Reynolds introduced Bob O'Brien, Metropolitan Safe & Sober Law Enforcement Liaison, who said the Eden Prairie Police Department received a grant for$3,000 which they used for intervention technique driving. He noted the award was well deserved by the Police Department. B. EDEN PRAIRIE READS UPDATE Jody Russell, representing Eden Prairie Reads, reviewed their upcoming activities which will include the Eat Local Eden Prairie Fair and a panel discussion of the book,Animal, Vegetable, Miracle, by Barbara Kingsolver. V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS Case added Item XIV.A.1. Neal added Items XIV.B.2 and 3. MOTION: Duckstad moved, seconded by Case, to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried 5-0. VI. MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 23, 2010 Page 2 A. COUNCIL WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010 MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Case, to approve the minutes of the City Council Workshop held Tuesday, March 9, 2010 as published. Motion carried 5-0. B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010 MOTION: Nelson moved, seconded by Aho, to approve the minutes of the City Council Meeting held Tuesday, March 9, 2010 as published. Motion carried 5-0. VII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. ARTS & CULTURE COMMISSION UPDATE Elizabeth Petry-Lee, representing the Arts & Culture Commission, gave a presentation on their 2009 activities and their work plan for 2010. She noted it takes many volunteer hours, donations and grants to support their programs. She said the Friends of the Art Center are involved in fund raising for the Art Center. VIII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2010-24 AUTHORIZING HENNEPIN YOUTH SPORTS GRANT PROGRAM SUBMISSION FOR ROUND LAKE SKATE PARK IMPROVEMENTS C. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2010-25 AUTHORIZING HENNEPIN YOUTH SPORTS GRANT PROGRAM SUBMISSION FOR MILLER PARK BASEBALL AND SOFTBALL FIELD IMPROVEMENTS D. AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR TRAIL OVERLAY ALONG ANDERSON LAKES PARKWAY HOMEWARD HILLS RD.,AND WEST 78 TH(HIGHWAY 5) E. AWARD CONTRACT FOR 2010 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS, I.C. 10-5763 F. AWARD CONTRACT FOR STUDY AREAS 1 AND 2 OF THE LOWER MIN RIVER WATERSHED DISTRICT EROSION STABILIZATION PROJECT TO MACHTEMES CONSTRUCTION, I.C. 07-5698 G. AWARD CONTACT FOR THE 2010 ROTUNDA METAL ROOF REPLACEMENT PROJECT ATOMIC ARCHITECTURAL SHEET METAL H. APPROVE 2009 FUND TRANSFERS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 23, 2010 Page 3 I. APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE GRANT OF EASEMENT AGREEMENT FOR LOT 1 BLOCK 1 CASTLE RIDGE 2ND ADDITION J. APPROVE CONTRACT WITH BERGERSON CASWELL INC. TO UPGRADE MUNICIPAL WELL NO. 8 K. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2010-26 AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION OF EASEMENTS FOR SINGLETREE LANE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT MOTION: Duckstad moved, seconded by Case, to approve Items A-K on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS A. GRACE CHURCH PRELIMINARY PLAT by Grace Church. Request for Preliminary Plat on 57 acres into two lots. Location: 9301 Eden Prairie Road. (Resolution No. 2010-27 for Preliminary Plat) Neal said official notice of this public hearing was published in the March 11, 2010, Eden Prairie News and sent to 48 property owners. The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) wants to buy proposed lot 2. According to the long range plan for the airport,proposed lot 2 is part of the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). Both lots conform to the requirements of the Public Zoning District. The 120-day review period expires on May 12, 2010. The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the project at the March 8, 2010 meeting. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Nelson, to close the public hearing, and to adopt Resolution No. 2010-27 for preliminary plat on 56.5 acres into 2 lots. Motion carried 5-0. B. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 11, SECTION 11.05—HERITAGE PRESERVATION SITES Neal said official notice of this public hearing was published in the March 11, 2010, Eden Prairie News. Part of the 2009 approved work plan for the Heritage Preservation Commission was to review the code on Heritage Preservation Sites (adopted 1990) and determine if amendments should be made. The Director of Community Development presented a report to the City Council relating to proposed changes to the Heritage Preservation Site section of the code on February 15, 2010. The purpose of the code update is to address the following areas. 1. Definitions —The current code has 2 definitions. The proposed code has 25 definitions. 2. Permit Process —The current process requires Heritage Preservation Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council approval before any changes can be made to the exterior of a building. The proposed change would CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 23, 2010 Page 4 allow minor amendments to be reviewed by staff. 3. Removal of a Heritage Preservation Site—The code does not have a process for this. This is needed in case a building is destroyed or damaged by peril. 4. Heritage Preservation Site Alteration Permit—The term has been changed to Certificate of Appropriateness. The process for getting one is unchanged. Neal said the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the code amendment at the January 25, 2010 meeting. The Heritage Preservation Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the code amendment at the December 21, 2009 meeting. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Duckstad moved, seconded by Nelson, to close the public hearing, and to approve 1 st reading of the ordinance amending City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.05 —Heritage Preservation Sites. Young said it would be helpful in the future when we amend an ordinance to have the old ordinance included in the packet as well as the red-lined version. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried 5-0. C. LAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR HENNEPIN VILLAGE SITE B Neal said official notice of this public hearing was published in the March 11, 2010, Eden Prairie News and sent to 281 property owners. A land alteration permit application has been submitted for Hennepin Village Site B to remove approximately 190,000 cubic yards of material from the site with associated tree removal. A development plan called Oak Creek at Hennepin Village was granted preliminary approval by the City Council on September 4, 2007. While this land alteration is not consistent with the approved development plan, it does propose to remove excess material from the site in anticipation of a future development plan on this site. Neal said a public hearing at the Planning Commission was held on February 22, 2010 to consider this land alteration permit. The Planning Commission recommended denial of this permit on a 3-2 vote. However, staff can support approval of this land alteration permit if the conditions outlined in the staff report dated February 22, 2010 and the plans dated February 9, 2010 are followed. A variance is required for the tree replacement in conjunction with the land alteration permit which is a separate council action. Without an imminent development project proceeding on Site B, this land alteration activity could be considered a mining activity. In consideration of recommending approval of this land alteration permit, staff reviewed several key issues related to this permit request including traffic, road maintenance, grading/hauling operations, completion of Eden Prairie Road and Prospect Road, and several environmental concerns. The staff report addresses these issues and recommends conditions to the issuance of the land alteration permit. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 23, 2010 Page 5 Neal said the Planning Commission voted 3-2 to recommend denial of the land alteration permit application at their February 22, 2010, meeting based on the staff report dated February 22, 2010 and plans dated February 9, 2010. The denial seemed to be based on the project being premature (without an approved development plan) and the extent of impacts of a potential three year grading operation. Dan Herbst, representing Pemtom Land Company, reviewed the purpose of the application and gave a Power Point presentation on the history, development and economic implications of the Hennepin Village project. He noted they were one of the few developers in Eden Prairie who dedicated land and paid park fees. Regarding the staff report of February 22, 2010, he said having a $2,000,000 pending special assessment is contrary to precedent in the City. The plan will have minimal impact on the neighbors, and the soils taken from the site will be offered free for public and private projects. There will be additional costs if they have to remove the material at the time of development, and the savings resulting from removing it now could be used to reduce the price of lots and homes developed there. Case felt there was a de facto special assessment coming for the development anyway. Mr. Herbst replied it would not be anywhere near$2,000,000, and could be 50% less than that. Case said the reality is the actual cost would be divided among the participants. Mr. Herbst said the $2,000,000 would be his portion of the assessment, and it would be hard to market the land with that amount of assessment. Case asked why Mr. Herbst did not agree to the option of seeking a continuance to work out the disagreements with the Planning Commission. Mr. Herbst said before the meeting a couple of Planning Commission members called him to say they had potential conflicts of interest, so he decided to go ahead with what he had. Case asked if he was agreeing to minimally restore Eden Prairie Road after the material is taken out. Mr. Herbst said he thought the City has some plans to repair it, and he would either meet or exceed those requirements. Aho asked if Mr. Herbst would wait to do the land alteration until he had a place to put the soil. Mr. Herbst said he would wait until he had a user and would take out only the amount of material someone wanted at the time. Dietz said he recognized Mr. Herbst has been a very responsible developer in the community but he is asking for something that is out of character. In their response staff tried to provide rationale for what could be the benefit to the City of approval. He said the two most important things going on in the neighborhood are Eden Prairie Road and Prospect Road. Site B would be the catalyst for what happens to those two roads. We have gone through a very exhaustive process on how to do Eden Prairie Road, and we need to have Prospect Road in place before that can happen. He said we are working on a feasibility study but it isn't ready yet. MAC has some additional possibilities for development of their land. He didn't think the cost of the roadway is too arguable,but how we divide it up will be the basis for CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 23, 2010 Page 6 discussion. Until we have rationale for dividing the cost, it is premature to send information to the neighborhood about what their costs will be. Mr. Herbst got preliminary approval through the process, and the not-to-exceed assessment was $1,750,000. It is clear it will be what it is going to be, and that site is really not developable without utilities and road improvements. Unfortunately, the law changed about ten years ago so that we have a not-to-exceed assessment cap. Staff tried to create some important conditions of why to approve the project. We recognize that a lot of what Mr. Herbst says is accurate, and we believe his numbers are accurate. Young asked if the special assessment is based on the preliminary feasibility study. Dietz said we worked on that a couple of years ago but didn't formalize it because the project languished. We are now working on it again. Young asked if it was presented to Mr. Herbst or others at that time. Dietz said he wasn't sure. Young asked if there are other milestones for the development of this site that would provide an opportunity to impose a special assessment against it. Dietz said they gained preliminary approval of the Oak Ridge project which included a special assessment in the developer's agreement, but that agreement was never signed. Young asked if the City anticipates that site B will be developed and at that time we would have the opportunity to have a special assessment included in the developer's agreement. Dietz said there are some ownership issues on the Wuttke property. We would like to have a special assessment agreement in place for the big players in this so we can move the project ahead when it is appropriate to do so. Young asked if the catalyst for Eden Prairie Road might be the development of the Wuttke property. Dietz said that is possible. Duckstad said the packet material stated the Planning Commission looked at this, and they believed it would be premature to grant the permit because there is no approved development plan at the present time. He asked why the commission would be right or wrong about that. Dietz replied the Planning Commission was saying we do not have a signed developer's agreement for something that will move ahead for sure. With the market Mr. Herbst described, we don't know what that project will be. He noted historically we have always had a development that was imminent and had proper bonding before we moved ahead with grading. The marketing issue notwithstanding, Case said he was not sure why the City or Mr. Herbst is concerned now about what will be algorithmically derived down the road. Dietz said he assumed Mr. Herbst was concerned the actual assessment might not be $2,000,000, and the value of the land will probably be reduced by the special assessment that would be set now. He said from our perspective it is important that we have some control over this, and it is important to the neighborhood to get the roads constructed. The Prospect Road project is intended to be fully funded by Site B. Eden Prairie Road will be funded by the costs determined by the feasibility study and will be divided by the number of benefitting units in the neighborhood. Case said he was not hearing we are losing our leverage down the road. Dietz said if Mr. Herbst is the developer of Site B we won't lose the leverage,but if he sells CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 23, 2010 Page 7 the property and the new owner doesn't have the same understanding of what was received for all of Hennepin Village, then we might lose leverage. Young asked if whoever owns Site B ultimately has financial responsibility for Prospect Road as part of the 2002 agreement. Dietz said there is no special assessment regarding that. Prospect Road was there when the project was conceived, and it was a burden on the entire 250 acre development so there might be some difficulties if we narrow the scope to 20 acres. Young said whoever wants to develop Site B needs to negotiate the developer's agreement with us,but he was hearing the only way we could lose leverage is if Site B is no longer considered the catalyst for the improvement of Eden Prairie Road. Dietz noted Prospect Road is about a $600,000-800,000 project. Nelson asked if it was absolutely essential that all the soil be taken off the land. Dietz said it probably is,but we don't know what the final product will be. Without a final plan that is going to development, we don't know if it is essential. That is the reason we have had a history in Eden Prairie of not approving a grading plan until we have a finalized development plan. Nelson noted they would take out a significant portion of mature hardwood trees that can be very valuable to the site for certain types of development. Dietz said the concept for this was single family or detached townhouses. It would be very difficult to get that kind of development put in without taking out at least the amount of trees Mr. Herbst plans,but the question is whether that will be the project. Nelson asked if there is any way to require a percentage of the existing Hennepin Village that has already been built to be the amount required for Prospect Road. Dietz said Site A built Prospect Road between the creek and Spring Road and Sites C and D built Charlson Road between Spring Road and Hwy 212. Getting utilities to Sites A, C and D was a very expensive proposition. What made it so difficult is the location of the neighborhood on the bluff line and along the creek. It is a difficult proposition to grade that area sensitively and it is expensive to develop that area. We are not arguing about doing this grade,but there may be some desirable quid pro quo in order to allow it. Rosow said the Council's ability to make any sort of extractions under a development agreement is largely contingent on the type of proposal. There are variances that are requested and, in exchange for the Council's giving those variances, the Council can require things they believe are in the City's best interests. The City's ability to extract a special assessment agreement would be lost if a development proposal came in that did not require variances. Young opened the public hearing, noting Council Members have read the emails from the neighborhood so comments should be limited to three minutes. Barron Johnson, 10065 Eden Prairie Road, said he is at the far south end of the proposed grading. He said he understood this is a business transaction and he also understood the City has had a policy that generally goes against this type of grading. He said Eden Prairie Road is in very poor repair and he would like to see it CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 23, 2010 Page 8 fixed. He can only imagine how this grading project would destroy what is there. He noted housing starts are down dramatically, sales are down, and it will be a long time before the real estate market recovers. He thought the request is premature. The assessment is another issue, and the residents don't want an assessment on their property. The amount of grading to be done is huge, and there will be thousands of trees lost. Mike Boland, 13579 Berkshire Lane, said the staff report referred to the proposed activity in the area as resembling mining activity, and he thought a mining permit would have been far more appropriate for this activity. We are being asked to set a new and dangerous precedent that would allow mining under the land alteration and grading permit without the restrictions of mining permits and best management practices. The land alteration permit would allow mining from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM Monday through Friday and 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM Saturday. It would be done without a formal development plan for the site and that would set a precedent. He thought the heavily loaded trucks would damage the roads and shorten their life, and he asked who would pay to fix the roads ten years from now. He did not know how this project benefits the citizens of Eden Prairie. Jack Rhode, 15859 Porchlight Lane, President of the Hennepin Village Master Association, said a mining permit such as this before a development has been approved is wrong. There are builders out there that are in bankruptcy or in difficult financial conditions. He thought the whole Site B should be reconsidered by the City Council. There is nothing in the discussions about what is good for the citizens of Eden Prairie because there is no benefit to the residents around there. Dean Edstrom, 10133 Eden Prairie Road, said his property is located 100 yards south of the site. He thought the City has generally had a policy for the last 30 years or so to not allow grading or mining in advance of a development in hand. There really is no imminent development going in there, and nothing is going to happen very quickly. He thought it is a poor idea to allow material to be removed in advance of a real project, and it may preclude a new project. Jim Jorgenson, 15590 Junegrass Lane, said he wants to be able to take his children to the playground and swimming pool without hearing dump trucks every day and having the road wrecked. He didn't understand why this issue was brought up without a specific plan for development. Keith Johnson, 15553 Lilac Drive, asked why the City would go ahead with the project with zero potential plans on the table right now. The residential real estate market is not coming back for a long time and commercial real estate is crashing so he did not know why we are considering this project. A woman who lives in the area said the mining and cutting of trees will decrease the property values, and they have many foreclosures in the neighborhood now. Prospect Road construction there doesn't make any sense. She was also concerned about the environmental impact from the tree loss in the City. She asked the Council to deny the request and reconsider the Site B plan. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 23, 2010 Page 9 Molly Glover, 15738 Porchlight Lane, said the proposed construction is too much and she was very concerned about pot holes and damage from rocks on the bad roads. Mark Sonstegard, representing Ryland Homes, said he is the land development manager who might be the one on site working this development with City staff, the State, the Watershed District, the residents and the contractors. He said every site plan he has seen for this site requires a significant amount of fill to be removed. He said the cost to remove the fill at the time of development would be $1,000,000 or more, and the cost to develop Site B is around $5,300,000. This request saves Mr. Herbst some money and also stimulates development in the area. He thought the environmental concerns will be the same either way it is done,but it is easier and less of an impact on the development if we remove the dirt first and worry about development second. Jeff Schoenwetter, 9750 Sky Lane, said it is not a question of if this will be graded some day but when. He thought the time to grade is now, and it will be nearer term to development if it is graded. Eden Prairie currently is not getting its fair share of building permits because of the cost to live here. Pemtom needs to move the project forward to keep costs practical, and we should be looking at affordable homes. Jose Blanco, 9982 Wildflower Drive, said he was a new resident and he didn't want the development. He has seen how much damage uncontrolled development can do in his native country. He was concerned about erosion if they cut trees and the area is destroyed without considering the impact on future generations. Nancy Paleka, 15600 Lilac Drive, said she has seen the damage that occurred from the airport project. They are having difficulty selling what they have already built and are lowering prices drastically. There have been foreclosures and non-payment of dues in the neighborhood. She saw the deforestation done around the airport and could only imagine what will happen when they start this project. John Link, 9756 Cupola Lane, noted almost everyone at the meeting tonight is against this. It comes down to the Council voting with the citizens or with the developer. David Carroll, 9776 Cupola Lane, said one of the problems with the economics of developing Site B is the cost of Prospect Road. There are alternatives to Prospect Road. He recommended the permit be denied and a real estate assessment of the emergency service road across MAC property be made. MOTION: Duckstad moved, seconded by Aho, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. Mayor Young called a break at 9:00 PM. He reconvened the meeting at 9:10 PM. Dan Herbst said there is no question this is one of the premier sites left in the Eden Prairie,but right now may not be the best time to do this grading. Although he CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 23, 2010 Page 10 thought it would be better to do the grading now, it would be good to table this for a short time. Rosow asked if Mr. Herbst's request also included withdrawing the variance request in Item XII.A. Mr. Herbst said it did. MOTION: Nelson moved, seconded by Case, to accept the withdrawal of the request for land alteration permit and the withdrawal of the appeal of variance #2009-14. Motion carried 5-0. X. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Duckstad moved, seconded by Aho, 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 XII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. APPEAL OF VARIANCE#2009-14 by Pemtom Land Company. Location: 9735 Eden Prairie Road. The appeal was withdrawn. (See Item IX.C.) XIII. APPOINTMENTS XIV. REPORTS A. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS 1. Sisn Ordinance— Council Member Case Case said he was concerned that our sign ordinance prevents the City from posting a sign advertising any of our own events. He asked if there could be some exception made to help the City and non-profit organizations to sign their activities. He asked if it would be appropriate to have staff look at how the sign ordinance could be written to allow one or two day activities for the City and define it so that non-profits could also sign their activities. He noted the signs are usually posted anyway, and we overlook it. Young asked if that is a distinction we could make. Rosow said the sign ordinance was amended a few years back when we had a challenge. Those issues were considered by both his and Mr. Baker's office. There have not been any changes in the law. The sign ordinance was written to conform to the constitutional ordinance, and he doubted we could amend the ordinance to favor non-profits across the boards. He thought there may be some interim measure that can be adopted but it could not be extended just to non-profits. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 23, 2010 Page 11 Nelson asked if it was possible to do something that allowed a special permit to be requested for a short period of time for City-wide events, similar to our special liquor permits. Young thought we can't discriminate between non-profits and profits. Nelson thought we would define it as a special City-wide event. Neal said staff can examine the issue, consult with legal counsel, and report back. B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER 1. Annual Performance Review Neal said it is time to plan for his annual performance review, and there is an item in the Council packets giving some options. He noted there is a substantial break between this meeting and the next one on April 20, so he was looking for direction or preference on how the Council would like to do the 2010 review. Case said Mr. Brull has been part of the annual review for a number of years, and he was happy with the way Mr. Brull has done it and with the information he provided. Young said he liked getting the information but was not set on any method of compiling it. He didn't know what other options we have to get the data we need as we are close to the deadline. He would like to find a way to do it ourselves and not get Mr. Brull's in-person analysis of it. Duckstad agreed that we should try to do some of it ourselves which would limit the cost. Aho said in this particular case it is a little difficult for someone internally on staff to do it because all staff members that would be providing input would be either direct reports or reports of Mr. Neal. He thought we need to have someone come in from the outside provide the information,but we may be able to negotiate a different rate or have someone else do it. At this point he didn't think we have time to start doing it ourselves, so he thought we should utilize the services this time and look at other options for future reports. Nelson agreed about using someone from outside. If we are going to do it ourselves, it would have to be done by the City Council Members. We would need to take the materials and compile them. She was not sure that is a better way to do it, and the way we have done it in the past doesn't seem to be a huge cost. She didn't think there is time to do it ourselves this year. Young asked if we would get a different rate from him if we dispense with a physical meeting with him and just have his office do the data compilation. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 23, 2010 Page 12 Neal said he has not talked to him about that,but he thought that might be true. 2. Yellow Ribbon Community Neal said he brought back information on this initiative from last week's meeting that Chief Reynolds and he attended. He said they are looking for someone who might be interested in serving as the community coordinator of this. Their goal is to make the community more soldier and soldier- family friendly. Governor Pawlenty has been promoting this. Nelson asked if we have any idea how many families in the City have someone serving overseas. Neal said that is considered confidential information so they won't give us names or numbers. 3. Update on Preliminary 2009 Audit Results Neal said we built a deficit of$1,250,000 into our 2009 operating budget, but so far the preliminary figures show we did not have an operating deficit and, in fact,had a positive balance. There was a little bit of good fortune and a lot of hard work to achieve that result. The May 2009 actions to reduce the work force played into the numbers but we also under spent the budget by $780,000. In 2008 we spent 98.4% of our General Fund, but in 2009 we spent only 97.9%. We also had a tax collection rate of 100.4%, which came about from collecting delinquent taxes from previous years. There was $600,000 more in user fee revenue, primarily driven by strong revenues at the Community Center. C. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR D. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR E. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR 1. Resolution No. 2010-28 AcknowledOns! Phased Improvements of the I- 494/TH 169 Interchange Dietz said the funding is together for the I-494/TH 169 interchange improvements. He said the performance design has savings of$30,000,000 as a result of changes made to the policy design. He displayed a drawing of the performance design, noting two ramps were taken out of the equation and there will be several roundabouts in place of signals. Case asked if the East Bound 494 to North Bound 169 ramp would be built if money became available. Dietz said that was correct,but traffic movements in that direction are very limited. That traffic would probably have Valley View Road as a destination and there will be an alternate access to Valley View with a new bridge at Washington Avenue. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 23, 2010 Page 13 Dietz said Mn/DOT changed the Valley View/Hwy 169 interchange because they thought it was over-designed. They now propose to just widen some of the approaches. He said staff doesn't think this is a good long-term solution for the intersection,but we have no way to prove it. They have agreed to postpone that and made a commitment to look at the interchange after the project is built to see what the traffic patterns are. He reviewed the cost for the project and said construction is expected to begin in the spring of 2011. Aho thanked everyone for all their hard work on the project and noted many communities are really thrilled to see this project come to fruition. MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Case, to adopt Resolution No. 2010- 28 acknowledging the phased improvements of the I-494/TH 169 interchange. Motion carried 5-0. 2. Resolution No. 2010-29 Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for Sin0etree Lane Improvement Project Dietz said the resolution is to approve plans, specifications and authorization to go to bid for the Singletree Lane project. In January 2006 the City Council approved a Major Center Area (MCA) study which looked at how to coordinate a public sector and a private sector investment in the MCA to promote and enhance development. A streetscape master plan was finished about a year ago. With those design elements we went ahead with the final design of Singletree Lane. In the middle of the process the Windsor Plaza project was approved in September 2007. As part of the developer's agreement for Windsor Plaza we obtained a special assessment agreement to pay $1,175,000 for the project. He reviewed the details of the road project and the streetscape design. He noted part of the agreement with Windsor Plaza was that the north side of Singletree Lane became the responsibility of the City. He said the City's share of the costs will be $445,000 including back of the curb and right of way costs. He thought we are going to have a good bidding climate. Young asked what is captured by the back of the curb costs of$230,000 on the north side. Dietz said it is the cost of the sidewalk, trees, seeding the area, and six street lights. Young asked if we will pay for any balance above the maximum assessment for the other portion of the project. Dietz said that is possible. Young asked what the difference would be to finish it with our conventional streetscape. Dietz estimated it would reduce the $230,000 by 30-40%. The street lights would need to be put in place, and those are fairly significant items. Young asked if something needs to happen on the north side no matter what. Dietz said we have to have the sidewalk and the lights and we tried to limit how much we did. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 23, 2010 Page 14 Young said he will not support a lot of projects that are aesthetic this year, and this is not a year during which he wants to implement streetscape plans. Dietz said there won't be a lot of projects coming through and, were it not for the agreement we made with the Windsor Plaza developer, we probably wouldn't want to do this one now. Duckstad asked why people who develop on the north side of the street would not be assessed for the improvements the City provides. Dietz said we could try that,but he thought the likelihood of sustaining an assessment against Bremer Bank is not high, and most of the work we would have some discretion on is in the Bremer Bank area. Nelson thought we have reason to go in at a modest cost to keep up our end of the agreement when we have a developer that comes into an area and puts in that kind of money. We may have more of an opportunity to develop our site at the former KinderCare by doing this. She thought it looks like a good plan, and it will be a nice entrance to the area. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Aho, to adopt Resolution No. 2010- 29 approving plans and specifications and ordering advertisement for bids for I.C. 07-5690, Singletree Lane Improvement Project. Motion carried 5- 0. F. REPORT OF POLICE CHIEF G. REPORT OF FIRE CHIEF H. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY XV. OTHER BUSINESS XVI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Duckstad moved, seconded by Nelson, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. Mayor Young adjourned the meeting at 10:07 PM.