Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft 12 09 2013 City Council Minutes O� P ���P ti v 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 �INNES�� REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES December 9, 2013 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Present were Mayor Hedberg, Councilors Keen- ey, McGuire, Morton and Soukup, City Manager Boyles, City Attorney Rosow, City Engineer / Inspections Director Poppler, Project Engineer Thongvanh, Public Works / Natural Resources Director Gehler, Water Resources Engineer Young, Economic and Development Director Rogness, Finance Director Erickson, Fire Chief Hartman, Assistant City Manager Meyer and Administrative Assistant Green. PUBLIC FORUM The Public Forum is intended to afford the public an opportunity to address concerns to the City Council. The Public Forum will be no longer than 30 minutes in length and each presenter will have no more than ten (10) minutes to speak. Topics of discussion are restricted to City gov- ernmental topics rather than private or political agendas. Topics may be addressed at the Pub- lic Forum that are on the agenda except those topics that have been or are the subject of a scheduled public hearing or public information hearing before the City Council, the Economic Development Authority (EDA), Planning Commission, or any other City Advisory Committee. The City Council may discuss but will not take formal action on Public Forum presentations. Matters that are the subject of pending litigation are not appropriate for the Forum. Comments: No person stepped forward to speak. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION BY MCGUIRE, SECOND BY SOUKUP TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENT- ED. VOTE: Ayes by Hedberg, Keeney, McGuire, Morton and Soukup. The motion carried. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES MOTION BY MORTON, SECOND BY KEENEY TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE NO- VEMBER 25, 2013 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. VOTE: Ayes by Hedberg, Keeney, McGuire, Morton and Soukup. The motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA City Manager Boyles reviewed the items on the consent agenda. A. Consider Approval of Claims Listing B. Consider Approval of 2014 Cigarette License Renewals C. Consider Approval of 2014 Massage Therapy License Renewals D. Consider Approval of Resolution 13-177 Electing the Non-Waiver of Statutory Municipal Tort Liability Limits and Declining Excess Liability Insurance Coverage E. Consider Approval of Resolution 13-178 Extending the Banking Services Agreement with US Bank for 2014-2016 F. Consider Approval of Resolution 13-179 Approving the MS4 SWPPP Application for Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 / www.cityofpriorlake.com Reauthorization G. Consider Approval of Resolution 13-180 Approving Amendments to Chapter 5, Transpor- tation, of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan H. Consider Approval of Resolution 13-181 Authorizing a Community Survey I. Consider Approval of the November Building Summary Report Morton: Requested that items 5G, 5H and 51 be removed from the Consent Agenda for discus- sion. Keeney: Requested that item 5B be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. MOTION BY MCGUIRE, SECOND BY SOUKUP TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS MODIFIED. VOTE: Ayes by Hedberg, Keeney, McGuire, Morton and Soukup. The motion carried. 56 Consider Approval of 2014 Cigarette License Renewals MOTION BY KEENEY, SECOND BY MORTON TO APPROVE THE 2014 CIGARETTE LICENSE RENEWALS. Keeney: Commented that from a historical perspective, violations have occurred with holders of cigarette licenses. Noted there are serious sanctions for violations which could lead to loss of license. VOTE: Ayes by Hedberg, Keeney, McGuire, Morton and Soukup. The motion carried. 5G Consider Approval of Resolution 13-180 Approving Amendments to Chapter 5, Transportation, of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan MOTION BY MORTON, SECOND BY SOUKUP TO APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 5, TRANSPORTATION, OF THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Morton: Clarified that language is purposely being left vague regarding specific road- ways or pathways, and rather just highlights the downtown transitional area as a whole. Keeney: Commented that on page 87 a new roadway is identified as being in a long- range time frame, but the Capital Improvement Program has 2016 identified for this pro- ject and that seems incompatible. Poppler: Responded that the CIP shows it in 2018. Hedberg: Believes a key point is that development applications will drive the timing and the design. Keeney: Stated this does not identify how these will be funded other than that we con- tinue to work on funding. This would enable applications for County and State funds. Poppler: Added that funding details come in the Transportation Plan or the Capital Im- provement Program. Keeney: Continued to hope that a frontage road concept will be developed and avoid having two major projects on Pleasant. VOTE: Ayes by Hedberg, McGuire, Morton and Soukup. Nay by Keeney. The motion carried. 5H Consider Approval of Resolution 13-181 Authorizing a Community Survey MOTION BY MORTON, SECOND BY MCGUIRE TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 13-181 AUTHORIZING A COMMUNITY SURVEY. DRAFT 12 09 13 City Council Meeting Minutes � Morton: Stated that a community survey was discussed at the work session and she does not favor moving forward with a survey at this time. Noted that the vendor is asked to come back with modified questions in early January as well as a firm cost as- sociated with conducting a survey. Hedberg: Added that work will be done on modifications to the survey before then, and the survey will be brought to Council for approval in January. Keeney: One of the values of the survey is that people get involved and provide feed- back. The plan is to poll 400 households. Noted that those not selected for the survey can give input to Council members directly. VOTE: Ayes by Hedberg, Keeney, McGuire and Soukup. Nay by Morton. The motion carried. 51 Consider Approval of the November Building Summary Report MOTION BY MORTON, SECOND BY SOUKUP TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER BUILDING SUMMARY REPORT. Morton: Asked how many building permits are estimated for year end. Poppler: Replied that 180-185 single family dwelling permits are anticipated to be completed. Hedberg: Noted that the last financial report was based on receiving 175 permits. VOTE: Ayes by Hedberg, Keeney, McGuire, Morton and Soukup. The motion carried. PRESENTATIONS No presentation was scheduled. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearing to Consider Approval of a Resolution Ordering the Maple Lane, Mushtown Road and Panama Avenue Street Improvement Project (Project # 14-011) and Preparation of Plans and Speci�cations Project Engineer Thongvanh commented that a four-fifths majority vote is required for order- ing plans and specs. Provided a report outlining project objectives and proposed improve- ments, costs, assessments and a preliminary project schedule. Alternative infrastructure lay- outs were displayed. Reviewed the septic system credits program. Stated that a public infor- mational meeting has been held. Morton: Asked the anticipated amount of sewer credits. Thongvanh: Replied they are expected to be around $48,000 for the project. Hedberg: Described the process of the public hearing. MOTION BY MCGUIRE, SECOND BY KEENEY TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Hedberg, Keeney, McGuire, Morton and Soukup. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened at 7:38 p.m. Ernie Peacock, 17325 Panama Avenue, opposes the project. Stated his property was annexed to the City a year ago and he did not receive a notice about improvements until a couple of weeks ago. Stated his property is at the end of Panama Avenue in the City and was added at to the project at a later date. Believes there are inconsistencies in the information presented and the public information meeting citing assessment costs and hookup costs. Does not believe that DRAFT 12 09 13 City Council Meeting Minutes 3 28 of the septic systems are failing but rather are speculated to have problems based on as- sumptions about how long a septic system will last. Stated he was told that there is no septic system that cannot be repaired. Believes most of the residents do not want the project. Stated he was told at an annexation meeting that 65% of residents would have to approve of a project. Asked when the project was initially planned and believes it is being rushed and residents were not advised that it was being planned. Project seems too costly to move ahead with it. Queried about laws that state residents cannot be charged more than the value of the property is in- creased. Referred to the Rolling Oaks project being tabled and proposed that this project could also be tabled. Hedberg: Affirmed there is Statute that addresses benefit received from a project. Danell Johnson, 17116 Maple Lane, concurred with Peacock's comments. Does not think there was a survey done about septic systems and whether they work. Amounts seem high and asked if other bids were received. Hedberg: Responded that no bids have been solicited yet; these amounts are engineer esti- mates. Christine Wetherell, 17124 Mushtown Road, expressed concern about whether due diligence had been done in planning process. Asked how it was determined that septic systems are fail- ing. Agreed there are concerns about the surface and speed on Mushtown Road. Stated that when Thomas Ryan Memorial Park was built, residents were assured that Mushtown Road would not be the primary access to the Park and asked when it was decided that Mushtown would be a collector street. Stated they have good quality well water. Jim Larson, 17080 Maple Lane, Believes the project started with road deterioration and that sewer and water were added because the roadway work needed to be done. Would like to con- sider alternatives to just reconstruct the road. Stated residents are mandated by law to have septics pumped and he has rebuilt his septic. Both septic and well are fine. Thinks residents should get to vote on whether or not to do the project and let the majority rule. Jerome Snell, 17048 Maple Lane, stated he purchased his home 13 months ago. Stated he talked to the City before purchasing his home and was told that the City had no money for the project and it would be 3-5 years before the work done. Stated his septic system is fine and his well is four years old. The easement being discussed would be going through wetlands. Ques- tioned why street should be as wide as planned. Opposes the project. Lynda Ericcson, 17121 Mushtown Road, feels as though residents are not being heard. Stat- ed she has no information on how much property she would lose for sidewalks. Agreed road- way work needs to be done, but nothing else. Jerry Guderjan, 17056 Maple Lane, stated that the City's engineer said this is an expensive project because there are no homes on the west side of Panama to share the cost; and be- cause the contour of the land will necessitate deep digging. Residents cannot afford the project. Stated that Mushtown Road can be repaired, but sewer and water is not needed. Stated that Maple Lane is not deteriorating. Natascha Stocker, 17101 Maple Lane, concurred with previous comment. Stated she is new to the neighborhood and at the time of purchase, systems were tested and shown to be in work- ing order. Knew plans would be coming, but not at this price. Toronto should be the main col- lector street to the parks. Wade Nelson, 17125 Maple Lane, opposes project. Stated that Statute says proposed im- provements must be necessary. Asked how it was determined that these improvements are necessary. Asked if there was a petition to do the project. Bob Deutsch, 17181 Panama Avenue, opposes project. Asked why only 35 people have to pay for the project and whether it is because of undeveloped land between Mushtown Road and Panama Avenue; and if that is the case, asked if the cost can be spread over those properties. Tim Kadrlik, 17075 Maple Lane, commented that the neighborhood opposed building Thomas Ryan Memorial Park fearing that Mushtown Road would become a major thoroughfare and that DRAFT 12 09 13 City Council Meeting Minutes 4 happened. Cannot afford the cost of the assessment and does not believe it will raise the value of the property. Roadway needs repaired, but utilities are not needed. Chris Caskey, 17055 Mushtown Road, believes everyone likes an expensive version of a pro- ject, but need to have the money to do it. Believes property taxes will go up due to the project. Nancy Danielson, 17280 Panama Ave, stated she purchased her home in 2007 and was told water and sewer would be a long time in coming. Questioned the timing and notification of the project. Only wants improvements that can be afforded stating it is difficult to get a loan for up- front costs. Queried about how many bids will be sought for the project. MOTION BY SOUKUP, SECOND BY KEENEY TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Hedberg, Keeney, McGuire, Morton and Soukup. The motion carried and the public hearing closed at 8:34 p.m. Response to queries posed in the public hearing. 1. Concern about when notice was received and how long the project has been planned. Poppler: The area was annexed in 2004 and the project has been the Capital Improvement Program since that time. Generally, projects are communicated when the project is sched- uled the upcoming year. Newsletters are sent advising that a project is planned for the next year so residents do not upgrade driveways, landscaping, etc. Stated that the property at the end of the Panama was added to the project when the feasibility study made it apparent that this property should be taken care of as well. Notices for public meetings were sent in compliance with the Minnesota Statute 429 process. 2. Concern about affordability and increase to value of property. Boyles: Discussed special benefit and the constraints of assessing beyond the benefit re- ceived. Rosow: Added that process includes the City obtaining benefit appraisals to determine the benefit that would accrue to the property. If benefit is determined to be less than the pro- posed cost, the amount that can be assessed cannot be more than the benefit to the proper- ty. Noted that concerns expressed have been about assessments and assessments are another process that will be subject to another public hearing and another action by the Council. Currently, the City is seeking quotations from appraisers to perform the benefit ap- praisals and identify representative properties in the project area. That will go forward if the Council approves the project. Hedberg: Reiterated that people cannot be assessed more than the amount of the benefit received by the project. 3. How is it determined when a reconstruction project needs to be done. Poppler: Replied that each project is different and for this project, sewer and water exten- sion, street improvement and safety concerns were components to be considered. Hedberg: Noted that Mushtown Road is rated to be in poor condition and in need of recon- struction. Asked when it was constructed. Thongvanh: Replied that paving took place in the 1950s or 1960s. 4. Asked staff to comment on residenYs comments that septics and wells have been invested in and are in good condition. DRAFT 12 09 13 City Council Meeting Minutes 5 Poppler: Responded that the timing of a first-time sewer and water construction project is difficult to schedule for everyone as some have made upgrades and others have not. Noted that the orderly annexation agreement contemplated that disparity by allowing septic credits for those who have done recent work. Thongvanh: Stated that Scott County has information on septic installation dates and com- pliance reports. A number of systems had failing reports. Stated that residents with newer systems may be eligible for hookup deferrals. 5. People believed that 65% approval of residents would be required before a project would be done; or that it would be many years before a project would be done. Boyles: Stated that projects are initiated in two ways. One is by petition, and no petition has been received from this neighborhood. The other way is to have the project initiated by the City through its Capital Improvement Program. Street ratings and septic systems are considered. If a project is not in the Capital Improvement Program, it is difficult to say with any specificity when a project would occur. 6. Assurances about primary access to playfields would be Toronto Street and not Mushtown Road; and when was Mushtown Road classified as a collector street. Poppler: Commented that people will use the streets they find convenient. The playing fields referred to can be accessed a number of ways. Mushtown Road was classified as a collector street in the Comprehensive Plan as far back as 2004. Hedberg: Asked if Mushtown Road was annexed in 2004. Poppler: Affirmed, adding that the orderly annexation agreement was drafted in 2002. Boyles: Noted that the City attempted to have Toronto Street be the major access and signage was installed to that effect. 7. Design of the project - Mushtown Road needs work, but don't do the utilities. Poppler: Spoke about degradation of streets and the most cost-effective ways to address findings. When roadways reach a rating of 65, the best value is reconstruction. These streets are rated at 65. 8. Why not ignore utilities Poppler: Stated there are no public utilities in this project area. Some people have made improvements or replaced their systems, but data shows that most systems have not been upgraded. To put money into the street and then need a utility project in just a few years would be a bad investment. Better to do the projects at one time. Hedberg: Reiterated that the City cannot assess more than the value of the benefit to a property. 9. How did assessments increase from original amount of $19,000 to $35,000 Poppler: Stated the City tries to be proactively informative and a sample project was pro- vided to give people a scale of what is being dealt with. That estimate was provided before the feasibility study was done. Keeney: Brochures are sent to alert people that a project is planned. Then a feasibility study is done to learn what the project may cost. Next, the Council decides whether to go forward with the project. The City does not have all of the information up front, but as infor- mation is received, it is factored into the decision. The process has to start somewhere. DRAFT 12 09 13 City Council Meeting Minutes 6 10. Asked about statement "there is no septic system that cannot be repaired" and what the County's criteria is for approving a septic system. Thongvanh: Scott County has criteria for requiring compliance inspections. If the County deems municipal sewer is coming within a certain period of time, it affects their decision to allow a septic permit. Comments: Soukup: Questioned the disparity of the County's statement that septics are failing compliance checks vs. resident statements that systems are in order. Thongvanh: There are a few systems from the 1990s so some of the resident systems have been replaced and will be eligible for the credit. Some systems have failed compliance; some have cesspools; some are greater than 30 years old. Failing systems might mean that homes are backing up or that tanks are plugged. Soukup: Asked how old the information is that we are receiving from the County. Thongvanh: Provided examples such as a compliance inspection in 2013 and another from 1999. Soukup: Asked if someone could have installed a new system without us knowing about it. Thongvanh: Replied they would have to obtain a permit from the County if they were installing a new system. Hedberg: Noted that 13 residents of the project are present; but the remaining 25 are not and they may not have good systems. Soukup: Asked if the information from the County can be verified to assure it is the most up-to- date information from the residents in that area. Keeney: Asked for the spreadsheet with the septic system information to be shared with the feasibility report; and whether it can be learned if the styles of septic systems in place are those currently approved. Asked what the best estimate is of actual systems that are causing a prob- lem for public health and safety. Hedberg: Suggested the information should be shared later rather than trying to analyze it at this meeting. McGuire: Stated he would like to know which people will be eligible for septic system credits and for how much. Wants to look at ways of having the City help on payment for 1,000 feet of Panama Avenue. Believes the project should be done, but it is expensive. Keeney: Commented that there is no credit for a functioning well. Stated that, in general, there is a reason cities undertake these projects. Septic systems and wells are not the best way to build an urban community. It is not as safe. Cities are not even allowed to permit septic sys- tems and wells. When a neighborhood becomes part of a city, the process of installing infra- structure moves forward. Unfortunately, this is a very expensive area to retrofit. Concurs with the desire to learn the details of the septic systems, what the credits will be, and the benefit ap- praisals. Hedberg: Stated that the City pays 60% of costs of street improvements and that is reflected in this project's feasibility study. City policy is that the first infrastructure installation is paid for 100% by the resident. Stated he would support having staff explore alternatives. Believes this project should be done. When an area becomes part of a city, it is expected to become part of the municipal sewer and water system. Noted that the Metropolitan Council is becoming con- cerned with the long-term quality of the aquifers. Believes the Council should move forward on the next step. Keeney: Stated there is oversized funding identified in the project and asked if it is because of upgrading to a larger street. Noted that some of that cost is borne by the City as a whole. Asked if safety features are something that can be included in the general funding rather than the property owner assessments, adding that something must be done about Mushtown Road DRAFT 12 09 13 City Council Meeting Minutes 7 for safety reasons. Does not think the project as designed is affordable for the residents in the neighborhood and that cannot be ignored. Stated he is supportive of the roadway portion of the project. McGuire: Proposed a motion be made to continue this item to the January 13, 2014 meeting and direct staff to bring information about benefit appraisals, Scott County septic system rec- , ords, information on septic system credits, and options for City participation to help reduce as- sessments. Soukup: Suggested the motion also include information about safety concerns on Mushtown Road in conjunction with the volume and speed of traffic and children using the roadway to walk or bike to the parks. Rosow: Stated it is unlikely there will be benefit appraisals by January 13. The process to re- ceive quotations on conducting appraisals is underway, but appraisals cannot be received by then. Soukup: Suggested moving the continuation to the second meeting in January. Rosow: Replied it is currently taking several months to get appraisals back. The appraiser can be asked to move quickly, but that cannot be assured at this time. Generally, appraisals are done in the second phase of a project with assessments. The appraisal information would be needed before awarding a contract, but it is not a necessary portion of ordering the improve- ment. McGuire: Prefers continuing at the January 13 meeting without the appraisals. Hedberg: Soukup will not be present at January 13 meeting and a four-fifths vote is required for such a project and, therefore, recommended the January 27 meeting. MOTION BY MCGUIRE, SECOND BY SOUKUP TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO THE JANU- ARY 27, 2014 MEETING AND DIRECT STAFF TO BRING INFORMATION ABOUT SCOTT COUNTY SEPTIC SYSTEM RECORDS, INFORMATION ON SEPTIC SYSTEM CREDITS, OPTIONS FOR CITY PARTICIPATION TO HELP REDUCE ASSESSMENTS, AND INFOR- MATION ADDRESSING SAFETY CONCERNS REGARDING THE VOLUME AND SPEED OF TRAFFIC AND CHILDREN'S USE OF THE ROADWAY FOR WALKING OR BIKING TO THE PARKS. Poppler: Commented that if ordering the project is delayed, design will not begin until February and bids not received until May or June which could affect cost. Noted there are many steps where Council could decide to not go forward with the project, but if the project is ordered at this time the design work could begin. Keeney: Asked how much more development this project will make available and if infrastruc- ture is planned to continue along Panama for future annexation areas. Poppler: The Comprehensive Plan contemplates infrastructure going further south on Panama. Keeney: Asked if this will become part of a trunk line and whether trunk funds will be used. Poppler: Replied that the line will not be oversized and trunk funding is not included. Keeney: Stated he is considering not approving the project as proposed. Believes it may make sense to do a project when some southern development is contemplated and increases the ne- cessity of it. Does not want to leave safety issues on Mushtown Road unaddressed. Hedberg: Stated that an earlier meeting discussed separating Mushtown Road and Panama Avenue. Does not favor discontinuing the project. Favors finding alternatives for funding with part of the rationale being that in the future more areas may be opened for development. In re- sponse to earlier direction from Council, staff offered design alternatives to address the issues. There are serious safety problems on Mushtown Road. Need to do the project and should look for ways to fund water and sewer. Morton: Was supportive of this project with the understanding that septic systems were failing and there were public health issues. Stated she would like to learn if that is actual. Believes this is similar to Rolling Oaks where a decision was made to defer until development came in to DRAFT 12 09 13 City Council Meeting Minutes $ help defray costs. Understands there is risk if we just do road development, but seems home- owners are willing to accept some of that risk. Believes we should think of the project in a dif- ferent way. Hedberg: Responded he does not see Rolling Oaks as a parallel object. That was ten homes on a dead-end roadway with a primary motivation of preparing a sewer route for adjoining land. This project involves a broken road and a number of failing septic systems. Costs of extending along Panama are unusual and will serve to open future development. Maybe there is rationale to reallocate some of those costs. Reiterated that the City is obligated to get properties on city sewer and water infrastructure. VOTE: Ayes by Hedberg, McGuire and Soukup. Nays by Keeney and Morton. The motion car- ried. RECESS Mayor Hedberg called a recess at 9:35 p.m. RECONVENE ' The meeting was reconvened at 9:41 p.m. Public Hearing to Consider Approval of a Resolution Ordering the Maplewood Street Im- provement Project (Project #14-012) and Preparation of Plans and Specifications Project Engineer Thongvanh commented that a four-fifths majority vote is required for order- ing plans and specifications. Provided a report outlining project objectives and proposed im- provements, costs, assessments and a preliminary project schedule. Stated that a public infor- mational meeting has been held. MOTION BY SOUKUP, SECOND BY MORTON TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Hedberg, Keeney, McGuire, Morton and Soukup. The motion carried. 9:48 p. m. Comments: Howie Clausen, 4393 Maplewood St SE (Dairy Queen), asked if the project could be delayed until late July to reduce the impact on his business. Asked about the south side entrance. Poppler: Replied that the project is not yet designed. The southern access is so close to Hwy 13 it is being considered for relocation. There is concern about traffic backing up onto Hwy 13. Clausen: Asked if there are thoughts about moving the fire hydrant. Poppler: That will be reviewed during design, but noted that it can be located anywhere it is appropriate. MOTION BY MORTON, SECOND BY SOUKUP TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Hedberg, Keeney, McGuire, Morton and Soukup. The motion carried. 9:52 p.m. MOTION BY MCGUIRE, SECOND BY SOUKUP TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 13-182 OR- DERING IMPROVEMENTS AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR MAPLEWOOD STREET (PROJECT #14-012); FINANCING THE MAPLEWOOD STREET IM- PROVEMENT PROJECT TO BE UNDERTAKEN BY THE CITY AND ESTABLISHING COM- PLIANCE WITH REIMBURSEMENT BOND REGULATIONS UNDER THE INTERNAL REVE- NUE CODE; AND DIRECT STAFF TO WORK WITH CLAUSEN ON MOVING THE ACCESS AND A LATE JULY START. DRAFT 12 09 13 City Council Meeting Minutes 9 Morton: Asked what adverse cost impacts may result if the Mushtown Road project does not go forward. Poppler: Replied that larger projects provide better value on bids, mobilization costs, traffic control, etc. and they hoped to see savings in those areas. If bids are sought early enough, we may receive good bids. Hedberg: This area has been zoned commercial for a long time and this project will make the residential properties more marketable for commercial redevelopment. VOTE: Ayes by Hedberg, Keeney, McGuire and Soukup. Nay by Morton. The motion carried. OLD BUSINESS No old business is scheduled. NEW BUSINESS Consider Approval of the 2014 Tax Levy and Budgets Finance Director Erickson provided a summary of the proposed variation in spending and use of reserves from 2013 to 2014. A tax levy change of 0.37% increase from 2013 is proposed. MOTION BY SOUKUP, SECOND BY MCGUIRE TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 13-183 ADOPTING 2014 PRIOR LAKE BUDGETS AND CERTIFYING FINAL 2014 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE PROPERTY TAX LEVY TO SCOTT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION. Keeney: Stated he supports the levy based on reaching the reserve target. Expressed con- cern with increased spending. Acknowledged a certain amount of increase spending due to growth of the City, a certain amount due to inflationary causes, and there is one-time expense for the software. Encouraged solutions for the ongoing operations amounts. Generally, he fa- vors more modest level of services from the capital side of things. When more is spent on capi- tal improvements, it leaves less affordability for expenditures on the operating side. Opposes the general fund increase because as a general way of doing business, it must be tuned in bet- ter. Hedberg: Keeney has been eloquent about trying to factor out one-time events. Believes they will not be completely eliminated. Some are opportunities such as Pike Lake Park land acquisi- tion. Items such as the ERP system are becoming less because there is now planning in place for equipment, parks, etc. and that reduces the one-time events for operational needs. If the one-time spending is factored out, the general fund spending per household has increased less than one percent. Noted there is proportionately more money allocated for capital than five years ago because long-range capital needs are being identified. Supports the budget because it is tight on the operational items. Levy per household is lower than 2007. Have accomplished that because we used reserves and had overages in revenue. VOTE: Ayes by Hedberg, McGuire and Soukup. Keeney and Morton opposed. The motion carried. MOTION BY SOUKUP, SECOND BY KEENEY TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 13-184 ADOPT- ING THE 2014 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BUDGET AND CERTIFYING THE 2014 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PROPERTY TAX LEVY TO SCOTT COUN- TY DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION. VOTE: Ayes by Hedberg, Keeney, McGuire and Soukup. Morton nay. The motion carried. DRAFT 12 09 13 City Council Meeting Minutes 10 Discussion was held regarding remaining agenda items that need to be addressed in 2013. Items regarding fire truck refurbishment and ordinance amendments will be delayed to a Janu- ary meeting. MOTION BY MCGUIRE, SECOND BY SOUKUP TO DEFER AGENDA ITEMS 10D AND 10E. VOTE: Ayes by Hedberg, Keeney, McGuire, Morton and Soukup. The motion carried. Consider Approval of Amendments to the Prior Lake City Code, Subsection 106.600 (Adoption of Official Fee Schedule) and a Resolution Approving the Summary of Ordi- nance for Publication Finance Director Erickson reviewed proposed revisions to the official fee schedule and noted , that the ordinance must be approved and published in order to be effective by the beginning of ' 2014. MOTION BY MCGUIRE, SECOND BY SOUKUP TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 113-13 REVIS- ING SECTION 106.600 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE ESTABLISHING A FEE SCHED- ULE FOR ALL CITY LICENSE FEES, USER CHARGES AND PERMIT CHARGES PURSUANT TO MN STATUTE 462.351 TO 462.364; AND RESOLUTION 13-185 APPROVING THE SUM- MARY OF ORDINANCE 113-13 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY. Morton: Asked if the fee schedule would have to be amended if the park study makes recom- mendations for change. Erickson: Stated we would be able to amend the fees at that time if so desired. VOTE: Ayes by Hedberg, Keeney, McGuire, Morton and Soukup. The motion carried. Consider Approval of a Professional Services Agreement for an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Project Management Consultant Finance Director Erickson stated four proposals were received in response to the RFP issued. One was not complete, another did not meet minimum requirements. Of the remaining two vendors, one organization lost one of its principals. Berry Dunn is recommended. MOTION BY MCGUIRE, SECOND BY SOUKUP TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 13-186 AU- THORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CITY'S STANDARDIZED PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT FOR AN ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING (ERP) PROJECT MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT. Keeney: Asked about the difference in hourly costs between proposals. Erickson: Replied there are travel costs for Berry Dunn. Noted that fewer hours are proposed due to their higher cost per hour and that will change the role of what City staff will be doing. Berry Dunn will change their role to oversight roles as appropriate. Keeney: Asked if any of the proposals had a staff role in them. Erickson: They did not indicate the number of staff hours, but that there would be staff in- volvement depending on the level of conversion, etc. Feedback from BS&A states they will be heavily involved. The BS&A project manager will represent them. Berry Dunn will represent us to make sure everything works well. Morton: Concurred with comments from Keeney. VOTE: Ayes by Hedberg, McGuire and Soukup. Nay by Keeney and Morton. The motion car- ried. DRAFT 12 09 13 City Council Meeting Minutes 11 OTHER BUSINESS McGuire: Complimented staff for the Holiday Daule programming. Hedberg: Wished all a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. ADJOURNMENT With no further business brought before the Council, a motion to adjourn was made by Morton and seconded by Soukup. The motion carried and the meeting adjourned at 10:28 p.m. Frank Boyles, City Manager Charlotte Green, Administrative Assistant � DRAFT 12 09 13 City Council Meeting Minutes 12