HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-25-14 WSCITY OF LAKEVILLE
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES
Monday, August 25, 2014
Mayor Little called the meeting to order at 5:38 p.m. in the Marion Conference Room at City Hall.
1. Roll Call:
Members Present: Council Members Swecker, LaBeau, Anderson, and Davis, and Mayor Little
Staff Present: Allyn Kuennen, Interim City Administrator, Dennis Feller, Finance Director, Julie Werner,
Senior Accountant, Tom Nesseth, Senior Accountant; Chris Petree, Public Works Director; Brett
Altergott, Parks and Recreation Director; Daryl Morey, Planning Director, Mike Meyer, Fire Chief, Jeff
Long, Police Chief, John Kornmann, Deputy Chief, Dave Olson, Community & Economic Development
Director,; Cindi Joosten, HR Manager; and Judi Hawkins, Deputy City Clerk
2. Citizen Comments
There were no citizen comments.
3. Change Order Policy
Allyn Kuennen introduced proposed modifications to the Change Order Policy as discussed by Council
at a previous work session. The revised policy would standardize the way change orders are processed
by staff in order to expedite improvement projects in the event of unforeseen circumstances. Chris
Petree highlighted several conditions outlined in the policy that would warrant a change order. The
resolution proposes that upon verification of available funding, department heads and their direct
reports may approve change orders within the budgeted contingency, or up to 10% of the contract
amount if a contingency is not available. A change order in excess of the budgeted contingency or
10% of the contact amount could also be approved when the impacts of not doing so would adversely
affect the community's quality of life or when it would be financially beneficial to the City to proceed
rather than wait for Council approval. City staff would not be authorized to approve supplemental
agreements and Council approval would continue to be required for all other change orders.
Petree provided examples of how this policy change applies in situations when it is necessary to
respond to circumstances encountered during improvement projects. Situations might include
necessary changes in project scope, soil corrections, projects that are time and/or cost sensitive, etc.
With the proposed change order policy in place, staff would be authorized to work within the
budgeted amounts and within certain guidelines to insure that projects continue to move forward
most efficiently. The budgeted contingency is typically 5-10% of the project.
Anderson believes the concept is good; however, it is important to consider what level of personnel
should be given the decision-making authority on change orders. He suggested that the authority
should come from department directors and not "direct reports" if it within the contingency in order to
hold the project management team accountable. A more defined leadership structure needs to be in
place. He also questioned how the determination would be made for when the situation warrants an
immediate change order. He suggested including a provision to allow the City Administrator the final
decision-making authority, or the Council could call a special meeting if necessary. Petree stated that
current practice is to notify and seek approval from the City Administrator when it is not feasible for
the change order to be brought to Council. The Change Order Policy would be reflected in the City's
public works policies and incorporated into contract documents drafted by the City Attorney.
City of Lakeville
Council Work Session Minutes - August 25, 2014
Page -2-
Swecker agreed that only department directors and not direct reports should be allowed decision
making authority, as long as change orders are within the budget. She also supports City
Administrator involvement in change orders that exceed a certain dollar amount. Petree stated that is
current procedure and the resolution would formalize that practice in a written policy. Davis
suggested having both the department director and the City Administrator sign off if the change order
exceeds a certain dollar amount rather than a percentage of the project. Petree suggested inserting
"and/or" criteria for either a specific dollar amount or percentage of the project to determine approval
authority based on the significance of the change order.
LaBeau stated that a recent change order had come through for Council approval after the work was
completed. Petree stated that in this instance significant changes were necessary in field conditions
and project scope and additional work was needed; it was not realistic to stop work for approval of the
change order. LaBeau asked that Council be informed of change orders so they are aware of changes
to the final project payments and asked if use of the contingency would affect the property owners'
assessment. Petree stated that a 5% contingency is built into the estimated assessment.
Anderson believes clarity is needed to determine both the percentage and/or dollar amount in
addition to decision making authority. He suggested under "Procedure, 1.b." in the resolution
including "Up to 5% of the contract amount" and up to a certain dollar amount to be consistent with
current practice. Petree stated that with smaller projects a 5% contingency might not be adequate;
10% of the contract amount is consistent with other communities. Applying a percentage would be
more consistent than a dollar amount. Anderson suggested that for projects with a 5% contingency,
department heads would have the authority to approve change orders; if the contingency is 10% or if
quality of life is affected, the City Administrator's authorization would be required. Davis suggested a
10% contingency and a maximum of $50,000. LaBeau would like to replace the term "quality of life"
with something that reflects an inconvenient situation rather than an emergency.
Council agreed on the following three -tiered structure:
1. Department heads are authorized to approve change orders which are within the 5% budgeted
contingency, and
2. City Administrator approval is required if the change order is between 5% and 10% of the project
amount, up to a maximum of $50,000; and
3. A change order exceeding 10% of the project could be brought before the City Council for
consideration or approved by the City Administrator in the event of urgent circumstances such as
public safety concerns or adverse fiscal impacts.
Council directed staff to redraft the resolution for consideration at the next regular Council meeting
and requested staff provide regular updates on any change orders.
4. Heritage Center Skylight Replacement project
Chris Petree stated that the Heritage Center skylight replacement project was tabled at the last Council
meeting to provide an opportunity to evaluate alternatives. Current skylights around the multi-
purpose room were installed when the building was built in 1985. They are leaking and delaminating
and cannot be resurfaced and resealed to extend their life. Panels were scheduled for replacement in
2015 but the project was brought forward to 2014 due to serious water leaks. They have been
repaired several times and are no longer able to be caulked. The original estimate for replacement was
City of Lakeville
Council Work Session Minutes - August 25, 2014
Page -3-
$67,000 but it was determined that panels of the same size are no longer manufactured. A different
size panel will be needed and will require a modified support system and additional roof work. Some
interior sheetrock work will also be needed as part of the project. The project was redesigned and
rebid at a cost of $96,000, plus engineering.
Staff met on site with roofing contractor Inspec who presented three possible alternatives:
1) Replace the existing skylight panels with solid panels to act as a roof,
2) Buildup the sidewalls and install new trusses to maintain the current roofline; or
3) Lower the roof and install new trusses to make it level with the surrounding flat roof.
The skylights provide needed natural light in the atrium of the Heritage Center.
A local contractor recommended Inspect's option #2 and will provide a basic cost estimate. He also
recommended using a structural engineer and a roofing consultant for the project design. Inspec will
provide an estimate of costs for each option and prepare a proposal at Council's direction.
Staff will provide additional information to City Council when it is available.
5. 2015-15 Budget Review
City Council was presented with a Potential 2015 Budget at their August 11 work session. Dennis
Feller stated that staff has addressed several comments and questions by City Council and prioritized
tax levy line items. The prioritization is based on community survey responses, five year CIP, and
recommendations and conclusions of the five-year financial projections. From that information, three
basic guiding principles were established: 1) maintain service levels at their present level; 2) provide
adequate resources to serve new residents and new businesses; and 3) establish a long term plan to
maintain infrastructure. At Council's direction several items have been removed from the tax levy
prioritization list including: Kenrick Avenue roundabout landscaping, mowing of boulevards adjacent
to County roads, an urban service study, , and a facility attendant for the Arts Center and Heritage
Center. That position will be discussed as part of the business plan being prepared by the Parks and
Recreation Director.
The total estimated tax levy is $25,442,848, and consists of three components: Operations, Street
Reconstruction, and Infrastructure. This reflects a 7.5% overall property tax levy increase. With
adjustments for growth and the increase in the tax base from Tax Increment Financing (TIF) the net is a
4% increase. Of that increase, 2.7% is for operations, 1.1% is for street reconstruction, and 0.2% is for
infrastructure, including pavement management, facilities, parks, trails, and equipment. The 2015 tax
levy on a median value home of $245,000 would be a $942, or a $55 increase. Of that increase $37 is
contributed to operations, $15 is for street reconstruction and $3 is to maintain infrastructure. Surveys
show that the primary factor in determining where to live or purchase a home is proximity to work,
and a majority of Lakeville residents commute to the north. Compared to 14 cities of similar size,
growth, and demographics only four have a lower tax levy. Lakeville's three bordering cities of
Farmington, Apple Valley and Burnsville are $512, $183 and $109 higher, respectively. The four
comparable cities with a lower tax levy have more commercial properties. A spreadsheet is being
prepared by staff to illustrate per capita city employees in all departments and positions.
Feller discussed the following budget adjustments which have been made since the August 11 work
session: Contingency, $105,000; Finance Open.Gov, ($9,500), Recreation Software, $9,453 (reduces
operating costs); Residential Survey, $20,000 to be paid with Communication revenues; Fire Relief,
City of Lakeville
Council Work Session Minutes - August 25, 2014
Page -4-
($60,000) replaced with State Aid allotment, Deep Tine Aerator, $24,832; Pavement Management,
($68,850); Fire #4 heating system, $4,225 (increase in estimate); Heritage skylights, $108,000 (estimate);
Parks Survey, $15,000 (to help define park referendum) to be paid from Park Improvement Fund; Parks
- facility, $117,000 (Antlers Park enhancements). $8,500 has been added to the budget for the City's
share of software upgrade for the LED sign at Ipava and CSAH 50 due to technology no longer being
supported by Windows. Morey stated that the signs at Ames Arena and the Arts Center are regulated
differently than commercial LED changing signs because there was no ordinance in place when they
were approved. Little asked if there could be a discussion with the school district regarding what
other options might be available. Also being requested in the budget is an upgrade to the CMF gate
controller so that the gas pumps can be accessed using employee ID badge technology.
Staff provided responses to several questions posed by Council at the August 11 budget meeting:
Per capita spending: According to the MN State Auditor's office, Lakeville'sper capita current
expenditures ranks 54`h out of 55 largest cities.
Fund balance: The City's fund balance has been within 40-50% of next year's budget expenditures of
the General Fund for most of the last six years. Anderson asked if the per capita calculation is
influenced by how much industry and commercial businesses are in the city, and if a city with higher
number of commercial properties would then have a high per capita cost. Feller stated that there are
businesses that could drive higher expenditures, such as shopping malls requiring additional police
services, which would increase per capita costs. The Minnesota property tax system is structured so
that commercial/industrial properties pay more than residential. Residential properties in cities with a
higher tax base will pay a lower tax rate. Anderson believes this does not necessarily equate to
efficiency. Little believes the figures show that Lakeville is doing better than most cities.
Fees collected for volunteer Police Reserves: Police Dept. staff is recommending charging $25 per
hour for police reserve services at non -city events. Council had asked if that was a risk to the City, how
much could be charged for a volunteer, and whether they would then need to be compensated by the
City. The City Attorney advised that there are no legal issues or risks with the City receiving fees for
services provided by volunteers. Nominal fees may be charged to cover the City's direct out of pocket
expenditures such as uniforms, gas, equipment, etc., comparing fees to what would be charged for a
regular employee. LaBeau asked about Reserves' assignments and in what circumstance the fees
would be charged. Deputy Chief Kornmann stated that Reserves are used as supplemental assistance
in conjunction with regular patrol officers, but never work alone. Swecker asked if fees would pertain
to the school district, Chief Long said he would consider charging for security at football and hockey
games, if the Reserves are requested by the school.
At the last budget session Council requested Chief Long look at possibly creating a traffic control unit
for additional traffic enforcement. Long stated that such a program would not be self-supporting after
City Attorney prosecution fees and administrative costs are taken out of the City's revenue from a
citation. The annual cost for a full time officer to conduct traffic enforcement would be approximately
$79,000. Chief Long is suggesting voluntary overtime with an annual budget of $20,000 to help
alleviate problems during morning and evening rush hours. Long reminded Council that the average
cost per call for using the DCC is $28. Feller added that all cost allocations to the DCC are returned to
the jurisdictions based on the number of CAD calls. Little suggested there be an opportunity for
residents to visit the City's website to express concerns about problem traffic areas.
Chief Long had also gathered information regarding what other communities are charging for false
alarms on security systems. The intent is to create responsible alarm users; however, Council was
City of Lakeville
Council Work Session Minutes - August 25, 2014
Page -5-
concerned that people would not use their alarms as effectively as possible. Long is recommending
fees for the second false alarm per year as that gives people time to correct a problem. The goal is also
to use police resources most responsibly. Approximately 99.5% of alarms are false. Swecker asked if
chronic false alarms come more frequently from residences or businesses. Long stated that frequent
personnel changes cause businesses to have the most false alarms. Swecker suggested a different fee
structure. Long believes a good education effort would help and stated that the actual cost is
approximately $68 per alarm including the $28 DCC fee and salary for two officers. Little asked if the
business or resident would have an opportunity to dispute the fees. Feller stated any charge incurred
from the City can be disputed. Long will prepare some criteria for incurring false alarm charges.
Following a break, Little reminded Council that the purpose of this meeting is to set a maximum
preliminary tax levy number and to consider items that are in the prioritization list.
Dave Olson stated that one of the top goals of the Strategic Plan was the creation of high skill/high
wage jobs, and to identify target markets that would include companies to help achieve that goal. A
target market study was included in the original proposed 2015 budget to help achieve that goal. This
will be discussed with the EDC at their next meeting; however, staff is recommending removal of this
item from the 2015 budget due to completion of a study by Greater MSP and the Humphrey Institute
at the U of M that has identified the Twin Cities target markets and access to those results. If additional
work is recommended by Council grant funds will be sought. LaBeau stated that she appreciates
exploring grants and would like staff to continue to look for those opportunities. Previous work was
intended to generally market the City and raise awareness of the community. Staff will continue to
keep Council informed of any marketing results.
At the last work session a discussion was held about the structure and time line of a possible parks
referendum. The first component is the process of preparing for the referendum including public
involvement, next is referendum development, working with Council, and committees; then
distribution of information. The process is estimated to take up to three years and will cost about
$30,000 if it is put to a vote in a nonelection year. Swecker asked if it would be feasible to streamline
the process with the 2016 ballot in mind. Little believes there is a lot of information to be gathered
before the need for a referendum is determined. Anderson added that he doesn't want to move too
fast, it is important to be prudent while making decisions. LaBeau suggested discontinuing scheduled
automatic replacements of equipment while determining what really needs to be replaced. Altergott
stated that the most important factor is safety, however, if the equipment gets too old, it becomes
difficult and cost prohibitive to obtain parts. Timing is also important so everything doesn't need to be
replaced in the same year.
Staff worked with the original Land of Amazement contractor in 2013 to determine if the structure
could be repaired or is at the end of its life. The playground has been heavily used over the past 22
years and the consultant is recommending full replacement at an estimated cost of $300,000. Staff will
begin looking at options this fall.
Council received historical data and demographics on ice rink service areas. Population numbers still
need to be received from the Brandtjen Farms neighborhoods and from ISD 192. Demographic
information is still coming in from the school districts. Altergott stated that many students who live in
the Quail Meadows ISD 196 neighborhood have used open enrollment in order to attend North Trail
Elementary in ISD 192 due to its proximity to their neighborhood. Little asked what the cost would be
to get Highview Heights usable and what would be the expected life. Altergott stated that there are
City of Lakeville
Council Work Session Minutes -August 25, 2014
Page -6-
several projects involved including installing a gravel base, drain tile, and a retaining wall and the cost
would be approximately $23,000. Learn to skate programs are held at the arenas and registration fees
cover the rental costs. Little stated that with Bunker Hill Park closed he is not ready to close Highview
Heights rink also. Consideration needs to be given to providing service to all school districts. When
people purchase homes in a neighborhood with a rink, there is an expectation that the rink will be
open. LaBeau stated that even if demographics show a large number of students, it's the attendance
number at the rink that actually counts. Altergott will provide attendance counts for Highview Heights
rink. He stated that with the below standard ice conditions it's not the most popular site. By making
needed improvements, the quality of the ice and the skaters' experience would be greatly improved.
Swecker stated that reopening rinks needs to be the right decision for the long term. Staff will provide
the information to the Parks & Rec Committee also and schedule a joint meeting.
Daryl Morey stated that the Zoning Enforcement Technician position was previously part of the
Planning Department but was eliminated in 2008 as part of the budget cuts; duties were disbursed
among Planning, Building Inspections, and the Police Dept. With increased development a 16 -hour
per week staff member was contracted with WSB for five month to conduct code enforcement and
zoning permits for such things as fences, pools and sheds. Morey is asking for this position to be
reinstated as a full time position in spring of 2016 to follow up on permits and assist with planning and
zoning duties. $22,000 is budgeted for 2015 which would cover either the WSB contracted employee
or a part time City employee, with Planning and Building staff picking up other duties. Failure to fill
this position would result in a reduced level of zoning enforcement and inadequate time to be
proactive. The busiest months for zoning permits and enforcement are April through October.
Council members asked if there was an opportunity to share the position with other departments,
possibly assisting the Building Inspections Dept. with aging permits. These inspections were
previously done by building inspectors; however they have overload of duties.
New Personnel: Feller stated that five-year staffing projections by all departments show the greatest
increase in 2015, resulting in a tax increase. Staff is recommending staging new positions over a 2 -year
period for affordability and to allow the cost to be absorbed by growth.
A line by line prioritization of the Tax Levy was prepared by the Finance Department highlighting
changes that have been made since the August 11 work session.
Little reiterated that the main goal of this work session is to establish a preliminary tax levy, from which
items can be removed but not added. The preliminary levy will be set at the September 15 meeting.
Little asked Council for a percentage increase where they would be comfortable starting discussions.
Property growth represents 2.7% in the tax base; 0.8% is due to four Tax Increment districts that
expired to become part of the tax base. Feller stated that the $2.2M TIF payout can only be used for
redevelopment projects, including transportation improvement projects, but not parks. Council was
advised in the spring of this upcoming TIF decertification. Little believed this was to be allocated to a
major road project. Feller stated that in the tax levy prioritization list, items 1-57 are ineligible for
funding with these particular funds.
Little recommended starting at an increase of 4.0% in the tax levy, adjusted for growth, for items
#1 through #57.
Swecker stated she would prefer no increase, but would support 2% adjusted for growth in order
to give back in some areas that were cut. She would like improved technological capabilities and
creativity to be utilized more than they are today in order to improve productivity. Staff should
City of Lakeville
Council Work Session Minutes - August 25, 2014
Page -7-
recommend other prioritizations they believe are justified. She believes it is important to reinstate
and maintain the level of service that is expected by the residents. Infrastructure and public safety
are her two most important priorities.
Anderson stated that the current annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) is 2%. He believes family
income is not rebounding that quickly and Council needs to be cognizant of their constituents
who are learning to get by on less. He agrees with priorities as set, focusing on service levels and
support of new growth and a long term plan. The City needs to be prudent and respond to other
changes, such as new leadership. He would support setting the maximum levy at 3.5% which is
growth plus TIF, resulting in zero increase. This will be 1.5% of new funds plus 2% for road
projects. He suggested reallocating some funds or eliminating items from the budget; possibly the
new city administrator should have some input about prioritizing new positions with a pool of
funds. Long term costs need to be considered. Department heads can reprioritize, possibly
looking at positions that provide revenue and employees could share more of their health care
costs. He wondered if there are areas where funds are left over or more revenue was produced
than what was anticipated. He believes park expenditures need to slow down and can't support
funding park infrastructure even though the amount of the park bond funds would be available
without a tax levy increase. He believes it is possible to get to 3.5% which is growth and TIF.
Davis stated that there are a lot of dollars earmarked for parks and park maintenance when Council
has not yet had an opportunity to meet and discuss priorities jointly with the Parks & Rec
Committee. His preferred priority is for public safety. Davis agrees with setting aside funds for
personnel and allowing the new city administrator the opportunity to look at the entire
organization for possible reallocation or restructuring, similar to what was done at the Police Dept.
Davis would support 4.5%, adjusted for growth and TIF, for a total tax levy increase of 1 %.
LaBeau also agrees that a new city administrator might have new ideas for personnel. She is
concerned about funding park improvements before the Park Update and the Park Director's
business plan are finished. She doesn't support funding park improvements on a scheduled basis.
She would support 3.5% from growth and TIF, plus 1% of new funds, for a total 4.5%. Revenue
from new development pays for the new positions that are created. Membership at Heritage
Center is down but revenues are up due to increased fees. She wants to make sure that Council is
getting full disclosure of funds raised and remaining for building payoff.
Little asked about the increase for non-public works personnel. Anderson reiterated that the increase
he is recommending includes 2% for roads 1.5% for public safety and other priorities. He asked if there
would be a balance to carry over, or if there are opportunities to reallocate or eliminate items. He
believes that the proposed increase is more than the average increase in earnings.
Little stated that with the figures proposed by Council seven of the eight proposed new positions
would be eliminated. He doesn't believe it is reasonable to offer a pool of personnel money to a new
city administrator; Council would need to readdress those decisions. Anderson does not believe all
positions would be eliminated with the figure he is proposing; Feller stated that not only would there
be no new hires the figure would result in layoffs. In addition, all proposed park improvements would
be eliminated. Little asked for a list of mandated budget items, such as PERA increases. He stated that
without a higher tax levy there is no point in further personnel discussions. He would also like to
review the figures that Anderson prepared. The City should have a rainy day fund and save during the
good times; he is a proponent of technology but people are still needed. Council needs to look at the
long-term good of the City by paying off debt and functioning on a pay-as-you-go philosophy.
City of Lakeville
Council Work Session Minutes - August 25, 2014
Page -8-
Anderson believes that even though the economy has improved, constituents wouldn't agree that
these are good economic times. Little stated that if the quality of services or standard of life decreases,
people will not move to the community. People's lives are getting better in many areas but there is a
long-term impact to the budget.
LaBeau stated that the city needs to be wise about growth. People in the community want a lot but
many are not willing to pay for things; people need to consider wants vs. needs, i.e., trail plowing. The
fund balance should be looked at from a dollar amount and not a percentage. Council needs to rely
on staff to determine where cuts might be made in each department.
Davis stated that line items #1 through #8 are mandated expenses. He encouraged department
directors to use available funds most efficiently. His proposed increase equates to approximately $1 M.
Swecker agrees that staff can help make decisions about needs and believes it is possible to allow the
next city administrator to help make determinations for new positions.
Staff stated that the total amount of proposed budget deductions, or expenditures which could be
added back in, was $893,000, not including $117,000 for park improvements or the contingency fund.
Little stated that there are several items on the priority list that are likely to be funded and is asking
Council to support a 2.5% adjusted growth increase for the preliminary levy. Feller stated that based
on discussions, staff will return a revised proposed budget to Council in September, eliminating line
items 19 through 28. These line items would create a new sustainable park improvement fund with
tax levy funding in the amount of $350,000, replacing the park bond debt which is being retired this
year. He cautioned that it would be difficult if not impossible to add these items back into the budget
in future years due to the spike it would cause in the tax levy. By using the $350,000 to reduce the tax
levy now, it would need to be increased by that amount in the future for any park improvements.
Anderson believes that there might be an opportunity to use funds from future growth. LaBeau stated
that new parks would come from park dedication.
Little proposed a 2.5% adjusted growth preliminary tax levy which he believes allows both continued
discussions regarding proposed new positions and an opportunity for staff to consider creative
efficiencies. The preliminary budget can be adjusted downward if Council chooses.
Following additional discussion and clarifications:
• Swecker agreed with Mayor Little to recommend 2.5% adjusted growth and asked for a
reprioritized list.
• Anderson wants to emphasize that the economy hasn't totally come back but he is willing to
compromise to a total maximum non -adjusted levy of 5-5.5%, leaving it open for debate.
• Davis stated that he is also willing to support an unadjusted levy of 5-5.5% but believes 6% is too
high.
• LaBeau agreed with a 5.5% unadjusted tax levy, but also could not support 6%.
Anderson asked how much new funding that equates to beyond the growth factor. Little asked to not
consider it "unencumbered" or "free" money, since there is a priority list for allocations. He stated that
6.0% total levy proposition is his minimum recommendation and the lowest he would consider. He
believes it would be a mistake to go any lower and it would foreclose further discussions. Swecker,
Davis, Anderson, and LaBeau had a consensus of 5.5%. Swecker stated that 5.5% is the highest she has
seen proposed. Little stated that previous cuts need to be restored in several areas. LaBeau stated
that Lakeville is still the community of choice for development and people are still moving here. She
City of Lakeville
Council Work Session Minutes - August 25, 2014
Page -9-
wants to be respectful of staffs time and not overload them but wants work to be done in the most
cost-effective way. Budget discussions will continue at the September 11 work session in preparation
for adoption of the preliminary levy on September 15.
Feller suggested that Council hold an additional work session on September 29 since there are several
agenda items that need to be brought forward. Staff will prepare a preliminary tax levy resolution for
Council consideration on September 15, leaving the final percentage blank, to be filled in at the time
of the motion. Meetings are scheduled for September 2,11,15, 22, and 29.
Allyn Kuennen informed Council that Dropbox is being eliminated and packet information will be
accessed through Laserfiche beginning in September.
Dave Olson informed Council that staff has been contacted by owners of properties which have been
identified as needing to be acquired in conjunction with the Dodd Blvd. and CR 50 projects. Council
indicated that they would be interested in pursuing acquisition of additional properties along Kenrick
Avenue that will be required for the project. Olson recommended working with the willing sellers
through the County's appraiser and the joint powers agreement with Dakota County paying 55%.
LaBeau stated that some of the property owners have expressed frustration to her that they have not
yet been contacted. Olson stated that the property owners have brokers who are representing them.
Anderson stated that he has had a couple of inquiries about the status is of the CR 50 improvement
project study. Olson stated that the County board will be discussing this and approving their share of
the cost at a September meeting.
Kuennen stated that only one contractor submitted bids for demolition of two homes along Dodd
Blvd. and Kenrick Avenue. Olson stated that even though contractors are busy right now and many
are not bidding on new projects, the bids were within the estimates. Staff would like to extend the
deadline for receiving bids to allow additional time for demolition contractors. LaBeau and Anderson
will supply contact information for additional contractors.
Little recommends appointing Patrick Kaluza to fill the vacancy on the Planning Commission. Staff will
put this on a future agenda.
6. Adjourn
Mayor Little adjourned the meeting at 10:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
we�22
J i awkins, Deputy Clerk
z/--- Z'000,-,
Mattittle, Mayor