05/10/2005 - City Council Special
MAY 10, 2005
SPECIAL COUNCIL WORKSHOP
5:30 P.M.
EAGAN ROOM-EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER
AGENDA
1. AGENDA ADOPTION
II. VISITORS TO BE HEARD
Q . III. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CLARIFICATION-CENTRAL
PARKWAY STREETSCAPING
?j IV. WINTER TRAIL MAINTENANCE PLAN REVIEW
V. SIGNAGE FOR CUL-DE-SACS
VI. 20 YR TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS
1" ' l ANALYSIS (TINA)
VII. 5 YR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP), PART III -
PUBLIC WORKS
VIII. APPOINTMENTS / CEDAR CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT GROUP AND
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
IX. OTHER BUSINESS
X. CLOSED SESSION
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Special Council Workshop
Agenda Memo
May 10, 2005
III. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CLARIFICATION - CENTRAL PARKWAY
DIRECTION FOR CONSIDERATION:
DETERMINE DISPOSITION OF PENDING SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS FOR LOCKHEED MARTIN
FACTS:
• Project 813 provided for the installation of streetscape improvements
(landscaping, street lights, gateway/entrance monuments, etc) along Central
Parkway from Yankee Doodle Rd. to Pilot Knob Rd. This project was approved
by the City Council on May 7, 2002.
• The Feasibility Report that was presented at the public hearing identified several
properties to be assessed for the benefits associated with these improvements,
including Lockheed Martin (LM), Argosy Medical School (Duke Realty) and the
City's Central Park. At the Public Hearing, LM submitted a letter objecting their
inclusion in the pending assessment roll, citing a previous agreement with the city
that they believed excluded them from participation in the proposed special
assessment financing of these improvements. Preliminary opinions from the City
Attorney's office and Appraiser indicated that the referenced agreement does not
cover this project and that there is some special benefit to LM.
• With the approval of the project on May 7, 2002, the proposed special assessment
roll was adopted providing for pending assessments against the LM property in
the estimated amount of approximately $500,000. In approving the project, the
motion also stipulated that if LM dedicated the necessary easements to
accommodate the streetscape improvements that were proposed to be located on
their property, the City Council would give consideration to deleting their related
assessments. Unfortunately, staff was unable to obtain the required easements
from LM in a time frame that was needed for the contractor to complete his work.
Subsequently, on March 18, 2003 the City Council processed a change order for
Contract 02-17 deleting those improvements on LM property.
• The staff is ready to close out the contract and prepare the Final Assessment Roll
for this project. It would be helpful if the Council could provide some guidance
on whether, and to what extent, LM should be included or removed from the Final
Assessment Roll.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Location map, page.
F N
(024-01) (023-01)
4.p
O~
'Cy
V
wp M
o (022-01) wp~P
c ~
C
4144 SO FT
1798 SO FT
.Y1?° F
a~ (021-01)
Qp
Q
3 -
Y
a
(3.
= G pQi
(010-79) c (010-01)
L v
Q`~ V
LEGEND
J14ii O PROPOSED STREETSCAPE AREA
P~oQOryP , 1,
Q~
300 PROPOSED EASEMENT
~l
1863 SO FT. 3673 SO FT.
t
0
YANKEE DOODLE RD.
CITY OF EAGAN FIGURE
C.P. NO. 813
CENTRAL PARKWAY 2
ron.~lPROJECT AREA MAP/ASSESSMENT PARCELS
.kA •00244-7 f%RVww 4440WWicn44a04r&. 4126102
a
Special Council Workshop
Agenda Memo
May 10, 2005
IV. WINTER TRAIL MAINTENANCE PLAN REVIEW
DIRECTION FOR CONSIDERATION:
REVIEW AND COMMENT ON PROPOSED ADDITIONS
AND DIRECT TO THE NNE 7 COUNCIL MEETING FOR
FORMAL ACTION.
FACTS:
• In 1998, the City Council adopted a Winter Trail Maintenance Plan that allows
the Council to annually review and reconsider the extent of the trail system that is
maintained during the winter months. This review has been directed to be
performed at the next available workshop after April 1 each year.
• Although there are no citizen requests, there is one segment that staff has
identified that needs to be addressed by the Council for this coming winter season
('05-'06)
ATTACHMENTS:
• Staff memo, pages and
• Location map, page
3
City of Eapn
MEMO
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
THOMAS L. HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: THOMAS A. COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: MAY 6, 2005
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL SEGMENTS TO WINTER TRAIL
MAINTNENANCE PROGRAM
BACKGROUND
In October, 1996, the City Council implemented an experimental trial program for maintaining
sidewalks and trails during the winter season on a select segment consisting of 3.8 miles primarily
serving walkers to the elementary schools. They also adopted a policy and an ordinance requiring
certain property owners to maintain the adjacent sidewalks.
In the spring of 1998, the Council evaluated the program and considered expanding it throughout
the City. Staff was directed to inventory the existing system (105 miles), evaluate the priority
uses of the sidewalks and trails, prepare a draft plan (46 miles) and present it to the community
for comments and suggestions.
At a special workshop session held on May 26, 1998, the Council reviewed all the comments and
modified the draft plan to address the needs and desires of the community. This final draft plan (54
miles) was then presented to the public for final review and comments and subsequent Council
adoption on June 2, 1998. Since then, the City Council has added approx. 6.00 miles of trails to the
system (new construction along collector/arterial road upgrades meeting the trail policy criteria.)
The current program consists of 60 miles of the total 120 mile system. (This does not include the
internal Park trail system.).
COST/BUDGET ANALYSIS
The original 1998 annual budget requirement was estimated at: $180,000 (53 miles @
$3,400/mile).
The 2005 approved budget is: $103,020 (60 miles at $1,717/mile).
The last 5 year average annual cost has been: $62,920 ($1,049/mile).
The highest cost year was the winter season of 2000/2001 at: $150,558 ($2,509/mile).
The previous low cost year was 2002/2003 at: $17,264 ($288/mile).
The current season-to-date cost for the 200412005 season is: $24,811 ($413/mile)
I
POLICY
When the Winter Trail Maintenance Plan was approved, the City Council also adopted a policy that
all requests for revisions or additions to the approved plan must be submitted by April 1 for
consideration by the City Council at the next scheduled workshop. Additions/revisions can be
considered by the Council via 3 methods: Citizen Petition (CP), Citizen Request (CR) or Additional
Considerations (AC) initiated by staff.
SUMMARY OF REQUESTS
After its 7 year of implementation, the program is fairly well refined and there are few if any
requests for changes. This year, there is only one segment submitted for consideration as identified
by staff:
1. Additional Consideration- AC #1
Segment. At the completion of the 2005 construction season, the extension of the new
alignment of Co. Rd. 28 (Yankee Doodle Rd) will be completed from TH 149 to TH 55 in
I.G.Hts. This new 4 lane county road will include off street trails installed along both sides
for the entire length.
Additional cost: Adding this new segment plus the existing segment on the south side of
Yankee Doodle from Elrene Rd. to TH 149 (total 6180 ft.) would cost an average of
$1,227/yr.
Policy Criteria Compliance: Meets Policy Criteria #1, Major Arterial Roads: "Thoroughfare
roads with 4+lanes, traffic volumes greater than 5000 vehicles per day and speed limits of
45 mph or greater."
Issues. While this segment will meet the Policy's criteria, the extension of these trail
segments along the new county road alignment does not connect to any existing trail
system. It is adjacent to 4 developed business properties with an estimated 50 - 100
employees. The construction of trails along THj149 has been approved for planned
construction in 2007. The TH 149 trail improvement will provide better connectivity to the
Yankee Doodle Rd. trail system at that time.
I would be happy to provide any additional information you may need.
!17
Director of Public Works
Enc: Location Map
CC: Tom Struve Supt. of Streets and Eqpt.
G:Trails/Winter Trail maintl'05 requests memo
Winter Trail & Sidewalk Maintenance
Route Considerations for 2005-2006
1-494
LLL~~~
a
m
y~, ss
LONE OAK RD.
?L~
h~ z AC #1
y s
o
z
D
m
YA E
j~
u
~D
~ WE5COTT RD
J _
a
DIFFLEY RD.
X
X D o
D co CLIFF RD.
t
aQ ~
e
a
/ \ 0 1,250 2,500 3,750 5,D00 Feet
Plowed in 2004-2005 N
_ Date: 4129105
City of Ea Additional Consideration #1 Prepared by City of Eagan Street Dept., CM
jaIl File: L:I..Icmistreetsltrailslplowrtesl8x11_route
considerations 05 06.mxd
Le
Special Council Workshop
Agenda Memo
May 10, 2005
V. SIGNAGE FOR CUL-DE-SACS
DIRECTION FOR CONSIDERATION:
NO ACTION NECESSARY - INFORMATIVE ONLY
FACTS:
• Common to all new communities, growth is typically achieved through a phased
process in accordance with adopted comprehensive plans relied upon to insure an
orderly and planned community. Phasing can occur over a variety of timelines
based on the corporate initiative of the developer, market pressures, infrastructure
availability, different development schedules of adjacent property owners, etc.
• Historically, proposed phasing requires the developer to show how the ultimate
layout will integrate with the city's vision for land use compatibility,
infrastructure connectivity and public service delivery. The larger the geographic
area, the great the timeline required to complete the ultimate community's
development layout vision.
• Currently, there are 42 separate locations where a street ends in a temporary cul-
de-sac or stub street condition waiting for the next phasing of development to
occur. The longer the time differential between developments, the greater the
sensitivity of current property owners to the future development when it
eventually occurs.
• Several years ago, the Council directed the implementation installation of
notification signage ("Development Pending") on land where an application for
development has been received. In an effort to provide similar notification to the
public for the future phasing plans after development, staff recently began
requiring developers to install similar signage ("Future Through Street") at the
end of these stub streets and/or temporary cul-de-sacs.
• In an effort to provide consistency throughout the city, staff will begin installing
similar notification signage at all needed locations. With the signs already in
stock, it is anticipated that this installation will be completed within the next 30
days.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Location Map, page
• Copy of sign, page
End of Roadway Markers
Barricades / Nine Button Markers
1_494
6A -
SS
s
LONE OAK RD.
x
0
z
D
YA EE DOODLE RD.
ol~l y~
I L~
S
WESCOTT RD
a
0
DIFFLEY RD.
A
LJL
S
Y F'O
U F°
Q
J
r ~
0 ti
z
0° CLIFF RD.
f7i
O
i
00
42 End of Roadway Markers /A 0 2,000 4,0OOFeet
Barricades / Nine Button Markers N
Date: 429/05
■ 4 Future Thru Street - Signs Revised: 515105
Prepared by. City of Eagan
City of EajaIl Installed by D elopers Street Dept., CM
File: 1A.. lcrnlstreetslsignslprojedsl
en"rmdway_markers barricades 8x11.mxd
K .
? ~ t~'`?'y. ~ ~~~'{git, X543 4 +
r~~rF l~ `~TK k~~.Y ~ y
~ ,i• r 7,'',~J ^ ~'p v ~ G'
U -
~F~ -y 4 Sri ~v
c Z
TT ' Thy}{ 5 +
q- ~ u?
.y ~
K VC,y1~
4~~ ~ r'~
Z 1
7 4
~ i w,
~ ~ r q~
~ 1~
Y
i d ` _
*,y ~
n s
~ i
A.a "eZ
~ r r' 'n
,R
~rf
~
~~r~r
i
}
Special Council Workshop
Agenda Memo
May 10, 2005
VL'. TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ANALYSIS (TINA)
DIRECTION FOR CONSIDERATION:
REVIEW THE DRAFT TINA PLAN AND PROVIDE
INPUT/DIRECTION ON POTENTIAL FURTHER
RESEARCH FOR INCLUSION IN THE FINAL REPORT
AND CONSIDER FUTURE WORKSHOP FOR POLICY
CONSIDERATIONS.
FACTS:
• On Jan 21 -22, 2005, the City Council held their annual goal setting and visioning
retreat. One of the goals that were subsequently adopted related to an initiative to
secure funding sources to expand the transportation infrastructure to meet the
transportation needs of the community.
• In response to that directive, the staff retained the services of its transportation
consultant, SRF Consulting Group Inc., and has completed a working draft report
that identifies the 20 year projected needs for both system preservation and
expansion. It also reviewed the current sources of revenue, identified other
potential sources and compared their projected capabilities to the estimated
system needs. As a result, it has projected the estimated shortfall of funding
necessary to accommodate the 20 year needs.
• At the City Council's direction, a separate conceptual traffic analysis was recently
performed relating to the Northeast Eagan Land Use Study. Because of the
timing of that recent study, those results have not been incorporated into the
TINA study being presented at the Council workshop. Staff will provide an
update on the Northeast Eagan study and its potential relationship to the TINA
20yr study at Tuesday's workshop.
• There are a number of different policies that the Council can consider to close the
funding gap and/or prioritize the identified system needs. That deliberative
process might be better addressed at a future workshop after this draft report has
been discussed and studied further.
ATTACHMENTS:
• A bound copy of the draft TINA report is enclosed under separate cover.
• Summary Memo, pages- and
City of EMe
To: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
%THOMAS L. HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
From: THOMAS A. COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
Date: MAY 5, 2005
Subject: TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ANALYSIS
(TINA)
Council Goal/Directive
On Jan 21 & 22, 2005 the City Council held a goal setting retreat to review their vision for
the community over the next biennium (2005-06). One of the several goals that came out of
that session was:
"Secure Funding sources to expand Eagan 's transportation infrastructure to meet
the transportation needs of the community".
Transportation Study
In response to the Council's directive to pursue this goal, staff initiated a study called the
Transportation Infrastructure Needs Analysis (TINA) covering the next 20 years (2006 to
2025). This study incorporates the city's transportation system needs to both, preserve the
city's current transportation system, and construct the additional facilities necessary to
meet the anticipated future projected traffic. It took into consideration the planned growth
and build out of Eagan as well as MnDOT and Dakota County's projected needs for their
jurisdictional systems within Eagan. This study also identified the current sources of
revenue typically used to finance these types of improvements along with other potential
revenue options for possible consideration.
Funding Requirements
The results of this analysis indicates that, based on current policies and a reasonable
projection of current revenue sources, there will a gap or shortfall of approximately $57.6
million (avg. $2.88 million/yr) of local City funding required to meet the anticipated 20
year needs for the transportation system within Eagan.
/I
TINA Memo, 5-05-05
Page 2
Study Presentation and Discussion
This draft report is being presented to the Council for their edification of the scope of the
transportation infrastructure and financial needs within our community and as a valuable
tool to use in future discussions and considerations on how to plan for addressing these
needs over the next 20 years. At the workshop on May 10, staff and representatives of SRF
Consulting Group Inc. will review the various components of the report and be available to
provide insights on how the Council can best use this information in future policy making
deliberations in pursuit of their adopted goal. Due to the magnitude and complexity of the
information contained within the report, it is not anticipated at the May 10 meeting that the
Council would want to delve into the deliberative process of trying to prioritize any of the
numerous projects or funding options identified. Rather, it might be most helpful if the
Council could provide feedback and input on the contents and format of this draft report
and whether it adequately addresses all elements and aspects that they feel will be
beneficial for their use in future workshop deliberations. With that input, staff will then
revise the report as necessary to meet the Council's interests and prepare a final report for
the City's future use and reference.
Please let me know if there is any additional information needed before the Council
Workshop, and I will be happy to respond.
Respectfully submitted,
Xhoma's . Colbert, P.E.
Director of Public Works
Special Council Workshop
Agenda Memo
May 10, 2005
VII. PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. 5 yr CIP (Part III)
DIRECTION FOR CONSIDERATION:
AFFIRM or REVISE THE DRAFT 5 YR. CIP ('06-10), PART
III (PUBLIC WORKS INFRASTRUCTURE) and DIRECT IT
TO THE JUNE 7, 2005 COUNCIL MEETING FOR FORMAL
CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION
FACTS:
• Every year, the City adopts a Capital Improvement Program for the Community
that becomes the planning guide for initiating and programming various capital
improvements. It is comprised of three parts:
o I) Community Facilities (i.e. Buildings, etc.)
o 11) Major Equipment, and
o III) Infrastructure (Parks & Public Works)
• The Public Works Department has completed the preparation of a draft CIP, Part
III (Public Works Infrastructure) for '06-'10 and would like to review it with the
Council and incorporate any comments and/or revisions before presenting it for
formal consideration and adoption at a regular Council meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Copy of the 3 ring binder of the 5 yr. CIP ('06-10) is provided under separate
cover.
• Summary of Proposed 2006 Program, pages through
13
2006 - 2010 Capital Improvement Program
Proposed 2006 Improvements
LOCATION DESCRIPTION
ARTERIAL & COLLECTOR IMPROVEMENTS
1. Hwy. 55/Blue Water Road Intersection Improvements
2. Slater Rd. (Cliff to Storland) Overlay
3. Yankee Doodle Rd. (Promenade to Lexington) Upgrade to 6 Lanes with Median
4. Town Centre Dr. (Denmark to Lexington) - Overlay
LOCAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS
1. Saddlehom, Sunset Addition Overlay
2. Meadowland 1st, Beaver Dam Road Overlay
3. Suncliff 1 st - 5th Overlay
4. Alexander Road Overlay
5. Meadowview Road Upgrade-36'
6. Silver Veil Road (Nicols to Kennebec) Overlay
7. Art Rahn (Kathryn Circle) Overlay
8. Hillandale (Meadowland Road) Overlay
9. Whispering Woods Additions, Slater Acres Overlay
10. O'Leary Lane Overlay
11. Golfview Drive Overlay
SEALCOAT
415,382 square yards Surface Maintenance
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
1. Yankee Doodle Rd.@Promenade Ave. Signal, New
2. TH 55 @ Blue Water Road Signal, New
3. Lexington Avenue / Northview Park Road Signal, New
4. Cliff Road / Galaxie Avenue / Blackhawk Road Signal Revision
5. Diffley @ Rahn Signal, New
LOCATION DESCRIPTION
STREETLIGHTS
1. Northview Park Rd. & Clinton Tr. Upgrade
2. Northview Park Rd. & Savannah Rd. Upgrade
3. Northview Park Rd. & Braddock Tr. Upgrade
4. Northview Park Rd. & Elrene Rd. Upgrade
5. Elrene Rd. & Bridle Ridge Rd. Install
6. Daniel Dr. & Curry Tr. W. Upgrade
7. Daniel Dr. & Curry Tr. E. Upgrade
8. Daniel Dr. & Rogers Ct. Install
9. Kensington Tr. & Lexington Ave. Upgrade
10. Deerwood Dr. & Church Driveways - 2 each Upgrade
11. Lone Oak Pkwy. & Northwest Pkwy. Upgrade
WATER TRUNK DISTRIBUTION
NONE ANTICIPATED
WATER SYSTEM OPERATON & FACILITERIS
1. Pull & inspect Wells #6 & #5 & #10 Rehabilitation
2. Lexington/Diffley Reservoir Repaint
SANITARY SEWER TRUNK CONVEYANCE
NONE ANTICIPATED
SANITARY FACILITIES & OPERATIONS
1. Lining for root and I & I - 5000 ft @ 25 per ft.
STORM TRUNK CONVEYANCE
NONE ANTICIPATED
STORM FACILITIES & OPERATIONS
NONE ANTICIPATED
G:TC/CIP'06-10/Pmposed 2006 Improvements
is
Agenda Information Memo
May 10, 2005 Eagan Special City Council Meeting
VIII. APPOINTMENTS / CEDAR CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT GROUP AND TECHNICAL
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1.) To appoint a member of the City Council to serve as a member of the Cedar
Group.
2.) To appoint a member of the City Council to serve as an alternate member of the
Cedar Group.
3.) To appoint two (2) City staff members and one (1) alternate member to the Cedar
Avenue Technical Advisory Committee.
4.) To consider appointing a representative of the Eagan business community who
has an interest in the Cedar Avenue Corridor to serve on the Cedar Group.
FACTS:
➢ The City of Eagan, along with the other Dakota County cities impacted by the
Cedar Corridor, have joined together to form the Cedar Corridor Transportation
Infrastructure Improvement Group, which will be referred to as the Cedar Group,
to oversee the Cedar Busway developments as well as focus on highway
improvements to Cedar Avenue.
➢ Each City has been asked to appoint one City Councilmember to serve as a
member of the Cedar Group, and one City Councilmember to serve as the
alternate.
➢ The City must also appoint two City staff persons to serve on the Cedar Corridor
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). It is suggested that the Council appoint
Community Development Director Hohenstein and Public Works Director
Colbert to the TAC with City Planner Ridley as the alternate.
➢ Each City may also appoint one business representative who has a business
facility or business interest in the Cedar Avenue Corridor.
➢ Ruthe Batulis, Executive Director of the NDC Chambers of Commerce, has
voiced the Chamber's interest in having a member of the business community
serve on the committee. As of Friday, May 6, Ms. Batulis was contacting business
community members to inquire about a possible representative to the Cedar
Group.
➢ Given that the first meeting of the committee is on Wednesday, May 11, Ms.
Batulis could attend the first meeting and then the appointed member of the
business community could attend subsequent meetings. Ms. Batulis will be in
contact with the City when she has a commitment from a member of the business
community interested in serving on the committee.
➢ Per the Council's direction at the May 3, 2005 regular City Council meeting, the
City Administrator was in contact with Gene Franchett, Cedar Busway Project
Manager, to get clarification on the role of the MVTA on the Cedar Group. Mr.
Franchett stated that the recommendation going before the Committee on May 11
provides for the MVTA as a voting member of the committee.
➢ The next Cedar Group meeting will take place on Wednesday, May 11 from 3:30-
5:00 p.m. at the Dakota County Western Service Center in Apple Valley. The
group will meet every other month on the second Wednesday of the month from
3:30-5:00 p.m.
ATTACHMENTS:
➢ Enclosed on pagd is e-mail correspondence from Gene Franchett regarding
the role of the MVTA on the Cedar Group.
1-7
-----Original Message-----
From: Franchett, Gene [maiIto: Gene. Franchett@CO.DAKOTA. MN.US]
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 3:21 PM
To: Tom Hedges
Subject: RE: Cedar Group Meeting May 11, 2005
Thanks Tom. We look forward to the City's participation. The draft recommendation going before
group on May 11th provides for a voting member from the MVTA.
Gene
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Hedges [mailto:THedges@cityofeagan.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 3:01 PM
To: Franchett, Gene
Cc: Tom Colbert; Jon Hohenstein
Subject: RE: Cedar Group Meeting May 11, 2005
Gene
Our City Council is planning to make their appointments next Tuesday at a work session
and we will be represented at the Cedar Group meeting. The technical committee will
consist of Tom Colbert, Public Works Director and Jon Hohenstein Director of Community
Development with Mike Ridley, City Planner as our alternate.,
We have also spoken with our Chamber President about a Business appointment.
Wanted to give you this update!
Also do you know if the MVTA will have a voting member; I seem to remember some
discussion at our March 23 meeting that they would be asked to join the Cedar Group
process?
Thanks Gene
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Franchett, Gene [mailto:Gene.Franchett@CO.DAKOTA.MN.US]
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 9:48 AM
To: Commissioners; Elizabeth B Kautz; Greg Konat; Lisa Geister; Lynn Moratzka;
Mark Bernhardson; Mark Krebsbach; Mary Schelde; Mayor Gene Winstead; Mayor
Mary Hamann-Roland; City Council; Randy Johnson; Steve Mielke; Tom Hedges;
Wendy Wulff; Wendy Wulff2
Subject: Cedar Group Meeting May 11, 2005
Meeting notice, agenda, and attachments:
Please notify Gene Franchett, 952-891-7035, if you or your alternate will not be
able to attend the meeting.
1~
Agenda Information Memo
May 10, 2005 Eagan Special City Council Meeting
X. CLOSED SESSION
There will be a closed session to discuss the pending litigation of Ron Wensmann v. City
of Eagan.
1q