HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-8-13 Council MeetingCORCORAN CITY COUNCIL
AUGUST 13, 1998
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL„ CALL
Acting Mayor Mayers called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Present were Council Members Ken
Guenthner, and Dixie Lindsley. Also present were City Clerk Stacy Doboszenski, City
Planner/Administrative Coordinator Roger Bromander, City Engineer Vince Vander Top, and Public
Works Lead Person Patrick Meister.
There were approximately 20 people in attendance at the meeting.
SET
The agenda was set as submitted.
PL�XMNG COMMISSION REPORT:
The following Planning Commission items were briefly discussed by Council and Roger:
On a motion by Guenthner, seconded by Lindsley, to approve the following Planning Commission
items with the correction to condition number 3 on the Satellite Shelters, Inc. Resolution.
Motion carried unanimously.
A REQIMST BY SATELLITE SHELTERS, INC. FOR REZONING OF
APPROXIMATELY 2.99 ACRES FROM R-1 RURAL -RESIDENTIAL TO C-2 GENERAL
COMMERCIAL. AND FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INCREASE THE
OUTDOOR STORAGE ARLA FOR TRAILERS TO INCLUDE T E NEWLY ZONED
PROPERTY, LOCATED AT 20050 7 TH AVENUE, -11 -2 14 0015 AND PID
#26-119-23 14 0022
Ernie Mayers questioned item number three on the Conditional Use Permit Resolution. Councilor
Guenthner questioned whether or not a time period should be added to the landscaping condition,
condition number three. Consensus was to correct the condition to include a maintenance and
replacement plan.
Approval of Resolution No. 1998 - 36, A RESOLUTION APPROVING REZONING PETITION
NO. 98-01, A REQUEST BY SATELLITE SHELTERS, INC, TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY
2.99 ACRES FROM R-1, "RURAL RESIDENTIAL" TO C-2, "GENERAL BUSINESS
DISTRICT".
Approval of Resolution No. 1998 - 37, A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE ISSUANCE OF A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO SATELLITE SHELTERS, INC. TO INCREASE THE
OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA FOR TRAILERS TO INCLUDE THE NEWLY ZONED C-2
PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF THE ORIGINAL PARCEL, LOCATED AT 20050 75TH
AVENUE, PID #26-119-23 14 0015.
A REQUEST BY K$ISI IN GRIMES FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
CONSTRUCT A 4 ' 4'(1 lQ4 SQ, FT.) EXI!ANSIQN QL\LTO AN EXISTING 864
FT. DETACHED GARAGE ON A 3 ACRE HOMESTEAD. LOCATED AT 10550
Approval of Resolution No. 1998 - 38, A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE ISSUANCE OF A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO KRISTIN GRIMES TO CONSTRUCT A 1248, SQUARE
FOOT EXPANSION ONTO AN EXISTING 864 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED GARAGE ON A 3
ACRE HOMESTEAD, LOCATED AT 10050 HIDDEN VALLEY DRIVE, PID #05-119-23 24
0007.
262 CHECK LISTS AM ESCROW AMOUNTS
On a motion by Guenthner, seconded by Lindsley to table the application and fee schedule until the
next meeting.
Motion carried unanimously.
RESIGNATION BY TONI HOHENSTEIN
On a motion by Mayers, seconded by Lindsley, to accept Toni Hohenstein's resignation and an
expression of gratitude for her service on the Planning Commission.
Motion carried unanimously.
There was a brief discussion on moving an alternate Planning Commissioner into the permanent
spot. The current two alternates are Bill Glowacki and Pete Eiden; Glowacki having seniority.
Council consensus was to advertise for a opening in the Planning Commission alternate position.
The Public Hearing was moved to the end of the agenda, due to the time it was scheduled.
DISCUSSION ON 1999 BJDGET
Clerk discussed with Council the levy limitations set for the 1999 budget. Clerk Doboszenski stated
that a more in depth discussion on the budget will take place at the next meeting.
PUBLIC WORKS R.EPQR.T
Draintiling Bid
Vince stated that quotes were opened on Tuesday, four quotes were requested and three were
received. After reviewing the quotes, Chard tiling was the low bidder.
Staff recommendation is to award the project to Chard Tiling with Jeff Carson reviewing the bond
information.
Councilor Guenthner questioned the elevation of the tile in comparisons to the elevation of the
surrounding area. Vince responded by stating four feet is the average depth of the tile, low spots
may have a reduced depth.
There was a brief discussion on placement and effectiveness of tile.
On a motion by Lindsley, seconded by Guenthner, to approve Resolution No. 1998 - 39, A
RESOLUTION AWARDING 1998 DRAIN TILE PROJECT BID.
Motion carried unanimously.
Crack Sealing
Quotes for crack sealing will be brought to the second meeting in August.
CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Lindsley, seconded by Mayers, to approve the following consent agenda items
except the charitable gambling resolution which is pulled for further discussion with the applicant:
• Approval of List of Claims #574 - 632
+ Approval of the July 23, 1998 City Council Minutes
• Approval of Northland Inn to cater food and liquor at private skyboxes at the LPGA Golf
Tournament at Rush Creek Golf Course
Approval of Resolution No. 1998 - 40, A RESOLUTION APPOINTING ELECTION
JUDGES FOR THE PRIMARY ELECTION ON SEPTEMBER 15, 1998
• Approval of Resolution No. 1998 - 41, A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT FEE SCHEDULE
Motion carried unanimously.
WSJ
Vince asked to open the public hearing, give input, close the public hearing and discuss this issue at
that time.
Correspondence
Clerk Doboszenski mentioned that the City has received a letter regarding an opening in the Charter
Commission. Council consensus is to run an advertisement in the paper.
Vince announce the birth of his son, Jack Vander Top.
ATER CONVEYANCE
Vince stated he will give a brief review of the project, the public hearing can be opened, discuss
project scope and some financing options, before a fee structure is set for storm water fees, speak
with Jeff Carson.
Acting Mayor Mayers opened the public hearing at 7:31.
Vince provided an overhead and the scope of the project. Vince explained that a month ago there
was a informational meeting on the project. At that time, the Council ordered the public hearing.
Components of the project include replacing the culvert by the bank drive -through, constructing a
sediment trap behind the bank where culvert outlets, cleaning the ditch, constructing storm water
quality and quantity ponds north of Pro -Tech, replacing or upgrading the culvert at PermaGreen's
driveway, and constructing another water quality pond adjacent to PermaGreen's driveway south of
Co. Rd. 50. The cost of the project is approximately $130,000 as just described. Vince reviewed the
various costs as related to the scope of the project. He explained NURP (National Urban Runoff
Requirements) ponding. Vince described the difference between the maintenance project and the
water quality project. He informed the Council that there was a meeting with the bond counsel last
Friday, and it was verified that TIF funding can be used for this project, particularly that the project
takes on water quality nature and it is increasing the ability for economic growth in the downtown
area. It was recommended that the entire project be funded by TIF and that any assessments be
credited to a storm water utility fund. Those funds can be used for other improvements in the sewer
district or elsewhere in the City. One item to discuss later is a storm water fee in lieu of assessments.
The proposal is that 25% of the cost of the improvements be assessed to the properties shown. Vince
then provided and explained a preliminary assessment roll. He then charted the waterway on a plat
drawing and explained the drainage of the properties.
Councilor Mayers questioned where the sediment trap is located.
Vince then verified goals of tonight: (1) define project scope, (2) define financing, and (3) receive
public input on both of those items.
Councilor Guenthner requested that Vince review the procedure of the project.
Vince Council is not going to determine tonight whether or not we are constructing anything. At this
time, we could reach an agreement to do something, define what that something is, and start putting
information together to receive bids. This project from tonight could go for bids, bids can be
rejected or accepted, and go forward from that point. Plans could be ordered tonight. However,
Council does not become committed until bids are approved. Assessments cannot be set tonight, go
forward with the understanding that the properties will be assessed at 25%, but that amount cannot
be increased once it has been discussed openly; it can be reduced.
The following comments were registered from the public:
William Halverstadt, Old Settlers Road: Mr. Halverstadt stated that he has received a lot of feed
back from different people and that he has lived in this community for a number of years. He stated
that he is not a business owner in the downtown area, but he is very concerned about two things.
One how we are using TIF funding and secondly, what it may do to other longer range things in the
264
future. He is wondering if we are not getting ahead of ourselves. The strange thing is that most of
the business owners do not feel a need for this. I ask you as council to look at why they are saying
that and why the few, and what they are going to gain by it. Ask these specific kinds of questions:
Is the construction of the building and the placement of the building an issue here? Where
something may have been done differently from that person who wants relief. Or has been done
instead by those who don't feel the need for it. I think that Council would be derilecting their duties
if Council does not question the things as specifically as that. What are others most outspoken to
gain by this, not just taking care of the existing problem or the existing building. There is something
to be gained by those who want it, other than what is immediatcly apparent. I think this is the
responsible way to act as a city as a whole.
Also look at what this expenditure may do to preclude, to make difficult, either because of financing
being used or because of something else, that will be a larger problem solved in the future.
Specifically, if there is a combination in the future to use some methodology that solves storm water
drainage and enhances the creation of a system that takes care of the waste water. You will have
several things happen. Are you using that opportunity. One, if you put in the same pipe in the
future, you can use that water if properly treated as well as the storm water or dry hydrants in these
ponds which will reduce fire rates. This is a technology that is highly dignified. A lot of people say
no because they haven't kept up with what is going on. Is taking care of storm water going to
somehow prohibit if it is done singularly today, even if it is only because using some moneys than
can be used for a more constructive project, does this mean that it is going to be more or less difficult
to take care of some of the wastewater which would then maybe give each one of these owners a
better use of their lot, because they could abandon their mound systems. I think this is just getting a
head of our selves, TIF isn't free. I wonder if those who want it, who had to pay 100% would be for
it. It looks to me that you are using city money that is my money to enhance some things that I think
not necessarily right, unless it is done right, for the City. That's the money of all us citizens, that
does not grow on trees.
Council requested Vince to respond. Vince stated the items he heard are: Is TIF being used
effectively, who wants the project, are there few seeking individual benefit, and will it preclude other
uses in future, primarily HRUA, as indirectly discussed.
First of all, we did address some of these issues previously in terms of effective use of TIF dollars.
We have a balance of . We have paid off the City Hall TIF bond. We will have a continued income
of approximately $180,000 a year for the next 12 years. The concern they had was that are we
effectively planning to use TIF revenue? Their concern was that if we do not have that money
identified, than we run the risk the state seeing this surplus that we have and saying that if we are not
going to use it, then we will turn it back to the School District and the County. That may be the
choice of the City. But, if we are planning on doing future improvements, it would be prudent for us
to identify what those are. To me it would include sewer, water, storm sewer system, and how they
all tie together. A form of that was started two years ago, when sewer was being discussed, and it is
still a very political issue on this area. But, that is aside to Bill's original concern of are TIF funds
being used efficiently. I think Bill's comment was very applicable when we are talking about putting
storm sewer pipe in this drainage ditch. Now, we are talking about building ponds and cleaning a
ditch. The debate should be whether or not the ditch should be cleaned period. Bill cited that there
are a lot of people who don't feel that it should, but there are a lot of people who do feel that it
should be cleaned.
Bill Halverstadt: I am saying that many feel that it shouldn't, I am saying they don't feel the need for
it.
Vince: The pond improvements are required of businesses when they expand or redevelopment 265
occurs. When future infrastructure come, whether it be waste water or water, or we have additional
development, we will require water quanitity/quality control. It is not like we are taking these
dollars and throwing them at something that will be obsolete in the future. So the answer to the
original question is I do feel that it is a legitimate TIF expenditure. It is not a significant TIF
expenditure given the scope of the budget and the balance that I just described - In my opinion.
Councilor Lindsley: How long can the City retain the TIF funds, before they get turned back over to
the state and the school district?
Vince: For the life of the TIF district as long as we can report to the state the use of the funds. It
could be as simple as saying we are going to provide wastewater infrastructure in the downtown area
that could cost a million dollars and we are using $500,000 of TIF dollars to finance that.
Councilor Lindsley: How many cities give their TIF money back?
Vince: Very few.
Vince: In terms of who wants the project. There may be a select few who own along the ditch who
want to see that cleaned. I don't know that there is anything wrong with that. I'm sure you would
agree that people having that interest is well found, Whether or not that is reason enough to do the
project is up to the council. I will not address that anymore.
In terms of coordinating this with future infrastructure. There is nothing formally in front of us to
coordinate with. The scope of this project, as we need to define, I do not feel that it conflicts with
future improvements. If we are putting a storm sewer pipe in, that is different. In terms of
conflicting with future improvements whether they are brought forward by the HRUA, City, or some
other private entity, will be dealt with at that point.
Loon Leuer,-7estside Wholesale Tire: We were at a meeting a few years ago, Hennepin County
had three options for straightening out the corner. Has anybody contacted them? They are going to
be changing that intersection, and also changing size of the pipe, if you are putting this in now, will
that become obsolete for when they make a change.
Vince: No. Then he further explained on using the overhead. Vince, no it is not going to impact the
size of the ponds.
Loren Leuer: Has anyone contacted them
Vince: No, not recently.
Loren Leuer: So you are going to hook on to their culvert without even discussing it.
Vince: We are not hooking on to their culvert.
Loren: Your taking the water.
There was a discussion regarding the culvert at County Road 116 with references being made to the
overhead.
zss
Vince: One of the conditions as outlined in the feasibility study, as the property develops (east side
of County Road 116 across from bank) the developer will be required to detain the water on that
property at the current rate, not the current volume, there will still be more volume, but the rate will
have to maintain the same.
Loren referred to a culvert installed by his house, the size was increased, he questioned the size of
the culvert under County Road 116.
Loren questioned Vince again if he would continue with the project without consulting Hennepin
County.
Vince stated that we can discuss this with the County. We recently discussed with Hennepin County
the transportation portion of the Comprehensive Plan.
Roger stated his is meeting with someone at Hennepin County next week,
Tom Gleason, ProTech Auto Repair: He stated has no problem with doing maintenance with
cleaning the ditch. There is no eminent danger or threat to anyone. You do maintenance before you
get into that situation. He can't see where cleaning the ditch is going to effect the future one way or
another. Storm sewer pipe would not run along the same ditch.
Vince questioned his opinion on the ponds.
Tom Gleason: His opinion of the pond is that they remain in their boundaries. Will the pond that is
there now not qualify for NURP ponds?
Vince: Yes, it would in size, but not depth. Still needs cleaning. Concept is to create a two cell
system, may encroach slightly on the Permagreen property.
Tom Gleason: Would the culvert that leaves his property be removed?
Vince: Yes, it would be replaced.
John Spaeth. Commerce Street: Tom Gleason made a lot of sense, nobody is going to die if it's done
this year, next year, for five years from now, this kind of stuff needs to be maintained. Just like
farming , ditch gets plugged, or a beaver builds a dam, clean it out. Sees it as an eye sore. He feels
sorry for Delores, water is not draining and is backing up on her property. Feels it is a maintenance
problem, its the City's responsibility and that it could be taken care of. Cary Hicks feels that if the
work needs to be done then get it done. He questioned how does it effect him. John explained to
him the nurp pond requirements. Then he asked him when sewer is coming in.
Vince stated for the record, Phil's Quality Automotive is in favor of cleaning the ditch, in particular
the ditch on his west property line. He questioned assessing what should be a maintenance project.
Vince explained assessing based on the value of ponding provided to the property. If the City just
cleaned the ditch, then it would be a general expenditure.
Councilor Mayers stated that typically any ditch that is cleaned in Corcoran, the property owner
picks up the cost of that.
Vince would like to introduce the scope of the project along with AK Auto and Tom Thumb.
f
267
Although, as advertised in the notice, it was consensus to clean culvert leave it in place, construct a
sediment trap, construct ponds, leave Permagreen's culvert as it, and construct pond (north of
Permagreen) for the future.
Tom Gleason stated the proposal sounds fine. If there is a question of what might happen with the
County, replacing the culvert might not be a good idea, I don't know.
Patrick Meister responded by stating the culvert is collapsing by the bank. The pipe is bad, cost of
putting it in to replace it, don't hook up to culvert on 116, there is a catch basin.
Vince recommends replacing it and making it part of the project. If Council feels this is an
expenditure that can wait, that can be done also. He recommends making it part of the project.
Councilor Mayers commented that it is his experience with working with tiling that it be drained out
prior to the freeze. When it freezes, the culvert contracts and is damaged if not drained.
Jim ,_County Road 101: Is it the land owners responsibility or City's responsibility.
Vince explained it is on the City's utility easement. Far majority is within City easement or
right-of-way. He explained the easement on the overhead.
Vince stated he would like to hear from AK Auto and Tom Thumb property owners, in terms of
including them in the scope of work. Based on their meeting last week, it would be beneficial to all
property owners if the water moved north to south more efficiently than it does.
Councilor Guenthner questioned if the review of AK and Tom Thumb are not really part of public
hearing.
Vince stated just briefly. It may mean that the feasibility report be amended.
Doug Russ, Russnick„!:Qntractors: We've been there for 11 years, in spring of year where the cattails
are, it is frozen solid. The snow run off creates ponding. If the ditch was cleaned up, it would drain
in the fall, would not have such a ponding issue in the spring.
Vince stated the issue is the berm that covers the pipe going back to the mound system, impedes
water flow north to south, for purposes of public hearing we would consider including it into scope
of work.
Greg Ebert: The industrial park was development 12 years ago. The City took a 50' drainage and
utility easement for maintenance. The City also made an agreement to maintain it. What part of that
agreement has the City met today. Believes the tax base is good around it. Firmly agrees the culvert
has to be changed. Culvert is higher than the one on County Road 116.
City owes some of these people some maintenance. City took the easement to maintain it. Todd
Russ said he would clean it for nothing. City would not allow it. Just seems that it is road block
after road block. He can't believe water quality co-op is not in favor of cleaning up the water
situation. If we wait for them, doesn't know what we would have - trees in the ditch. We've been
waiting for three years for some action. Would like to see the City go forward with the cleaning of
the ditch. Feels the people are semi -willing to pay for it.
268
Loren Leuer: I don't think anybody is against cleaning the ditch out. It's putting in the storm sewer
pipe. Don't believe there should be storm sewer pipe until the rest of the utilities, sewer and water, is
in. Work together with Hennepin County.
Vince stated it makes sense to deal with Hennepin County now.
Councilor Mayers questioned how it was determined that the pipe from parking lot is higher than the
one on County Road 116?
Greg Ebert responded the bank culvert is four to .five inches higher than the culvert across the street.
Vince stated that the bank culvert is ten inches higher.
Greg questioned where the study started.
Vince stated that there is nothing magical about where the culvert is, plus or minus a foot.
Councilor Guenthner moved to close the public hearing. Motion died due to lack of a second and
Roger stated he received a call from Kent Burnell, owner of the shopping center stating he supports
the project, and Mark Sachowitz who lives on County Road 50, he looked at the plan and didn't see
any benefit to him or his property.
Does council want to proceed with any formulations or any plans at this point, or is there more
questions.
Councilor Lindsley commented that who takes care of this, it is still a tax bill to the City of
Corcoran. I don't know how many owners are here tonight, only three or four have commented and I
have got to believe there are more here than that, and for the last three months I have been expecting
to hear the business owners say I want it done or I don't want it done; yes or no. Now it sounds like
some are in favor of doing a maintenance project and nothing more than that. How do we find out
what everyone thinks in this town. Bill maybe you took a poll, maybe you went around town,
because it seems like your comments are that no one wants this done, and yet I haven't heard that.
Bill stated that he said there isn't the need (for the project).
Councilor Lindsley questioned the need for what? Nobody speaks up.
Arnie Kral, AK Auto: I have talked to several people off and on about this, the input he received is
that what's there exists and was put there for a reason. It is doing the job and if a clean up would
take care of it and fix the problem for now, than that's what should be done. Anything beyond that,
plan it out, don't jump into it and do it because a handful of people feel it needs to be done.
Councilor Guenthner has the reaction that a maintenance project is $60,000 out of general fund,
period. Everyone agrees that at a minimum a maintenance project needs to be done. That's the easy
half of the decision, the hard half is where do we squeeze $60,000 out of budget to do this. Would
like to hear some creative thoughts on that. If you want to go for easier money, combining TIF
money with assessments, we have to go with a bigger project. This is a real conflict I am trying to
resolve. The reason he sees merit to what we have, he does not see that as exclusive to future
projects, sees it as enabling to enhance future projects. I don't necessarily see it as preventing
something for the future, or is it out of design. I don't see it as wasted dollars if we decided to take
another course in the future with it. I would like to see other parties interested in that outcome. 1 269
particularly ask HRUA to say if it helps or hinders or compliments that ultimate development. I
don't know if it would be fair to them to put them on the spot. I don't know if it would be fair to the
community to base it on something that speculative. Based on what I have heard, I don't see doing
this as excluding those possibilities in the future.
Vince stated that his engineering perspective, the water quality ponds are a need today. And if
anyone should see that, Arnie should be aware of it with what he is going through right now. We
could have Arnie take care of his own NURP requirements.
Vince commented on NURP requirements and water quality ponds for properties that develop,
stating it does not make sense to put a pond on every lot.
Tom Gleason: If the ponds constructed, are they going to be large enough to accommodate future or
redevelopment?
Vince stated yes, and with a third pond if needed.
John Spaeth: I think everyone agrees on maintain the ditch and the water quality ponds.
Arnie Kral: Yes, and not get carried away and spend a quarter of a million dollars.
John Speath: No, engineers estimate is $130,000 if that, and that's generally 20% higher.
Loren Leuer stated he wasn't aware the limitations with use of TIF funds.
Loren Leuer and Councilor Guenthner discussed the minimum to qualify for TIF funds.
Councilor Mayers stated that the biggest decision is what does city want to spend TIF funds on. Do
we want to earmark it for a sanitary system, or do you want to spend it on storm sewer.
Jeff Johnson A-1 Outdoor power: I go along with general idea to get this thing cleaned up and
working better. What are we going to do to maintain this?
Vince responded stating the ditch will fill again and need to be maintained again. City will not have
the ability to assess for maintaining or cleaning after cleaning.
John Speath questioned if the $30,000 could be used for future maintenance.
Councilor Guenthner stated we will have to face that expense again in the future. The only way to
resolve it is to get a storm water system in place. We are not at a point where that is going to
happen. We are trying to find an approach to get something solved, using minimum dollars. We are
talking some compromise. We are slowing getting towards the middle of the road.
Councilor Mayers talked on the parking lot along County Road 116. Because of the winter sand,
feels that area of the ditch should be maintained every other year. Easiest solution for that is
pointing toward public works. Does that mean assessing those properties and putting those
assessments in the general fund.
Tom Gleason: I don't see this as a one year fix, that ditch has been there a long time, this is a pretty
real solution. Building a sediment trap that is one spot to get to relatively easy.
zoo
Vince stated that the primary problem is going to be regrowth.
Patrick Meister stated that they used to be able to mow the ditch up until a few years ago.
On a motion by Guenthner, seconded by Lindsley to close the public hearing at 8:39 p.m.
Motion carried unanimously.
The following items were further discussed:
• 25% assessment can be reduced; cannot be increased
• Councilor Guenthner sees this as a compromise
• Amount of assessment versus the amount of TIF
• Amount assessed directly attributed to increase of value to that property
• Charging a storm water fee
• Assessment based on value of water quality ponds, roughly $60,000 of ponds
• $30,000 in assessments, leaves a balance of 30,000 in ponds, you could charge as part of
building a storm water fee to take care of NURP requirements
• Storm water fee attractive at development side and city side
• When you use benefit of ponding, that is when you pay the fee
• Remainder of fee would be the balance of the ponds that are not being assessed for now
• Vince's opinion is that ponding is a necessary item
• Issue is how can we get the $60,000 out of general fund
• Only charging assessment for the benefit of the property
• Does a maintenance project increase the value of the adjoining property
• Having land owners pay for 100% of project
• Getting minimum amount from TIF funding
• Find out what the minimum is to quality for TIF funds
Vince gave a recommendation to pursue the questions and schedule project for 1999.
Vince stated the next steps are to review this with Walt Hartman and Paul Donna and review
assessments with Jeff Carson. Review the scope of the project, at that time order plans and specs if
required.
There was a discussion on including the drainage issues from AK Auto and Tom Thumb and how
the drainage would get to the ditch.
Vince's recommendation was to have AK Auto put a letter of credit together in the amount of
constructing a pond on that site, so that he can proceed with construction.
Vince stated the next step is to order plans and specs, in order to do that, we need to state the scope
of the project. He explained what the scope is now: water quality ponds north of Protech and the
ditch cleaning from those ponds to County Road 116, including parking lot culvert repair.
On a motion by Guenthner, seconded by Lindsley, to authorize an amendment to the feasibility study
to include the drainage in the area behind the shopping center.
Motion carried with Guenthner and Lindsley voting aye; Mayers voting no.
Vince stated the next meeting, in theory, would be to order plans and specs.
Arnie Kral was questioned if he agreed with the letter of credit. His comment was he would agree 271
1
with it for now, as long as everything can keep going.
mill, 11111111
The gambling manager for the Maple Grove Lions was present to discuss their application for the
Stanchion Bar. The following items were discussed:
• Amount of money contributed back into the community
• Corcoran Lions instead of the Maple Grove Lions
• Multiple Sclerosis Society couldn't make it because of their payout
• Talking to the Corcoran Lions before making a decision; Frank Waldron stated he talked to
them and they did not want it
• Acknowledging the business owner's ability to run his business
On a motion by Guenthner, seconded by Lindsley, to approve Resolution No. 1998 - 42, A
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CHARITABLE GAMBLING LICENSE FOR THE MAPLE
GROVE LIONS AT THE STANCHION BAR, LOCATED AT 20037 COUNTY ROAD 10,
CORCORAN, MINNESOTA.
Motion carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION ON SPENDING EUhMS IN CORCORAN
There was a discussion on where money was spent in Corcoran and out of town for services such as
fuel and tires.
ADJOURN
Acting Mayor Mayers adjourned the meeting at 9:37 p.m.
&ta, -
City ler Acting Mayor