Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-07-26 - Council Minutes - Part 1 CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 26, 2007 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Corcoran City Council met on July 26, 2007, at city hall in Corcoran, Call to Order Minnesota. Present were Mayor Guenthner, Councilor Grabowski, Councilor Jacobs, Councilor Hudok and Councilor Thomas. Also present were Chief Roll Call Gormley, Engineer Vince Vander Top, Planner Norm Gartner, City Attorney Joe Langel, Public Works Superintendent Pat Meister, City Clerk Barb Larson, and City Administrator Vergin. Mayor Guenthner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA APPROVAL Agenda Approval MOTION by Thomas, seconded by Hudok, to approve the agenda with the following changes: 7.c. Include discussion on the billing requirements and material distributed by Councilor Jacobs; 7.j Parks Commission Interview Process; 8.a. Emails from SW District Residents for Infrastructure; 8.b. Council Conduct; 11.c. Budget Workshop Report from Administrator Vergin; and 11.d. Update on United Properties. Voting Aye: Grabowski, Guenthner, Jacobs, Hudok, and Thomas. (Motion carried 5:0) Open Forum & OPEN FORUM & PRESENTATIONS Presentations Tom Cossette, of Shannon Lane asked if the Council would take comments under 7.f. Shannon Lane Bridge. Mayor Guenthner stated that he would allow comments at that time. PLANNING BUSINESS PLANNING BUSINESS Donita Properties/Hank Preliminary Plat, Resolution No 2007-52 Donita Properties/Hank Planner Norm Gartner stated Donita Properties has requested approval of a Preliminary Plat preliminary plan to create two lots and one outlot on the property. They currently have a total of 66.96 acres. The property is serviced by the existing driveway that the applicant is proposing to expand to serve the two additional houses with no public roadway. There is an existing cartway on the south side of the property 16.5 feet in size that would need to be vacated at the time of the final plat. Planner Gartner stated there are two small wetlands within the property so as they construct the driveway they will need to be careful of that. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat as presented. The applicant will be providing a $12,000 cash donation for the Park Dedication and that $8,000 per lot be paid to meet the transportation area charge that the City has adopted. Mayor Guenthner then asked that on the cover memo Planner Gartner indicated approval date required has a 120-day window. Mayor questioned if we are getting an extension when they file as he’s noticed most of these come through with 120 on them. Planner Gartner responded we’ve been asking for the additional 60 days just to be on the safe side. Planner Gartner stated that the first 60 days is required by Statute and the second 60 days is optional at request of the city. Beyond the 120 days, the city can negotiate an extension. Mayor Guenthner asked if the city has the authority to extend the additional 60 days and Planner Gartner responded yes. Page -1- CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 26, 2007 DISCUSSION ITEM: Mayor Guenthner had a discussion item in regards to the way that we identify building rights and outlots for clarification. Mayor Guenthner questioned whether the preliminary plat resolution itself should identify the status of the remaining building rights on the parcel and if we’ve done that in the past. He doesn’t recall but it seems to him that it’s an opportunity to clarify with certainty the building rights status on the parcel. Administrator Vergin stated it is required (building rights status) to be part of the resolution. Mayor Guenthner also wanted to discuss how we designate parcels as outlots and how do we identify building rights to outlots because it had been his impression in the past that outlots were unbuildable parcels. If a parcel maintained building rights, it was platted as a lot that could be further sub-divided. If a parcel was designated as an outlot, it had reached the point where it had unbuildable status due to complete loss of building rights, or loss of access, or any other sort of usability features. It was basically an empty parcel at that point. He stated he doesn’t know if that was an approach that we took that had a legal basis or if it was approach that we took that was custom. Councilor Thomas added our policy was to not create outlots that don’t have building rights. Planner Gartner stated that by signifying it as an outlot, they can’t build on it without coming back to the City and replatting it, that’s the approach we’ve done in the past. Councilor Jacobs stated in the past we had, when you (the Mayor) weren’t on council, on Cain Road just north of County Rd. 30, an outlot on the area that’s just paved and asked Vince Vander Top (City Engineer) if that sounded right? Jacobs said there’s big area there that’s just out of the wetland zone. Engineer Vander Top agreed that was one and there’s others but he can’t think of the names of the developments where the applicant comes and splits off, similar to this resolution request, the balance of the property is platted as an outlot just so they don’t have to get into wetland obligations, easements and anything else on the balance of the outlot. Vander Top stated it doesn’t mean there aren’t building rights there. Mayor Guenthner stated his appreciation as to getting re-educated on this and that he was just trying to remember how we managed the designation of building rights and outlots and the outlot functions. Mayor Guenthner then asked Council for other questions. Councilor Thomas asked if the Cartway was there for a reason. Planner Gartner believes the Cartways are strictly meant for field access. Councilor Thomas asked if there was potential use of the properties just to the east and the south. Planner Gartner stated the adjacent property to the south is also owned by the applicant under a separate PID number and to the east of the property that is also owned by the Pouliots. Resolution No. 2007-52 MOTION by Hudok, seconded by Grabowski, to approve Resolution 2007-52, Approve Preliminary Plat Donita Properties/Hank Preliminary Plat. Voting Aye: Guenthner, Grabowski, Thomas, Hudok and Jacobs. (Motion carried 5:0). St John’s Lutheran Church CUP & Site Plan, Resolution 2007-53 St John’s Lutheran Church Planner Gartner stated that St. John’s Lutheran Church is proposing an addition to CUP & Site Plan their existing school facility built in 1999, which is a 2-story addition which will include a gym, classrooms, and restrooms on both floors and storage on second Page -2- CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 26, 2007 floor. At this time the applicant is requesting an amendment to their CUP granted back in 1999 to allow the additional facilities on the site. Planner Gartner stated they have met all the requirements at this time and that he just received an email this afternoon indicating that the Elm Creek Water Management Commission just signed off on the plan but he has not seen the actual letter yet from them. Administrator Vergin stated she has received the letter from the Elm Creek Water Management Commission. Planner Gartner stated at this point in time all the items for the application have been completed and are ready to proceed so he recommends approval of the CUP and Site Plan. Mayor Guenthner then asked for any questions from the council prior to a motion. Councilor Thomas asked why there was no landscape plan and why it was also decided, due to location, there was no need to replace some trees that were being removed. He was not sure how that was determined and his concern wasn’t with this particular project but don’t we normally request landscape plans from people and what was the particular reasoning for not requesting one in this case? Planner Gartner stated part of it was the location factor. The addition is tucked behind the existing facilities so the only ones that are able to see it are the people in the actual parking lot itself. You really don’t see it from the roadway. Councilor Thomas asked if that included neighboring properties as well. Gartner replied that especially to the south there is a pretty hidden tree line, right along the south property line. Mr. Cossette is actually the neighbor of the property. Gartner stated that trees that are being removed are behind the existing facility and don’t really add landscaping. The only area he can envision needing additional landscaping would be to the north of the facility. The Planning Commission discussed it and they determined they really didn’t see the need for additional landscaping at this time. Gartner stated there are some existing storm sewer and sanitary sewer in this area that also make this somewhat difficult to do additional landscaping adjacent to the building. Councilor Thomas stated his concern was equity to other applicants, if we are doing it here we seem to be ignoring it. Councilor Thomas also questioned the bottom statement on page 2, “The Planning Commission also determined that an expanded drainage easement was not required for the floodplain area”. He asked if that was a Planning Commission decision or an Engineering decision. Engineer Vander Top responded that in the past they have dedicated easements over ponds, wetland areas and in some instances over floodplains. Generally, in some instances, those things coincide with each other. In this case, the ball field is in the floodplain and not necessarily in a wetland or pond. So to protect floodplain, there could be an easement. Even without the easement, they are not going to be able to fill the ball field or raise the ball field. So not being at the Planning Commission or part of that meeting, he presumed that’s why it was discussed and not required. Councilor Thomas said he was surprised that the Planning Commission determined it wasn’t an Engineering determination. Engineer Vander Top replied he didn’t know if that was the discussion or not. Councilor Hudok stated he was the liaison at the Planning Commission meeting and with regards to the tree replacements and the landscape plan, that the Page -3- CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 26, 2007 discussion at the Planning Commission meeting was that they all agreed that location behind the property would fit in real well and there wouldn’t need to screening to it by adding trees and the trees that are being removed are ones that are planted in memory of various parishioners so they intend to replace as many of those trees as possible, which was what the church official stated. Hudok said that with regards to the floodplain easement that was their discussion as well. As Vince and Norm stated, the ball field was in there and protected by the floodplain as well so they didn’t feel an easement would be at all necessary and to just let them keep using their ball field as it’s protected by floodplain anyways. Mayor Guenthner then asked Council if they should proceed with the motion or have additional questions or discussions. Administrator Vergin pointed out one error in the Resolution that should be corrected prior to taking any action. Item #3 currently states “That all Sewer Access Charges (SAC) required by the Met Council Environmental Services (MCES) be paid to the City of Maple Grove prior to the issuance of the building permit by the City of Corcoran.” The City will not actually be paying those Vergin stated, St John’s will be paying those to us. We will in turn send a check to Maple Grove. It was the consensus of the council to delete City of Corcoran, and replace it with “the applicant”. MOTION by Jacobs, seconded by Hudok, to approve Resolution 2007-53, as Resolution 2007-53 corrected, approving the amendment to St. John’s conditional use permit and Approving CUP & Site Plan approving the site plan. Voting Aye: Grabowski, Guenthner, Jacobs, Hudok, and Thomas. (Motion carried 5:0) Before the interviews tonight, Mayor Guenthner stated that today one of the applicants for the Building Inspector interviews has withdrawn and that was Inspection Services of Central Minnesota to be interviewed at 8:00 pm. Parks & Trails Commission Feasibility Consultant Interview Feasibility Consultant Interview Mayor Guenthner wanted to make sure that the Council was informed of the fact that the Parks and Trails Commission will be interviewing applicants for the consultant for the Community Recreation Complex Planning Feasibility Study. That process will take place on Tues., Aug. 7 and would like to call that as an open meeting of the Council as well as the Parks Commission so that Council members can attend. He stated he hasn’t had a specific discussion with the Parks group or the Council but it’s his impression that the parks group will do the legwork on interviewing and then make a recommendation to the Council and it would be up to Council to engage a consultant to conduct that study. He just wanted to make everyone aware of the meeting and to attend the meeting. The Council will take whatever action is required at a subsequent council meeting. Councilor Jacobs stated he wasn’t there but the liaison was. He wondered if liaison Hudok had any comments. Councilor Hudok stated yes that’s correct that on August 7, they will be interviewing three (3) firms that they have selected which are: TKDA, Bauer and SRF. They plan to select one of these firms at their regular commission meeting on August 21 and then make a presentation to City Council on August 23. He mentioned at that meeting that they should get in contact with the City Administrator and make sure that those are posted so that we can attend theirs and Page -4- CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 26, 2007 they can attend ours. Councilor Jacobs raised a question that he didn’t remember that the Council had asked them to go find and interview applicants. He thought they were just generating the RFP. He also questions since they’re not spending the nickel, that the Council isn’t really watching what’s happening officially. Because most of the council members have different opinions even to the three that were selected, he wasn’t sure how they were selected? Advisory bodies normally don’t spend money or select people to spend money on, he stated. Mayor Guenthner remarked that Jacobs raised good questions and that the Council might have to, to keep on schedule, defer much further discussion until later when we get to that point on the agenda. He wanted to make sure everyone understood the process here and it seemed to him that there’s merit to having the Parks Commission do the legwork on this and that the Council could participate in that process by attending the meeting and its ultimately the Council’s decision. So this creates an opportunity to create some efficiencies with some safeguards with a process that’s open and effective. If the council really wants to discuss, we can get to it when we get to item 7.j. Councilor Thomas added he would like to discuss it further. Councilor Hudok also stated maybe there would be others that would want to be interviewed and that how would we handle that? Mayor Guenthner then shelved the discussion because it will generate more discussion and needed to move onto the scheduled interview. BUILDING INSPECTION SERVICES INTERVIEWS BLDG INSPECTION SERVICES INTERVIEWS Waldron & Associate, Ltd. 7:30 Waldon & Associate Scott Qualle, President and Building Official, of Waldron & Associate introduced himself and spoke about his company. He handed a new staff listing to Mayor and Council as well as a checklist of what they go through. He stated his company’s work will be done in a manner that is correct and proper and to Code in order to preserve the stock of the buildings in the community and to protect the life, health and safety of the owners and occupants that are using those buildings. Mr. Qualle stated people can be injured or killed if we don’t collectively do our job. He went on to describe his role in the entire building inspection process according to Code. They have expanded their staff to cover as many areas as possible within the Code requirements. Mr. Qualle said his company can effectively shift their resources around to satisfy the City’s needs if it’s slow in one area and busy in another to successfully accommodate all needs. In addition to all the inspections they provide, their clerical staff will provide all other assistance as needed. Mr. Qualle stated if they are hired, you really are hiring the “whole company” and not just one person or just one inspector who just comes to town once a day to pick up plans, etc. Those plans are going to reviewed by our entire planning team and be turned around within five days. So you will see a number of different staff coming by your office and also performing different inspections depending on what you want from us to accomplish your goals. Mayor Guenthner asked Mr. Qualle if they operate with a manager in or a partner in charge. Mr. Qualle stated “the buck stops here”. He has numerous staff that handle inspections. Page -5- CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 26, 2007 Mayor Guenthner asked about availability at City Hall and how would he handle customer service/customer complaints? Mr. Qualle responded that he can accommodate and also pre-arrange appointment times, also phone/fax, etc. Councilor Jacobs questions: 1) Recently in the city smaller swimming pools ($100-$200) have been an issue and no permit needed? 2) What about electrical inspections? 3) What are doing in electrical inspections that State doesn’t do? 4) Do you have timely follow-ups with homeowners? (i.e. roofs) 5) What about city files and refiles? (sometimes problemic) 6) Have you followed/are you aware of City’s permit activity? 7) How do you handle non-normal situations? 8) How do you handle low density area, trades people, farmers, etc. who reside here (i.e. they buy a “building in a box”), neighbors help put the building together to save on labor but their permit was still greater even though the labor was “free”? Scott Qualle’s answers to Councilor Jacobs: 1) If under 5000 gallons and meet exemptions, then no permit. But this could also depend on if City has fencing regulations or other zoning regulations. 2) He would like to ask the City to take that away from the State and allow him to do it. Better coordination for finalizing projects can be less expensive than the State. 3) He used an example in house closings, his company would coordinate more effectively to get their inspections done because the State isn’t as “flexible” as his company is. 4) It is up to the homeowners to call for the inspection rather than the roofers/inspectors. Sometimes 4-6 months can go by. They phone homeowner at 4 months, 5 months send postcard and at 6 months they send a letter and at 7 months they send expired permit letter. 5) View permanent file as city property. City has copies of everything we have. All files are confidential. 6) Very away things are slow right now. 7) Try to work with City Administrator/Staff to change it. He stated he would deal with it and move forward. 8) He has dealt with situations like that in Minnetrista and Carver Co. Council Thomas’ questions: 1) Charge for attending meetings and mileage? 2) Use internet? 3) Plan review turnaround? 4) Charge for reports? Mr. Qualle’s answers to Council Thomas: 1) No, would not charge for meetings where they are present to address a specific matter, however if the council requested that they be present at every meeting then would want to negotiate that. 2) Currently have a website that uses “permit edge” which adds to our efficiency. 3) 5 days (maximum) for residential. 15 days (maximum) for commercial. 4) They will provide surcharge reports, quarterly reports, etc. at no charge. Councilor Grabowski had no questions for Mr. Qualle. Page -6- CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 26, 2007 Councilor Hudok’s questions: 1) How do you handle small projects (i.e. decks) and how do you work with the applicant? 2) What about questions from residents? Mr. Qualle’s answers to Councilor Hudok: 1) He stated he has handouts for most types of projects and includes checklists for the homeowner. 2) There is always someone in the office to answer and handle questions. They should not get voicemail during the day, but an actual person answering the phone. Mayor Guenthner thanked Mr. Qualle for his attendance tonight and stated the Council will make their decision on a Building Inspector at the August 9 meeting. UNFINISHED BUSINESS UNFINISHED BUSINESS Resolutions, Planner Resolutions, Planner Gartner Gartner Planner Gartner explained the three resolutions were a result of the Schendel Farms discussion about premature subdivisions. During that discussion, the three items rose to the top and were not being met per the requirement of the Ordinance Section 925. Being incomplete for the City to proceed further in the approval process. One item was the Capital Improvement Plan. We don’t have one that’s detailed enough to serve a development like Schendel Farms properties. Second was a concern about traffic issues in the area of County Roads 10, 50 and 116 so we could possibly meet with Hennepin County on traffic concerns and bring those back to Council. The third issue was density which also impacts traffic. Planner Gartner stated he just wants to get a handle on what the public really wants prior to Comprehensive Plan discussions. Mayor Guenthner stated all three (proposed resolutions) are appropriate topics but he has an issue with the timing. These address a lot of the policy questions that would be a part of that actual comprehensive planning process, therefore action on these items would appear to supersede those discussions. He is just questioning the sequence. Planner Gartner suggested having a draft available as they start the Comp Plan process and also useful when talking to developers as they come in. The question of timing is purely up to the Council. Mayor Guenthner said he wouldn’t vote to approve the resolutions now as he thinks it’s too premature, that they should be part of the Comp Plan discussion. Councilor Thomas stated that the city held public meetings for the current Comp Plan that we have in place right now and will hold public meetings as we look at amending the Comprehensive plan He also thought that transportation issues would be dealt with as developers came in and that the developers would carry the costs of addressing some of those issues as things progressed. Agrees that t is a timing issue. Planner Gartner stated we have a premature subdivision ordinance that identifies these issues. Thomas suggested that perhaps the City should look at amending the ordinance. Thomas questioned Engineer Vander Top, if it was not the understanding \[the policy of the City\] that development would take care of those costs to address those matters. Was that not what the Schendel Farm development would have done? Page -7- CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 26, 2007 City Engineer Vander Top stated that was the understanding of the developer. They did not make an application. They had submitted a concept of being aware of the situation, knowing that there were many questions to be answered and that was the intent of the AUAR. Councilor Thomas asked if the developer would have paid for the AUAR. Vander Top replied yes and compared this application to ones such as Laurent and United Properties, where they commissioned the necessary studies for their developments. Councilor Grabowski stated these three resolutions are very much what the City needs and he appreciates Planner Gartner’s input and thought he has put into this. He looked at the draft of the CIP, stated we don’t have anything like that, and stated we need something like that. We need to get a handle on what we’re going to do with transportation, especially with Schendel Farms as we don’t have any idea what to do, we don’t have any direction. We just seem to go around and around so our poor residents and our poor developers are stuck out there because the City doesn’t know what to do, so what will they do? Councilor Grabowski thinks this proposal is very positive, very forward-looking and we need to proceed. He is in favor of proceeding. Mayor Guenthner stated he is reluctant to approve the. The majority of the Council would want to see some material changes to the current Comp Plan and that if the current Council would like to see those changes then he doesn’t know what, if they did this now, we would be planning for. He questioned if this would be creating detail prior to having the general policy discussion. Councilor Grabowski responded it’s more a guideline or roadmap to move ahead and to build some infrastructure. It doesn’t state specific steps but that Mr. Gartner is just proposing a guideline to follow of what he thinks the plan should be. Then we, as a Council, can decide how the Comprehensive Plan is to be configured. Planner Gartner replied that changes to the Comp Plan would require a majority 4/5 vote. Councilor Thomas questioned the third resolution regarding high density. Planner Gartner responded that density should maybe be spread out over a larger area and that has an impact on the transportation. Councilor Jacobs stated in essence we are having a preliminary mandate to talk to the public early on and that not everyone had knowledge of the previous processes and decisions early on (a few years ago). So now it’s maybe a little late but at least we’d be having some input that the Planning Commission could put under their belt as they look at the topic again. With different people on the Planning Commission than 3 years ago, this is a now a plan for a plan. Sometimes we need something to trigger the thought process so he likes what this is doing. Councilor Jacobs asked about time and expenses issues. Planner Gartner stated he would take existing plans and then combine them and then identify others that have costs. Mayor Guenthner stated in regards to the Capital Improvement Plan, that we are being asked to approve a draft plan, the contents of which he is not really sure they are all familiar with. He doesn’t know what this is going to be when it comes out. It would have been helpful to have some sort of information or outline on what are the contents, the timing, what the data would be, etc. What we should be considering in this plan is the process by which the City constructs public Page -8- CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 26, 2007 improvements on the back of private development. The current Comp Plan stated that the creation of those public infrastructures would occur on the back of a private development proposal. That’s why the council members who had gone through the comp plan process didn’t consider Schendel to be premature because that was consistent with all of the comp plan discussion that had taken place – that philosophy that a project would come in and that project would propose how to bring the infrastructure in place and how it would be financed and the City could approve or disapprove that proposal. That the City would just come up with a master sewer and storm water construction project and then try and determine how to bond for the debt and put it into place and then have the developers come and pay us back after we did it, that’s another kind of general concept, he stated it was the former not the latter. His reaction to the CIP plan is that maybe it ought to contain a heavy dose of how do the developers actually finance it, stage it, and time it; because he strongly believes that the ordinance on premature development would not/should not/did not preclude the possibility of Schendel going forward. He said it was a wrong reading of the ordinance and that is inconsistent with the Comp Plan and he doesn’t think it’s the right outcome. He is also concerned about the third resolution (density). He said it’s clearly a policy discussion and that there’s a very specific reason that parcel of land has the high density that it has and there was a lot of discussion as to why it took place there. He thinks that the Council needs to proceed with caution because we could be chasing a result that we can’t obtain. He would want clear guidance and legal guidance that the Council could down-grade an area that has already been zoned at a level of density without incurring significant expense to take away that density right. If the property is currently platted for a density number, and the property owner can propose a use that achieves that density under the current infrastructure and ordinances, they have the right to do that. So for the City to even entertain a policy of taking away density rights from that property, we need some guidance before we spend time and energy and staff resources to have that discussion. He summarized it’s a policy discussion that could have legal impact. He also has concerns on the specific wording of the various resolutions and won’t vote to approve them but he stated his case and will accept the outcome of the Council’s action. Mayor Guenthner then asked the Council for further comments. Councilor Grabowski asked in regards to the third resolution, 2007-44, that this resolution is asking for input from our public and that he’s heard from residents that are shocked that the city would allow something like this. He felt this wasn’t communicated well enough to the residents of this community that it could happen to this piece of property. He wants the public to know what we’re planning and he is in favor of getting as much input back from our residents as we possibly can. Mayor Guenthner asked if the outcome of that public meeting would be to change the zoning of Schendel property. Councilor Grabowski replied that it would sure give us some direction from our residents as to what they desire and what they want this community to be in the future. Councilor Hudok stated he agreed with Councilor Grabowski that this is simply a public meeting to discuss this, that we’re not saying we’re going to do something based on that. We’re not saying it’s going to go one way or another. We’re just trying to get more input and more talk out there with the members of the community. If we explain this to them (residents) and people say it makes sense to Page -9- CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 26, 2007 them, then that’s how we proceed. At least we are starting more discussion on this Comprehensive Plan coming up. Councilor Grabowski added that he would like clearly illustrated is that there are mandates and dictates by Met Council also with regards to some of the density and layout of the Comprehensive Plan and he would like to know if that’s still current from Met Council and what their thoughts are and what their direction would be for us in view of our Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Guenthner suggested as an alternative that would satisfy everybody and reduce the potential for difficulties among the Council members and that is, rather than have Planner Gartner outline a Capital Improvement Plan and have the meeting to talk about density, etc. Why wouldn’t we ask Planner Gartner to give us a project plan for the Comp Plan review process itself with various elements which include from very early on, public meetings/public visioning sessions, educational sessions for the public and the Council on what the Comp plan does, what the comp planning process involves, what those requirements are by the Met Council, what our own legal requirements are, what the existing comp plan does or doesn’t do. He recommended a timeline for achieving the mandated amendment by December, 2008. This process would be more logical and builds on more discussions as we go along. If we have meeting with the public to talk about the density issue on the Schendel property, is in fact part of the discussion we have on the Comp Plan process. We should have Planner Gartner give us a roadmap on what we need to have. Councilor Grabowski asked if the Council could direct staff to provide that. Mayor Guenthner stated yes. Councilor Jacobs said the one problem of what the Mayor was suggesting is that it still doesn’t give the public the chance to come in and talk about this topic and as we went through the last seven months, there was a consistent request from people that showed up here at various meetings and that he talked to out in the streets, that the people asked how could this be, what’s going on. He thinks before we go through the formal process of setting up a revision to a comp plan, that there are a lot of people in this community that would like to figure out what the current one is and what it means. Then, with that feedback from them, then yes we should probably talk through the implications with the City Attorney so all that should be done as a kind of preliminary process before we go into the formal comprehensive plan update. Because if we follow your plan, Mr. Mayor, we won’t get the public in here until next year. Mayor Guenthner replied the public will be in here for the very first meeting that’s probably one of the very first bullet points on the outline that Planner Gartner gives us, so that’s the point,. Councilor Hudok added that two of these resolutions have very specific dates and timeframes and very specific terms as to when they are to be completed by. The third one brings in Hennepin County with the Engineer and Planner. Mayor Guenthner stated he is just trying to find a compromise that is pleasing to everyone. He is requesting that the Council do it in a logical, efficient manner that will be proposed and outlined by our Planner. MOTION by Grabowski, seconded by Jacobs (for purposes of discussion), to have Council direct staff to provide us with an outline specifically covering these issues Staff Prepare Outline of Comp Plan Process – Page -10- CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 26, 2007 to give us a roadmap for the review of the Comp Plan. Timeline and Budget Information DISCUSSION: Councilor Thomas stated it doesn’t cover all the topics in these resolutions. Mayor Guenthner responded it was a pretty general motion. Councilor Thomas added that the deadline problem is not covered in regards to the 2008 budget, we won’t have any input back from the Planner yet. Mayor Guenthner replied that the budget item we had addressed would be the Comp Plan update process and that more detailed elements of that process, including implementation, would be line items under the Comp Plan update process. Mayor Guenthner then noted we are into our next interview time slot. Councilor Grabowski then asked if Council Jacobs would be ok with amending it to say that this plan should be complete so we can use it for the 2008 budget process and Councilor Jacobs said yes, that’s the key point. He recommended amending the motion. MOTION TO AMEND by Grabowski, seconded by Jacobs, to amend the motion to include direction to staff to include budgeting information for purposes of the 2008 budget discussion. Voting Aye: Grabowski, Guenthner, Hudok, Jacobs, and Thomas. (Motion Carried 5:0). VOTE ON MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED: Voting Aye: Grabowski, Guenthner, Hudok, and Jacobs. Voting Nay: Thomas. (Motion Carried 4:1) BLDG INSPECTION BUILDING INSPECTION SERVICES INTERVIEWS SERVICES INTERVIEWS Northwest Inspection Services – 8:30 pm Fred Patch of Northwest Inspection Services introduced himself. He is a MN Northwest Inspection Certified Building Official. The big difference he stated between his company and Services the other company interviewing is that his is a small firm. One of his employees (Mr. Lucht) has been laid off. Mr. Patch would provide all the services himself on site. He stated he can bring a level of sensitivity to residents and will work closely with city staff. He recommends building representation be though city’s website and not theirs. Councilor Hudok’s questions to Mr. Patch: 1) Do you give packets to residents? (i.e. deck building) 2) Do you have someone else that can answer your questions in the office when you’re not there? 3) What was name of person laid off? Mr. Patch’s answers to Councilor Hudok: Yes hand-outs are very clear. He will review decks in 1-2 days issuance time. 2) He is available until 6:00 pm and early am. Also other hours via voicemail/email. 3) Mark Lucht due to slow-downs. Councilor Jacobs’ questions to Mr. Patch: 1) Explain code enforcement? 2) Why 50% for all fees? 3) How many other inspectors? 4) Pool question (as addressed in earlier interview)? 5) Electrical permits –how do you coordinate with State? Page -11- CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 26, 2007 6) What is your response time for (i.e. roofing) inspections? 7) How do you access city files? 8) What are your fee charges when homeowner has done labor? Mr. Patch’s answer to Councilor Jacobs: 1) Am very capable. 2) 50% number works well for me and 50% is a bit giving. 3) Two on staff are certified PT Building Officials, 1 is PT certified on ICC (not State). 4) Safety of pools would need the city to adopt an ordinance on pools. There have been some terrible local tragedies recently – he would assist with ordinance adoption. Wal-Mart-type pools (under 5000 gal.) could be addressed by a local ordinance too, if needed. 5) The electrical inspector leaves a sticker and he coordinates with contractor to do mechanical inspection. 6) Clean up lose ends at 180 days (6 mos), send out letter for status – permitee is responsible for calling for inspections. 7) He represents city as a public official. City files are subject to State rules – data privacy shouldn’t be an issue as he’s part of city staff. 8) Valuation to be determined by Building Official – use State table to provide clearness and consistently to applicant. He will go lower than the table (using common sense) and never takes the higher value. Mr. Patch stated consistency is very important. Mayor Guenthner passed on asking questions and thanked Mr. Patch for his time and told him that a decision on the Building Inspector position will be made at the August 9 meeting. UNFINISHED BUSINESS UNFINISHED BUSINESS Bill Worth Land Division, Bill Worth Land Division, Pursuant to State Statutes, Resolution 2007-51 Pursuant to State Statutes, Planner Gartner stated Mr. Worth had contacted him 6-8 weeks ago about the possibility of sub-dividing his property following the MUSA line area. In reviewing your ordinance, it basically allows for property to be split if its greater than 20 acres or larger in size by metes and bounds description. The applicant’s intent is to take Tract A which is north of the existing creek, this is the boundary for your MUSA line, and he is selling that portion to the adjacent property owner. Tract B, which is south of the creek, and north of Co. Rd. 50 will be retained as that pieces located within the MUSA boundary and has a higher density somewhere down the road. Planner Gartner went on to say the Resolution’s intent is to put something in the file that says that the city has seen this split, and although you don’t necessarily have to approve it, because they can do this statutorily, are acknowledging that it has been done and there are no building entitlements. Councilor Thomas asked if we are creating a lot outside of MUSA with no building rights and Planner Gartner stated that’s correct. Planner Gartner stated Mr. Worth has already used his building entitlements. Councilor Thomas asked if this would create an empty lot that has no buildings on it and Planner Gartner stated yes and that it will never have building rights. Councilor Thomas thought we had a policy of not doing that. Mayor Guenthner had a concern from a policy standpoint that this is good way to set aside a “valueless” piece of property as a hedge against a future resetting of the building rights clock. Councilor Jacobs asked if there was any density left on the property on Cain Road because he thought he had seen this happen before. City Engineer Vander Top replied the one on Cain Road wasn’t the one he was thinking of but suggested if he Page -12- CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 26, 2007 and Administrator Vergin looked they could find the parcel. Councilor Thomas stated the problem with having an empty lot without building on it, who is going to keep it up, keep weeds down, etc. Mayor Guenthner stated maybe we’d want to see a conservation easement or something on that outlot. Councilor Thomas questioned who is ultimately responsible? Planner Gartner doesn’t know what Mr. Worth’s intent is, if it’s farmable or not. Councilor Hudok asked if Mr. Worth can, by some process, dissolve this line further to the north and just make that part of the other parcel? Maybe some sort of replanning? Planner Gartner responded they could ask that property to do so. Councilor Hudok responded by asking can we do that? Mayor Guenthner stated this drawing can be recorded at the County Recorder’s office and create these lots. Our concern is over the building rights. Council Thomas asked if Tract B had any building rights either? Planner Gartner said no Tract B does not, but could have building rights sometime in the future when the MUSA line is extended. Planner Gartner said maybe the Resolution should say Tract B has zero (0) building rights available at this time; however may be subject to future subdivision. Mayor Guenthner stated we are acknowledging the building rights status on these parcels. Resolution 2007-51 Approve Land Division MOTION made by Hudok, seconded by Grabowski to approve Resolution 2007- 51, approving the land division by metes and bounds as presented by Bill Worth. Voting Aye: Grabowski, Guenthner, Jacobs, Hudok, and Thomas. (Motion carried 5:0) Collection of Outstanding Collection of Outstanding Escrow – City Attorney Escrow – City Attorney Joe Langel, City Attorney, stated his memo is a statutory process and that he wants direction from the council as to which direction to proceed and how far to go and to try to keep fees to a minimum in order to collect monies due from the Laurent escrow. Councilor Jacobs stated we have choices as to which way to go. The City has been extending trade credit to developers, so we have the problem of trying to collect money. Jacobs suggested a possible demand letter and set a date. Councilor Thomas suggested possibly a lien or make a phone call, follow up with a demand letter, set a date, see what the person in arrears is willing to do. Councilor Jacobs asked if the lien could be taken down to the courthouse, with very minimal effort, and therefore cut out the judge and court cost Councilor Jacobs asked. City Attorney Langel said if he were to confess judgment, that at that point it could be entered on the Docket and filed against the property that they own in this county (if they are willing to do that). City Attorney Langel the whole duration and cost all depends on how much of a fight they (Laurent) puts up. Mayor Guenther suggested maybe set up a payment plan or sign a confession of judgment so there are all types of alternatives. Councilor Thomas asked if interest still accrues and Administrator Vergin stated yes it does and City Attorney Langel also agreed. Councilor Thomas asked if the interest accrual could be used as a negotiation tool also. Councilor Thomas also stated that Laurent owns some other property in Corcoran (41.63 acres) that they purchased in 2003 for $1.6 million and do we know if that’s free and clear property? City Attorney Langel responded yes we can try to verify that. Page -13- CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 26, 2007 Councilor Grabowski stated we should find out all properties that they (Laurent) own in Corcoran. City Attorney responded there may be other properties as well that aren’t in the city of Corcoran that are in Laurent development’s name. Councilor Hudok asked who outright owns the property and are there any other debtors on it and how does that work based on considerable debt to probably several people, i.e. first in line, etc. or the first person to get the lien, second person next, etc? City Attorney Langel responded there is a priority of liens and that if there is other mortgages, judgments, etc., so yes we are line and that’s a statutory priority in the system. Councilor Hudok stated it would be nice to be in the front of that list and not the bottom so they could sell that property and pay off other people and if we’re not on that list and then they come to us and say that they’ve (Laurent) have sold it and they’ve paid off other people first so they still don’t have our money, we’d be right back where we started from if we don’t act fast. Councilor Jacobs asked if we do file a lien are they (Laurent) able to have a closing and not pay it off. Langel responded no it would be a recorded lien so at the time of the sale of the property, it would all have to be cleared (liens) before the sale is concluded. Councilor Jacobs asked if we don’t do anything about this, aren’t we then an unsecured creditor? City Attorney responded absolutely, that unsecured is at the bottom of the list until we get that judgment. Councilor Thomas also asked about costs the City may incur and will that added? City Attorney Langel responded yes, but those costs, interest, etc, may need to be negotiated when we are trying to collect. Mayor Guenthner then made a suggestion to the Council to authorize the City Attorney to make a formal, written demand for payment in a time period that he feels is appropriate and during that period for him to do some preliminary debtor research on what other liens are filed against the property(s) so at such time we conclude its appropriate to authorize commencing a lawsuit, we are doing it with at least some information in front of us. The demand letter might prompt some sort of discussion where we find out they (Laurent) are willing to pay us and get us off their list. Councilor Jacobs stated that the applicant mentioned he sure wanted to keep his legal standing and his PUD alive, so I think there are things to discuss with regards to this. MOTION made by Grabowski, seconded by Hudok, to authorize the City Attorney to issue a written demand for payment and conduct preliminary debtor research. Voting Aye: Grabowski, Guenthner, Jacobs, Hudok, and Thomas. Authorize Attorney to Issue (Motion carried 5:0) Demand for Payment : DISCUSSION ITEM Councilor Thomas then asked about the billing of services on the above agenda item. We’ve had discussions on this issue (timely paying of Discussion of Billing bills) a few years ago, and the problem being if we get delayed bills can’t link them Processes to the escrow accounts, he would like to propose that we make a motion tonight that we think very seriously about setting a limit if our consultants or outside services don’t provide a bill to us within a certain amount of time, which we have in our agreement with them, it is our understanding that they are liable for the collection of the monies that they don’t get to cover a case like this. The intent would be to get the reporting in quick enough so that our staff can do their job in order to control the escrows. This gives us protection and it would give us a prod Page -14- CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 26, 2007 to our suppliers to make sure that they get their bills in on time. Councilor Jacobs gave a handout to Council and staff of this Laurent’s escrow sheets broken out by vendor and date to show the various amounts from a positive balance early in 2006 to a negative balance in March, with some fluctuations up and down to the end of 2006 at which time a balance due existed of $41,800. We should have been much more careful advancing trade credit to applicants because we are basically financing vendors for their work done but the applicant has not paid us yet for it. If we had a procedure in place as well as have a staff person watching these problem accounts, we could have kept this problem down to a more reasonable number. Mayor Guenthner then asked the Council for constructive solutions that could correct the situation going forward. He agreed with Councilor Thomas that we should look at our billing cycles more closely. Most companies want to collect their receivables faster than they make payment on their payables, so we are a little bit too far out the other direction. We have contracts with some of our providers and those address invoicing and billing so we would need some review of our agreements with our service providers to find out whether we could go back and tell them if they don’t invoice us within X days of the date of service, they are at risk for collection because that might (or might not) be permitted under the contract so we must think about the implication of having to go back and possibly rewrite those. Councilor Grabowski said to consider when these large developers come in is to not allow them (large developers) to go below a $10,000 cushion in the positive and when they reach that amount, its done. Then don’t allow them to go to a zero balance or negative balance because its our City at risk. Mayor Guenthner stated these were all good suggestions. Council Jacobs asked if the City Attorney has seen any better ideas that other cities have used or if other cities have had a similar situation like this before. City Attorney Langel replied that he has seen it before, but it always gets back to the cash flow problem in that we’re often getting the bills from consultants faster and you can’t always keep track of – it’s a timing problem between the outflow and the inflow. Attorney & Administrator to Mayor Guenthner then recommended that our City Attorney and City Provide Blueprint for Administrator put together a blueprint for a new escrow management policy. Escrow Management Policy Area Charges – MUSA vs. Non-MUSA by City Attorney Area Charges – MUSA vs. Non-MUSA City Attorney Joe Langel stated there is a proposed plan to have area charges for transportation purposes that vary depending on whether the property at issue is within the MUSA boundary versus not within the MUSA boundary and within the MUSA boundaries, and those charges vary. He stated there are two issues here. One is can you have differing charges and two is the validity of area charges in the first place – just as a broad concept. There is differences of opinion out there as to if area charges are even valid for transportation specifically because there is no statutory authority for it. He stated the city of Eagan had gone through this process (for 14 years on Eagan’s books and the developer won – he got no money back but won the principle). If we avoid impact fees, then it’s arguable if you can proceed with them. The key of the impact fee is that it has to be related to the cost of the infrastructure and then related to the necessity of the development. The MUSA Page -15- CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 26, 2007 transportation charges are going to be considerably higher than the Non-MUSA he stated. So the City has to be able to demonstrate that the cost of the infrastructure in the MUSA area is considerably higher than the cost outside of the MUSA area, and that the cost is directly related to the development that’s being charged that area charge. The plan is that within MUSA, we’ve got three different areas and even within MUSA those area charges vary dramatically from $7,000 to $19,000 per acre. So you have to have an argument that this acreage above this line necessitated $7,000 in area charges whereas the acreage below the line necessitated $19,000. His concerns are the distinction between MUSA and Non-MUSA are not supported by the cost of infrastructure that was necessitated by the development. You can have different charges as long as you can logically and reasonably come up with an argument that supports what those different charges area and whether it’s inside MUSA or outside MUSA or the different areas within MUSA. Councilor Thomas questioned if we can have that same transportation charge inside the MUSA and use the monies for collector roads outside the MUSA. He was wondering what the legal position is on this. Mr. Langel responded that in that prior case (Egan), the Court didn’t like the fact that the city of Egan was taking money here and putting into a fund and using it someplace else. That was the primary reason why the court struck down their (Egan’s) fee because they weren’t able to tie this cost to this development. He then added that the city of Red Wing uses a per acreage basis, but it’s higher as you get to the roads and fee lessens the farther you get away from the road. Red Wing does this through a 429-assessment process. Councilor Jacobs said that aside from transportation we have area charges for parks and trails and they are just city wide. So why not have city wide fees for transportation. There is an issue of matching up he stated. Road usage by residents and non-residents as well, traveling through the city is an issue. We need a way to equalize the burden of who has to pay because the State/County is not giving us enough money. We need the City Attorney’s input of how to do this. He asked if we could have an area wide system. Mr. Langel stated there is no difference how you divide it up (quadrants, etc.) or if we divide it up. It all goes back to can you demonstrate or what can we tell the judge if we get to that point. The costs have to be necessitated. Mayor Guenthner then asked how the recreational fee has been handled. It was his understanding that cities do charge parks fee. Mr. Langel stated he hadn’t looked at that specifically and there may be a different statutory basis for that. He stated we are kind of back to the philosophy of the 429 process but just extended out a little farther because under the 429 you can’t assess that property unless you show that the value to the property exceeds the amount that you are assessing. So if the City Council tried to assess me, for example, for paving Cain Road, I could go in and challenge that, arguing that there’s no benefit to my property in southeast Corcoran to paving Cain Road. Mayor Guenthner went on to state the City might just want to take a calculated risk to go ahead. Right now it’s an outside MUSA $8,000 charge. He said with regard to transportation/sewer-water, it was always tied to the actual cost of the project to which the developer is connecting so the develop would bear area charges for the collector roads leading to their project. So when we create this MUSA/Non-MUSA distinction, why do we bypass that traditional approach of creating an area charge based on the actual cost of the Page -16- CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 26, 2007 infrastructure that is downstream of the project. Councilor Jacobs commented he thinks it’s because they are different costs as water/sewer comes in a straight line but park and recreation is citywide. Mayor Guenthner responded that our parks and recreation isn’t MUSA/Non-MUSA. Councilor Jacobs answered that’s the point and the Mayor said transportation is the one I’m asking about. Jacobs continued that there is going to be a large discussion on which roads get paved but it seems like the demand on the usage of the roads spreads well beyond the few hundred acres adjoining because we sit in five school districts and people travel to get to schools such as Buffalo, Rockford, etc. so we have a lot of potential growth inside the MUSA line being served by schools outside the MUSA line. It’s hard to figure out who got the benefit of these roads. Mayor Guenthner said he and Councilor Jacobs are misunderstanding each other and not communicating well. He went on to ask if we would do any subdivision project within the “MUSA” area that didn’t involve the requirement of full paving all the way through the project. At that point the transportation area charges take care of itself. We do have developments occurring on non-paved roads that for some period of time may remain unpaved and we haven’t required paving as a condition. He questioned where we would have an inside the MUSA development where we wouldn’t require paving all the way through the development. City Engineer Vander Top responded that the City of Egan also had additional fees included in their fees they couldn’t defend – make sure to tie $ to be sure fee is defendable. We currently would have four fees here – SW/NE/SE and Rural. We don’t want to have 10 different transportation charges across the city. He said those four could be defendable. Mayor Guenthner noted that the Pavement Committee has been working with these dollar numbers. Councilor Thomas said the Pavement Committee doesn’t need any more direction and that “no action” is fine to him, until we have all the information we need. The charge right now is $8000 per unit outside the MUSA. Councilor Hudok added that the people using the roads the most need to be assessed. And that maybe a bonding method would be more equitable. Councilor Jacobs stated there is not agreement at this point. All 600 new density units will be sending their students west down a county road and back and forth in between them on collector roads that are gravel that the city’s responsible for. Mayor Guenthner asked Councilor Jacobs if he has an alternative proposal for the charge. Councilor Thomas said we should ask the attorney and get his advice on what we should do. City Attorney Langel responded that the more you can tie the charge to where you’re at, the better. Mayor Guenthner then said that Council member Jacobs would like to see a broader application of the charge. And that we would need at least a specific proposal from somebody to either change the status quo or preserve it for the time being so we can move on with the agenda. Councilor Jacobs stated he is not ready to make a proposal yet so Mayor Guenthner said then we need to move on so there’s no action on this item. Page -17- CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 26, 2007 Proper Preparation of Audit, City Attorney Preparation of Audit, City Attorney City Attorney Langel explained there are very few legal requirements out there for audits. Escrows aren’t legal issues as they are accounting issues he said. His suggestions were if the City has concerns on how the auditor that did the audit then the City could seek another opinion. rd Councilor Jacobs asked if we could ask the State Auditor (as a 3 party) to send in and ask questions about this and Mr. Langel responded that he’s had limited interaction with the State Auditor and that he would advise not sending them all the information. Mr. Langel said you can simply call the State Auditor and ask them simple questions instead. Mayor Guenthner asked Mr. Jacobs what the ultimate outcome is of pursuing this inquiry here. Councilor Jacobs responded we need a new auditor, if only because we will get a new opinion so if we keep rotating auditors every couple of years, they know the next auditor will be looking over their shoulder because they always check the previous ones so the new auditor will also add to the corrective measures. He personally has some questions about the adequacy of this document because there are differing versions of the amount of assets in particular escrow funds as of the end of the year, based on the two sets of documents and that’s what was highlighted when copied, they are about $70,000 apart, – an asset as one is not an asset in the other one. Maybe we simply make a request for an RFP and find a new auditor. Maybe now is the perfect time of the year to put out the request to get some new applicants for this job for next year. MOTION by Jacobs, seconded by Grabowski, to run the appropriate notice that City to Pursue RFP’s for the City of Corcoran is looking for a new auditor for 2007 – the year we’d be Auditing Services applying it to. Mayor Guenthner then asked Council for any more discussion Councilor Hudok then added there were significant discrepancies in both audits that we received. There are numbers from both sets of copies that certainly don’t jive with each other. Mayor Guenthner added he was hoping he wouldn’t have to go back and re- educate himself on the basic accounting and audit processes and personally review the City’s books in order to be able to answer the question as to why certain items appear on a certain line in the audit and why they don’t appear to match up. He doesn’t think any of the Council members are Accountants/CPA’s or have training in audits, so for any of us to suggest that the audit is proper or improper, correct or incorrect, is an exercise in compounding ignorance. Councilor Thomas added if we get a different audit firm in here that for next year they’ll base it off of the results of this audit and they’ll make sure their starting point is correct and if there are discrepancies they’ll find it. Mayor Guenthner asked if there was any further discussion on the motion. Councilor Jacobs added that there’s a lot of people in the audience that went to some level of schooling where they learned what the definitions of assets and simple terms are and he thinks its reasonable for the Council not to defer totally to professionals as to what the language means as he understands auditors and accountants but when you find discrepancies and its not explained, he thinks that is an implication of something and without drawing a conclusion may or may not be Page -18- CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 26, 2007 incompetence or a legality but something definitely happened there and that’s worth our paying attention to. Getting a new auditor to look at such matters would be useful as they might bring a whole new perspective to it if they aware that this had been going on. Councilor Grabowski asked for a vote. Voting Aye: Grabowski, Hudok, Jacobs. Voting Nay: Guenthner, Thomas. Motion carried 3:2. Mayor Guenthner stated it was 10:00 and that he needed authority to continue with this meeting. Motion to Extend Meeting – 5 minutes (Approved) MOTION by Grabowski, seconded by Jacobs to extend the meeting five minutes to approve the claims. Mayor Guenthner then asked for some guidance on how to manage the rest of the agenda, given we have another 5 minutes to complete the meeting. Councilor Grabowski stated we’ll have to table the rest of the agenda for the next meeting. Mayor Guenthner then asked for consideration to look at the rest of the agenda and find out what we’re not tending to for another two weeks. He asked if the council member would consider an amendment to his motion to extend the meeting to 11:00 pm so that we can complete our agenda? Councilor Grabowski replied no. Mayor Guenthner asked if there was any further discussion on the motion to extend the meeting for five more minutes. VOTE ON MOTION : Voting Aye: Grabowski, Hudok, Jacobs. Voting Nay: Thomas, Guenthner. (Motion carried 3:2.) Motion to Extend Meeting – MOTION made by Councilor Thomas, seconded by Guenthner, to extend the for additional 45 minutes meeting beyond that 5 minutes for another 45 minutes to finish the City business. (Failed) Voting Aye: Thomas, Guenthner. Voting Nay: Grabowski, Hudok and Jacobs. (Motion failed 2:3). CLAIMS AS PRESENTED CLAIMS AS PRESENTED 10.a., 10.b. and 10.c. (Escrow Claims/Building Inspection Claims and All Escrow Claims/Building Other Claims as Presented Claims/All Other Claims as MOTION by Grabowski, seconded by Hudok, to approve all claims as presented. Presented Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hudok, Grabowski, Thomas and Jacobs. (Motion carried 5:0). Councilor Jacobs questioned a $296.00 charge to Ruttgers Bay Lake Lodge for training. Administrator Vergin replied there was an economic development training conference held at that location. Councilor Jacobs said he thought that was the first time he had seen that happening and that he raises the issue of the location as he wasn’t quite sure that was a good place for the City to be doing any business at. He went on to say $300 is only $300. No further discussion. Adjournment ADJOURNMENT MOTION to adjourn, seconded Hudok, at 10:06 pm. Voting Aye: Grabowski, Page -19- CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 26, 2007 Hudok and Jacobs. Voting Nay: Thomas and Guenther. (Motion carried 3:2). _____________________________ Barb Larson, City Clerk Page -20-