Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-05-13 Council Minutes CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 13, 2004 1 The Corcoran City Council met on May 13, 2004 at City Hall in Corcoran, Minnesota. Present were Councilors Bucher, Gageby, Guenthner, and Lymangood. Councilor Thomas was excused absent. Also present were Administrator Vergin, Clerk Tillmann, Attorney Carson, and Consultant Sherri Buss. Mayor Guenthner called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. Agenda Approval MOTION by Bucher, seconded by Gageby, and carried unanimously to approve the agenda as presented. Open Forum There were no requests by the public to speak during open forum. Consent Agenda MOTION by Gageby, seconded by Bucher, and carried unanimously to approve the consent agenda with the exception of items a and g, as follows: b. Approve the April 22, 2004 Regular Council Meeting Minutes as presented. c. Approve payment of the May 13, 2004 Claims, #4181 - 4236, in the amount of $99,248.60, as presented. d. Adopt Ordinance No. 195, modifying the City of Corcoran Municipal Code, Chapters 34 and 35, to allow for the appointment of a non- resident to serve on the commissions for a limited time, and amend Chapter 36, to allow for the appointment of alternate members and the appointment of a non-resident to serve on the commission for a limited time. e. Adopt Resolution #2004 – 30, appointing Bob Lamond as a regular member of the Parks and Trails Commission, effective immediately with a term expiring December 31, 2005, and appoint Val Nybo, and Brent Anderson to serve as alternates on the Parks and Trails Commission, effective immediately and expiring on December 31, 2004, as recommended by the Parks and Trails Commission. f. Adopt Resolution #2004 – 31, allowing the Corcoran Jaycees to conduct lawful gambling at Mama G’s, located at 9705 Highway 101, as described in the application, on file with the City Clerk’s Office. h. Adopt Resolution #2004 – 32, accepting the low bid of Northwest Asphalt Maintenance for the 2004 Crack Sealing Project within the City of Corcoran, and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an agreement with NW Asphalt Maintenance, directing the City Clerk to return all deposits made by unsuccessful bidders. Consent Agenda Item 5.a. Discussion was held regarding consent agenda item 5.a. Minutes of April 20, 2004 Special Council meeting. Councilor Lymangood proposed the following changes: Call to Order Roll call Pledge of Allegiance Agenda Approval Open Forum Consent Agenda Approval Consent Agenda Item 5.a. CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 13, 2004 2 Page 8, 4th paragraph Councilor Lymangood added that an excellent example of a private park in a development is the Dancing Waters Development in Woodbury. where a compromise was reached. There is a large central private park in the development and the remainder is public, with costs borne by the developer. Lymangood stated that he would consider a credit in a similar situation He has concerns, however, with the facilities being exclusive. A compromise may be reached if there is a large, central, private park facility with smaller satellite areas being open to the public. Credit should only be considered if the facilities are not exclusive. Commissioner Robran stated that the challenge with private parks is that a private park may not be better than what the City may provide. MOTION by Bucher, seconded by Gageby, and carried unanimously to approve consent agenda item a. April 20, 2004 Special Council Meeting Minutes, as amended. Consent Agenda Item 5.g. Discussion was held regarding consent agenda item 5.g. CIP – Computer LAN Server – Service Contract Agreement. Councilor Lymangood pointed out that J.O.T.S Computer Services is owned and operated by City of Corcoran employee John Hamilton, acknowledging that the City followed an open bidding process, and only one response was received. Based on Officer Hamilton’s knowledge of the City’s needs and his experience in this area, using J.O.T.S. is the most cost effective option for the City at this time. J.O.T.S. will provide the City with an implementation plan identifying what needs to be done to provide a server for the City’s computer needs. Councilor Lymangood requested that any payments to J.O.T.S. Computer Services be identified on the claims description as an employee payment. Councilor Bucher questioned if the agreement stipulated that all work done for the City would be completed on Hamilton’s personal time, not during paid on- duty time as a Police Officer for the City. If the agreement did not include this stipulation, the agreement should be modified to include it. Mayor Guenthner requested that staff review the City’s personnel policy regarding City employees that also have outside employment, and modify the personnel policy if necessary to address. MOTION by Lymangood, seconded by Gageby, and carried unanimously to approve consent agenda item g. Computer LAN Server Service Contract Agreement, approving the service agreement between J.O.T.S Computer Services and the City of Corcoran, as recommended by Staff, and modify the agreement if necessary to include the stipulation regarding completing the work during off-duty time only. Parks and Trails Business Parks and Trails Map Consultant Sherri Buss, Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, was present to address the Parks and Trails Plan and Map for consideration by the Approve Consent Agenda Item 5.a. April 20, 2004 Special Meeting Minutes Consent Agenda Item 5.g. Approve Consent Agenda Item 5.g. Computer LAN Server Service Agreement Parks and Trails Business Parks and Trails Map CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 13, 2004 3 Council. Based on Council and public comment taken at the meeting on April 20, 2004. The Parks and Trails map has been revised as follows: • The 2020 Development Area has been identified • Noted that proposed Parks and Trails proposed outside the 2020 development Area on existing lots are proposed for the long term, and will be acquired through voluntary participation by landowners. Councilor Bucher requested that this notation be made bigger and bolder. • Added the Neighborhood Park facilities to the Community Park /Open Space Park proposed for the Northeast Area Staff is requesting that if there are no other changes, that this map be adopted at this time as the official Parks and Trails Map, in order to assist with development planning. The Parks and Trails Plan will also need to be adopted. The Council can, however, wait until the ordinance is finalized and adopt all at the same time if they so choose. Council suggested the following changes to the map: On Old Settlers Road in the 2020 Development area, noted that an off road trail is identified where there is no road. Buss stated that was a technical error and it would be removed. Shade the map so that the MUSA area is more defined by color and the non- MUSA area is shadowed to further identify immediate and long-term plans. Buss stated that it may be difficult to manipulate the aerial map to accommodate this request, but they will attempt to do so. Suggested that the 2020 line be a solid black line instead of a dashed black line. Suggested that the two Neighborhood Parks (NP) in the non-MUSA area be removed from the map. Council understands the need to identify areas with good characteristics for future planning, but shouldn’t make assumptions as to what post 2020 development will look like. Questioned if those areas could be identified as “Search Areas” meaning that a park would not necessarily be placed in that location, but in the general area. Councilor Bucher added that the NP in the SE is located in an existing development. It makes more sense to remove it and look at putting it somewhere where development will occur. Councilor Lymangood suggested that the Council consider amending the Open Space Preservation Plat ordinance in the future urban service area to allow density bonuses to promote active parks. Lymangood also suggested that the Community Park (CP) in the NE area be removed and consider placing it in an area outside of the urban service area where there will be a higher tax base. Consultant Buss added that the area in particular has a nice woods and good access to potential future population in Corcoran. Councilor Gageby added that the natural resources at that location are worth preserving. In the future, County Roads 30 and 116 will be a main traffic area for the city and it is logical to locate it there. The following public comments were heard: Bill Halverstadt, 6420 Old Settlers Road – Advised the Council that CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 13, 2004 4 what is put on the map becomes a reality in people’s minds. His wife is disturbed over what is on the map as it relates to their property. Is concerned about eminent domain. Wants the trail on their property removed from the map, as he has no intention of developing his property for 50 – 100 years. People appreciate farming and open space and want to see it preserved. Trails can be invasive, especially in rural Corcoran. Mayor Guenthner assured the audience that the Council has no budget for, nor do they prescribe to the philosophy of eminent domain. Councilor Lymangood added that this is a work in progress. If residents are upset about what is occurring, they need to contact City Hall or the Council in person. It is unnecessary to get upset about something that could be explained with a phone call. It has been communicated clearly by the Council that parks and trails outside the 2020 area are considered strictly voluntary if development occurs. Joe Shallbetter, 6780 Lakeview Circle – Lives in the 2020 area and has concerns with the map in the 2020 area. Doesn’t see where it says that it will serve as a general guideline in the 2020 area, similar to what is noted for the non-MUSA area. Is concerned with an area identified as an Open Space Park (OSP) in close proximity to Lake Jubert. The park looks like it encompasses his entire neighborhood, and the area has been rezoned as medium density. That area is prime real estate and they paid for that private area, hoping it will remain that way. Consultant Buss added that the size of the circle is in no way relevant to the size of the park. It is also not parcel specific. There are high quality natural resources in the area that the City would like to preserve. For many years, the City has talked about a park in that area, if and when development occurs. There is no intent to take land by force. Councilor Lymangood suggested that the OSP circle in that area be moved northward approximately ½ inch, to be located in the correct location. Mayor Guenthner reminded the audience that a public hearing will be held on June 3, 2004 regarding the Park Plan and there will be additional opportunity for public comment at that time. Councilor Lymangood suggested that staff develop a set of ordinances that would strengthen standards in existing developments, addressing such topics as eminent domain, lot sizes, front and rear setbacks, etc. to help maintain the current look and feel of existing developments. Attorney Carson advised that eminent domain should not be addressed in an ordinance or in the comprehensive plan, but addressed as a City policy. Council agreed by unanimous consensus to refer the above-mentioned changes to staff for revision and approval of the map to be considered at the May 27, 2004 Council meeting. Public Comment Bill Halverstadt, 6420 Old Settlers Road Joe Shallbetter, 6780 Lakeview Circle CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 13, 2004 5 Parks and Trails Plan Mayor Guenthner advised that he would prefer to wait until the Public Hearing to discuss the Parks and Trails Plan. Consultant Buss added that the Parks and Trails Commission meetings are open to the public. The next meeting is May 18, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall. Proposed Revised Park Dedication Ordinance Consultant Buss reported that on April 20, 2004, the Council, Planning Commission and Parks and Trails Commission discussed the proposed Parks Dedication Ordinance. Staff has made the following revisions based on Council and Commission discussion: Subdivision 6 – Minimum Area of Dedicated Land The City Attorney and Staff are recommending that the percentage of land value as the basis for dedication or cash in lieu of land dedication be retained in the ordinance. A maximum per unit fee of $5,000 per residential unit has been added, as suggested on April 20, 2004, with a provision that the cash in lieu of fee be reviewed by the Council at least every two years to ensure that it remains consistent with park and trail system development costs. Councilor Gageby reminded that the City has the authority under State statute to acquire land if it is identified in the park plan. 85% of the costs associated with the park plan are land acquisition costs. Councilor Lymangood suggested an increase to the maximum per unit fee to $6,000, for land that has a higher value. Attorney Carson reiterated that the City may require that a reasonable portion of the land be dedicated for parks, according to MN Statute 462.358, sub 2. The Parks and Trails Commission has determined that 10% is an appropriate amount, irrespective of the value of the land. Mayor Guenthner reminded the audience again that the Public Hearing would be held before the Planning Commission on June 3, 2004. Brief discussion was held regarding a park dedication per unit fee in the commercial area. Consultant Buss added that most communities have a fee per acre instead of per unit because the number of units is frequently relatively small. MOTION by Lymangood, seconded by Gageby, and carried to increase the maximum park dedication per unit fee to $6,000 and direct staff to provide a recommendation to Council regarding the park dedication fee for commercial properties. Roll call: Bucher, naye; Gageby, aye; Guenthner, aye; Lymangood, aye. Motion carried. Subdivision 8 – Credit for Private Parks, Recreation Facilities and Open Space The subdivision includes a number of standards relating to park dedication credit for private neighborhood parks at the Council’s discretion. Councilor Lymangood suggested the following language change to section 955, sub. 8A. as follows: Parks and Trails Plan Proposed Revised Park Dedication Ordinance Subdivision 6 – Minimum Area of Dedicated Land Increase Maximum Per Unit Fee and Direct Staff to recommend fee for Commercial Areas Subdivision 8 – Credit for Private Parks, Recreation Facilities and Open Space CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 13, 2004 6 At the City Council’s discretion, Park dedication credit may be given where private parks and facilities are provided in a proposed subdivision, and such space is to be privately owned and maintained by the future residents of the subdivision. Credit shall only be provided may be considered when the City Council finds it in the public interest to do so…. Councilor Bucher added that a 20% adjustment for private parks is appropriate. However Councilor Gageby feels that there is no objective way to evaluate how much public good a private park in a development serves. Added that there was no credit given for private parks in any of the developments reviewed by the Council. Mayor Guenthner added that he supports the staff recommendation with the language change as discussed. MOTION by Lymangood, seconded by Bucher, and carried unanimously to accept the staff recommendations regarding the Park Dedication Ordinance, including the verbage change to Section 955, sub. 8A. The following public comment was received: Bill Halverstadt, 6420 Old Settlers Road – Questioned how much park dedication fee would be charged on an 80-acre parcel located outside the MUSA line, if the developer/resident placed a permanent easement on 50% of the land to get more building rights? Councilor Lymangood answered that if a park was not identified in that area on the map or in the park plan, then the park dedication fee would default to the maximum $6,000 per unit fee. However, it would depend on the application. All applications will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, depending on the city’s need for parkland. Amend Agenda MOTION by Bucher, seconded by Gageby and carried unanimously to amend the agenda to take item 8.a. out of order due to the presence of audience members to address the topic. New Business Petition to Amend Corcoran Charter Jim Tilbury identified himself as being present on behalf of the Corcoran United Taxpayers (CUT) that submitted the petition to the Cit y Council. Attorney Carson was present to address this topic, and advised that the petition requests an amendment to the Corcoran Charter that would require a public vote whenever bonds are to be issued for debt and outlined a procedure for adopting changes to the comprehensive plan and/or zoning ordinances. Attorney Carson continued that certain subjects are pre-empted by State Law, including bonding and comprehensive planning. The Met Council has authority in the area of comprehensive planning. The petition requests that bonding for any purpose be put before the electorate. However, the State pre-empts City authority, especially regarding TIF and Accept staff recommendations regarding Park Dedication Ordinance Public Comment Bill Halverstadt, 6420 Old Settlers Road Amend Agenda New Business Petition to Amend Charter CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 13, 2004 7 special assessments. It is unlawful to submit something to the voters that would be different than what the State has outlined. The petitioners are requesting to alter the procedures regarding comprehensive planning in Corcoran, and that is solely a matter of the State’s concern so that uniform procedures are followed. According to Attorney Carson, it is improper to alter the way that State law deals with comprehensive planning. The State pre-empts both subject with statutory framework and won’t allow cities to alter the process. This is not done to deny the City’s right to govern internally, but the City cannot choose to not follow regional planning iss ues. There is a method in place at the state level and the City should not deal with this in the Charter. The Council may either reject the petition or submit the amendment request to a vote of the general public. However, if this were submitted to voters, and adopted through a vote, it would be in direct conflict with State law. Mayor Guenthner acknowledged that Donna Halverstadt, one of the five electors indicated by the petition, was present on behalf of the Corcoran United Taxpayers (CUT). Mayor Guenthner noted that a similar request was received at the City of Richfield. In their situation, a lawsuit ensued because the City would not place the item on the ballot for voters, and the Courts upheld the City’s position. Guenthner continued that the City has been asked to do something that is illegal, and could be setting itself up for a lawsuit due to the contrariness to state law. He (Guenthner) had offered to meet with the petition sponsors to discuss their position and to get a clearer underst anding of the thinking behind the petition. He feels he could adequately interpret the thinking behind the sections relating to bonding, but struggles with the sections regarding the zoning and subdivision codes as a fiscal device, unless the intent is to limit the amount of TIF for financing projects. It is obvious that the petition was drafted by an attorney, and feels that the petition itself is difficult to interpret and apply. Feels that the group defeated itself through the inability to clearly state what they wanted and by not attending the Charter Commission meeting on April 12 to further clarify their position. There was no good faith effort on the part of the CUT to help the Charter or the Council understand their position. Councilor Lymangood questioned if CUT was open to compromise, as this item has been placed on the June Charter Commission meeting agenda for discussion. Invited CUT members to attend to discuss. Questioned if CUT could provide examples of other City Charters in the state of Minnesota with similar provisions. The following public comments were heard: Jim Tilbury, 22201 Horseshoe Trail – Questioned why the City would be at risk of getting sued by other cities if we don’t go along with cooperative plans. Stated that no one (residents) knows what’s going on in the City. Public Comment Jim Tilbury, 22201 Horseshoe Trail CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 13, 2004 8 Mayor Guenthner clarified that cities have not been sued by other cities, but by City residents that felt their rights were violated by action taken by the City. Guenthner continued that if state law governs a particular subject or area, then Cities couldn’t adopt laws that are contrary to that law or laws. State laws will always prevail in some areas, such as federal laws will prevail in some areas. Each “higher up” level can pre -empt a level of government below it. Courts have said that the state law sets the standard. Attorney Carson added that in the case of Lake Elmo, the Met Council sued Lake Elmo regarding the implementation plan for sewer services. Lake Elmo argued that the Met Council exceeded their statutory authority by requiring the City to conform to their plan when the Met Council found Lake Elmo’s plan to be in conflict with theirs. The Courts upheld the Met Council’s position. Councilor Lymangood added that it is very important for residents to communicate with staff and the Council on issues that are important to them. If members of the CUT had contacted the City or Council, it could have saved some effort on their part. This issue was addressed by the Charter Commission two years ago, and it was determined that there was only one way to proceed. Mayor Guenthner again added that he had offered to meet with CUT to discuss their position, however he would not meet with them if their intent were to sue the City over this issue. He feels he would be put in an impossible position and without knowing the intent of the group, he would not open himself or the City to that risk. The following public comments were heard: Bill Halverstadt, 6420 Old Settlers Road – Feels that the case relating to the City of Richfield has no bearing on the City of Corcoran. The CUT has a different purpose and is not trying to take something away from the City. Suggested that 95% of the people that they spoke with approve of what they are doing. There is a lot of dissatisfaction amongst residents regarding what is happening in the City. Mayor Guenthner questioned at what point residents want to have direct democracy or representative government? When should the Council empower the people to make their own decisions through education, or does the Council run the risk of putting power in the hands of a few uneducated people, giving them the opportunity to mislead others. Guenthner added that he had spoken to a neighbor who had signed the petition, who stated that the petition was presented to him as being directed toward community growth and not presented as part of a financing tool for City projects. Quest ioned how many of the 321 signers actually read the petition. Stated he has been an attorney for 18 years and there were sections of the petition that he couldn’t understand. Found it hard to believe that so many others understood it enough to agree and sign in favor of it. Questioned the reference to an $18 million project on the front page of the petition, indicating that he was unclear what that was in reference to. He Public Comment Bill Halverstadt, 6420 Old Settlers Road CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 13, 2004 9 has invested eight years trying to guide the City with good government and is not willing to allow this type of mischief to succeed. Councilor Lymangood added that the Met Council accepted the Comprehensive Plan in December 2002 after several years of discussion and public input. The City is obliged to follow what we have put in our comp plan. Changes will not occur overnight. The CUT could have benefited from information that is available at City Hall if they contacted staff or members of the Council. Mayor Guenthner reiterated his offer to meet with members of the CUT to discuss their concerns. Discussion was held regarding the wording in the resolution considered for adoption. Councilor Lymangood requested the following changes: 1st Paragraph WHEREAS, a citizens committee of Corcoran United Taxpayers (CUT) presented a Petition to Amend Charter to the Charter Commission in April, 2004; that this matter was considered by the Charter Commission at its regular meeting on April 12, 2004; and 4th Paragraph WHEREAS, at the May 13th council meeting, the city council considered this matter and they were advised by counsel (including special bond counsel) as follows: 1. That seeking voter approval for any all form of bonding (borrowing) as presented by the petition conflicts with state law; that the bonding statutes in Minnesota have preempted this subject and therefore the charter cannot direct actions in conflict with state statute. MOTION by Gageby, seconded by Bucher, and carried unanimously to adopt Resolution #2004 – 35, as amended, denying the request by CUT to submit the proposed Charter amendments to the voters. Mayor Guenthner declared a recess at 9:42 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Councilor Gageby was present at 9:52 p.m. Unfinished Business Fire Services Administrator Vergin reported that Councilor Lymangood requested that this item be placed on the agenda for discussion. Vergin continued that a Fire Advisory Committee had been formed and had been meeting with the City of Medina to address services provided by the Hamel Fire Department, and other fire services topics of mutual interest, such as the current contract, budgeting, reporting formats, insurance and capital expenditures. The contract is nearing completion and is being reviewed by both City Attorneys. The intent is to review the other three Fire District contracts as well. Adopt Resolution #2004 – 35 Recess Unfinished Business Fire Services CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 13, 2004 10 Councilor Lymangood advised that he had four items to address. • 2005 Budget requests – The Fire Advisory Committee recommends that 2005 budget requests be turned in to the City by July 1. • Contract Revisions – The current contract amount is determined based on valuation. However, this places an unnecessary burden on the City because our usage of the Hamel Fire Department is relatively low. There are other ways to address the contract amount, such as a usage base or a combination of factors. The City is paying approximately $25,000 more than it should for services. Current discussions with the fire department include whether to have a graduated reduction in contract amount or a one-time reduction. • CIP Plan – Suggested that CIP purchases be planned five years out, as is the City’s current practice with our equipment. Currently the City is not aware of any capital purchases for the Fire Department, and therefore has not included any in our Capital Planning. • Reporting Mechanism – It is reasonable to request information on a regular basis pertaining to average response time, number of calls generated by City residents, and have that information provided on a regular basis. Council requested that Administrator Vergin communicate this information to the Fire Departments indicating our deadline for budget requests, CIP requests, reporting information requested and a draft contract. New Business (continued) Request for Code Enforcement Services – City of Loretto Administrator Vergin advised that she had received a request from th e City of Loretto to contract with Corcoran for Code Enforcement services approximately 8 hours per month. Since this request was received, the Wastewater Commission has discussed utilizing CEO Reger to assist with septic compliance issues. Administrator Vergin would like to meet with the City of Loretto to further define their request and determine their expectations for the service, and then report back to the Council regarding the outcome of that conversation. Council agreed by unanimous consensus to allow Administrator Vergin to further investigate the City of Loretto’s request. 1st Quarter Financial Statements Administrator Vergin presented financial statements for the 1st quarter of 2004, noting that the budget forecast had been modified based on a recommendation by the City Auditor. Vergin continued that 1st quarter expenditures were at 78% of their expected amount, and if the City maintains this pace, the City should be able to allocate $154,000 at the end of the year for reserve funds. The implementation fund is currently showing a deficit. Administrator Vergin will be meeting with contracted staff to project costs for completion of the project. Council requested that staff communicate this situation to the various Commissions that there is limited staff resources and this need to be considered when completing 2004 projects, and when making 2005 budget requests. Staff Direction New Business Request for Code Enforcement Services 1st Quarter Financial Statements CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 13, 2004 11 MOTION by Bucher, seconded by Gageby, and carried unanimously to accept the 1st Quarter Financial Statements as presented. Reserve Funds/Modify Budget Administrator Vergin reported that the City Auditor has recommended a modification to the City Budget to appropriately identify reserve funds. Additional modifications included a reduction in the expense for the approval Police Officer, which was allocated in the budget for a full year, when in reality the position won’t be filled until mid-year. Charitable Gambling proceeds have been reduced since the Lawful Gambling Ordinance has not been adopted yet, and an adjustment has been made to reflect an increase in tower rental. The Budget is balanced with these changes. Councilor Lymangood noted that the Charter Commission would be over budget in 2004. MOTION by Gageby, seconded by Lymangood, and carried unanimously to adopt Resolution #2004 – 34, modifying the 2004 budget adopted in December 2003, to reflect the reserve fund allocation in a manner prescribed by the City Auditor. Goals and Objectives Meeting Mayor Guenthner called a special Council meeting for June 17, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss goals and objectives and the 2005 budget. The Home Occupation Commission meeting for June 17, 2004 was rescheduled for 6:00 p.m. Council agreed by unanimous consensus to submit an outline of goals and long term objectives to Administrator Vergin to compile for discussion at the June 17 meeting. Council and Staff Reports CEO 2004 1st Quarter Report Council accepted the 2004 1st Quarter Code Enforcement Report as presented. Councilor Lymangood requested an accounting of expenditures and revenues for the Code Enforcement position to be discussed as part of the 2005 budgeting process. Meeting with City of Medina Mayor Guenther reported that his meeting with the City of Medina was scheduled for May 11, however it has been rescheduled for May 19, 2004. Highway 55 Corridor Mapping Workshop Administrator Vergin reported that the Highway 55 corridor mapping workshop is scheduled for May 27, 2004 at 6 p.m. at City Hall. Intersection Improvements Administrator Vergin provided an update of proposed improvements to three intersections in Corcoran. At the intersection of County Roads 116 and 30, Accept Financial Statement Reserve Funds/Modify Budget Adopt Resolution 2004 – 34, modifying the 2004 Budget Goals and Objectives Meeting Home Occupation Commission Council and Staff Reports CEO 2004 1st Qtr Report Meeting with City of Medina Highway 55 Corridor Mapping Workshop Intersection Improvements CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 13, 2004 12 mast arms will be utilized. The County will need to acquire right-of-way. The City is not expected to contribute financially to this intersection improvement, which is a high priority for Hennepin County. This is scheduled to be done in 2004. The intersection at County Roads 101 and 30 will include turn lanes, and the County is working with the church regarding their driveway entrance. Some drainage correction will have to take place as well. This improvement is also scheduled to take place in 2004. The third intersection improvement is scheduled to take place in 2005 at the intersection of County Roads 116 and 10. Councilor Lymangood questioned if staff had addressed our desire for distinctive entranceways into Corcoran, such as signage, boulevards, etc. in regards to any of these improvements. Vergin advised that most likely the County or City would ask for cost sharing from Corcoran if that were the case. Administrator Vergin will contact Hennepin County to coordinate a meeting. Elm Creek South Branch Sewer Interceptor Meeting Administrator Vergin reminded Council that the Met Council was hosting a public information meeting regarding the Elm Creek Sewer Interceptor Extension - South Corcoran Branch on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. at Lord of Life Lutheran Church in Maple Grove. Administrator Vergin, Engineer Vander Top, and Councilor Gageby plan on attending on behalf of the City. Closed Session – Employee Performance Evaluation Mayor Guenther closed the meeting at 10:29 p.m. for the purpose of conducting an employee performance evaluation. Mayor Guenthner reconvened the meeting at 10:54 p.m. after completing the performance evaluation. MOTION by Bucher, seconded by Gageby, and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 10:55 p.m. _______________________________ Kary Tillmann, City Clerk/Treasurer Elm Creek South Branch Sewer Interceptor Meeting Closed Session Reconvene Adjournment