HomeMy WebLinkAbout5C - CC Bylaws Amendment Report 0 PR/0
u 4646 Dakota Street SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
4 ttNNEse*
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 10, 2014
AGENDA #: 5C
PREPARED BY: Frank Boyles, City Manager
PRESENTED BY: Frank Boyles, City Manager
AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY
COUNCIL BYLAWS WITH RESPECT TO PUBLIC FORUM
DISCUSSION: Introduction
The purpose of this agenda item is to request City Council consideration of
amendments to the City Council Bylaws to clarify permissible topics for
comment at public forums.
History
At the January 13, 2014 meeting (Minutes attached) the City Council
directed that the Bylaws and Compensation Committee clarify the meaning
of the City Council Bylaws with respect to permissible topics for discussion.
Some of the Council believed that the Bylaws prohibited public forum
comment on a topic for which a public hearing has been held or scheduled.
Others believed that a topic could not be discussed if it was a public
hearing topic on that evening's agenda. The City Council asked that a
clarification be made to the Bylaws to resolve this question (existing
Bylaws attached).
Current Circumstances
The Bylaws and Compensation Committee met to discuss this matter.
They identified various circumstances which would be treated differently to
protect due process while affording opportunity for public input as follows:
• A public hearing has been held by the City Council or another of its
advisory bodies and final action has been taken.
• A public hearing has been held by the City Council or another of its
advisory bodies and no final action has been taken.
• A public hearing is scheduled on a topic for the current or a future
meeting.
The following language is intended to clarify all three instances:
The City Council Agenda sheet shall include the following statement: "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)
Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 / www.cityofpriorlake.com
minutes to speak. Topics of discussion are restricted to City governmental
topics rather than private or political agendas. Topics may be addressed at
the public forum that are on the agenda. However, topics that are the
subject of a public hearing are best addressed at the public hearing, not at
public forum. Therefore, topics may not be addressed at public forum if: (i)
the topic has been the subject of a public hearing before the City Council or
any City Advisory Committee and the Council has not taken action on the
topic; or (ii) if the topic is the subject of a scheduled or continued public
hearing or public information hearing on the current agenda or at a future
meeting before the City Council or any City Advisory Committee. During
public forum, a member of the public may request that the City Council
consider removing an item from the Consent Agenda following the
procedure set forth in Section 401.5. 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."
Conclusion
The City Council should determine if the Bylaws and Compensation
Committee has been responsive to the Council's direction in the proposed
language change above.
ISSUES: Under the proposed language, if a public hearing has been conducted but
no final action taken, the topic may not be discussed at the forum.
On the other hand, if a public hearing has been conducted and final action
taken, the item may be discussed at the forum.
If a public hearing is scheduled for a current or future meeting of the City
Council or other advisory council meeting, then the topic may not be
discussed at the forum.
The Bylaws and Compensation Committee did discuss the continuation of
public hearings when new information is to be provided. The existing
Bylaws allow the Council to do one of two things after taking testimony at a
public hearing:
(1) Close the public hearing — this means that the public input portion
of the meeting is over.
(2) Continue the public hearing to a date certain. This situation arises
when the Council realizes after the public portion of the hearing that
additional information is needed for decision making purposes. In
this instance, the City Council may direct staff to provide certain
additional pieces of information and following receipt of that
information may resume testimony until it chooses to close the
hearing on the basis that the information is complete. This option is
already allowed by City Council Bylaws. It is up to the Council to
use this provision when it desires.
FINANCIAL Additional time may be required to implement these Bylaw amendments,
IMPACT: but they may facilitate greater public input into the decision making
process.
ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt the Bylaw revisions as proposed by the Bylaws and
Compensation Committee or with amendments.
2. Take no action and leave the Bylaws "as is ".
3. Provide additional direction to the staff.
RECOMMENDED Alternative #1.
MOTION:
PRI0
U 4646 Dakota Street SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
4 r sot
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
January 13, 2014
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Present were Mayor Hedberg, Councilors Keen-
ey, McGuire and Morton, City Manager Boyles, City Attorney Rosow, City Engineer / Inspec-
tions Director Poppler, Public Works / Natural Resources Director Gehler, Economic and De-
velopment Director Rogness, Planner Matzke, Finance Director Erickson, Fire Chief Hartman,
Police Chief O'Rourke, Assistant City Manager Meyer and Administrative Assistant Green.
Councilor Soukup was absent.
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:
Mayor Hedberg queried whether the persons who signed up for the public forum wished to ad-
dress the topic of reconstruction in their neighborhood. Noted that the topic has been the sub-
ject of a public hearing and, therefore, is not eligible for discussion during the Public Forum; and
the topic will be on the agenda at the next meeting.
Members of the audience affirmed their desire to speak about the reconstruction project and
stated they believe they have the right to speak. City Attorney Rosow confirmed that proce-
dures about topics for discussion during the Public Forum are clearly stated in the City Council
Bylaws, and the reconstruction project for which a public hearing has already been held is not
an eligible topic for discussion at the Public Forum. Mayor Hedberg noted that Ernie Peacock is
present at the meeting and that Mr. Peacock believes he should be allowed to speak. Hedberg
further stated that any material Mr. Peacock has can be submitted to staff so it can be incorpo-
rated into the agenda materials for the next Council meeting. Peacock proceeded to provide
each councilor present with a file folder of materials.
Wes Mader, 3470 Sycamore Trail, commented that he believes only topics on the current
agenda are exempt from discussion at the Public Forum.
Keeney: Commented on the bylaws and why the rules are in place regarding eligible topics.
Stated the purpose for posting notice and having a public hearing is to encourage all interested
parties to attend the public hearing, allow everyone to have an opportunity to be heard and not
have additional information brought in at other times without all interested parties being aware of
it. It is intended to increase transparency, not decrease it; and intended to give people confi-
dence that the Council will not take input without awareness of all interested parties.
Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 / www.cityofpriorlake.com
Tim Kadrlik, 17075 Maple Lane, requested the public hearing be reopened stating that some
people have more information from the County.
Hedberg: Responded that the Mushtown area reconstruction project will be on the January 27,
2014 agenda and staff has been directed to research additional information from the County
among other things.
Kadrlik: Stated that many people do not think it is right to continue with the project. Believes
the residents should be allowed to have their say.
McGuire: Stated that it is important for residents with additional information to get it to the
Council and staff as soon as possible.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION BY MCGUIRE, SECOND BY MORTON TO APPROVE THE AGENDA.
VOTE: Ayes by Hedberg, Keeney, McGuire and Morton. Councilor Soukup was absent. The
motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
MOTION BY KEENEY, SECOND BY MCGUIRE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE DE-
CEMBER 9, 2013 CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
VOTE: Ayes by Hedberg, Keeney, McGuire and Morton. Councilor Soukup was absent. 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 November Treasurers Report
C. Consider Approval of November Animal Control Services Report
D. Consider Approval of November Fire Department Report
E. Consider Approval of November Police Department Report
F. Consider Approval of the 2014 Goals and Objectives for City Advisory Committees
G. Consider Approval of Resolution 14 -001 Entering into a Professional Services Contract
with Short Elliot Hendrickson for the 150th Street / TH 13 Improvement Project
H. Consider Approval of Resolution 14 -002 Appointing Dan Shower to Serve on the Lakes
Advisory Committee, and Resolution 14 -003 Appointing Kendall Larson to Serve on the
Parks Advisory Committee
1. Consider Approval of a Resolution Amending Resolution # 13 -094 Authorizing the Pur-
chase of Components for the Sunset Avenue Improvement Project
J. Consider Approval of Resolution 14 -004 Directing the Planning Commission to Conduct a
Public Hearing on a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Related to Senior Care Facilities
K. Consider Approval of Resolution 14 -005 Approving Parking Restrictions on County State
Aid Highway 44 from Fish Point Road to the City Limits
L. Consider Approval of Resolution 14 -006 Approving the City of Prior Lake 2013 Pay Equi-
ty Report
Councilor Morton requested that items 5G and 51 be removed from the Consent Agenda for
discussion.
MOTION BY MCGUIRE, SECOND BY KEENEY TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS
MODIFIED.
VOTE: Ayes by Hedberg, Keeney, McGuire and Morton. Councilor Soukup was absent. The
motion carried.
01 13 14 City Council Meeting Minutes 2
Consider Approval of Resolution 14 -001 Entering into a Professional Services Contract
with Short Elliot Hendrickson for the 150th Street / TH 13 Improvement Project
MOTION BY MORTON, SECOND BY MCGUIRE TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLU-
TION 14 -011 ENTERING INTO A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH SHORT
ELLIOT HENDRICKSON FOR THE 150TH STREET / TH 13 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
Morton: Asked if $55,000 represents only Prior Lake's share of the project.
Poppler: Replied that the cost will be split with the City of Savage.
Morton: Asked if the City has a formal agreement with Savage.
Poppler: Replied that Savage led the feasibility study when this was last studied in 2007 and
Prior Lake signed off on an agreement with them. This time the City is leading the project and
Savage will pass a resolution to reimburse us.
Morton: Asked why no cost - sharing agreement will be made with MnDOT.
Poppler: This project will receive cooperative agreement monies with MnDOT contributing ap-
proximately $1.5 million to the project. The cities are initiating preliminary design, feasibility
study and final design; and when the project is bid and agreements are finalized, MnDOT will
pay us back for some of this administrative cost.
Morton: Asked about the costs of the original study and how much of it is being re -done with
this project.
Poppler: This project includes updating traffic numbers and looking at what has changed in
work tasks #1 and #2 which include neighborhood meetings. A portion of work task #3 is pre-
liminary design. When it is determined what will be built, the engineering for the preliminary de-
sign will be new.
Morton: Asked if there is just one preliminary engineering meeting scheduled for the third week
of April.
Poppler: Yes.
Keeney: Noting that some of the study is to prepare the concept plan moving forward, asked
what portion of the contract is re -doing previous work.
Poppler: Replied that two- thirds of the study is to review crash data noting there is a new
school in the area; and one -third of the study is new work. The original feasibility study provided
cost components. With three agencies working on the project, all need this information in order
to get it on their schedules.
Hedberg: Recalled there were resident concerns about access and the need to go south to be
able to turn north from some access roads back in 2007, especially around 150th Street. Those
concerns are now imminent with construction scheduled for next year.
VOTE: Ayes by Hedberg, Keeney and McGuire. Nay by Morton. Councilor Soukup was ab-
sent. The motion carried.
Consider Approval of a Resolution Amending Resolution #13 -094 Authorizing the Pur-
chase of Components for the Sunset Avenue Improvement Project
MOTION BY MORTON, SECOND BY MCGUIRE TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION AMENDING
RESOLUTION #13 -094 AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF COMPONENTS FOR THE
SUNSET AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
Morton: Clarified that this request is increasing the cost by the amount of the sales tax. Asked
if the quote specified including the sales tax and questioned why the City should bear the cost of
the mistake.
01 13 14 City Council Meeting Minutes 3
Poppler: Replied that the original resolution was based on the quote which did not define the
inclusion of sales tax one way or the other. When the invoice was received, sales tax was add-
ed to the cost.
Boyles: Asked if the City put together the specifications or whether it was it done by quote.
Poppler: Replied the City's lift station standardization policy was used which defines that the
same materials are used on all lift stations. This vendor has provided all materials in the past
and this problem has not occurred before.
Morton: Asked if we paid sales tax in the past and if quotes included it in the past.
Poppler: Replied that the resolution gave a specific dollar amount and the invoice is different
from the original quote.
Erickson: Commented that this item was pulled from Accounts Payable when the difference
was noted on the invoice.
Morton: Asked if it is typical for quotes to be inclusive of the sales tax.
Erickson: Replied that was typical, and in 2014 this would not be subject to sales tax.
Boyles: Noted that the City has paid the full amount. This vendor is used a great deal and staff
will have an in depth discussion about procedures going forward.
VOTE: Ayes by Hedberg and McGuire. Nays by Keeney and Morton. Councilor Soukup was
absent. The motion failed.
McGuire: Questioned the next step noting the Council cannot deny a bill that has been paid.
Morton: Stated that if the quote was received in good faith and sales tax should have been in-
cluded, it should not be paid.
McGuire: Believes it appropriate to have City Attorney bring this back in two weeks to advise of
options the Council may have.
Hedberg: Noted the City acquires supplies and materials from this vendor on an ongoing basis.
MOTION BY MCGUIRE TO PLACE THIS TOPIC ON THE JANUARY 27, 2014 AGENDA WITH
AN OPINION ON WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY IS OBLIGATED TO APPROVE PAYMENT
OF THE SALES TAX; AND TO HAVE STAFF CONTACT THE SUPPLIER TO LEARN IF SOME
OF THE COST MIGHT BE NEGOTIATED.
Keeney: Stated he would second the idea of having the City Attorney advise the Council about
what happens to this.
Rosow: Stated he can report back in two weeks on whether the sales tax is obligated. Be-
lieves it is premature to negotiate on a partial payment until the law has been reviewed to learn
about options.
MCGUIRE AMENDED THE MOTION TO STATE THIS TOPIC SHOULD BE PLACED ON THE
JANUARY 27, 2014 AGENDA WITH AN OPINION ON WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY IS OB-
LIGATED TO APPROVE PAYMENT OF THE SALES TAX. KEENEY SECONDED THE MO-
TION.
Keeney: Stated his reason for voting against payment now is that this mistake cannot happen
again. Does not want to get into habit of getting sloppy on who pays the tax.
VOTE: Ayes by Hedberg, Keeney, McGuire and Soukup. Councilor Soukup was absent. The
motion carried.
PRESENTATIONS
No presentation was scheduled.
01 13 14 City Council Meeting Minutes 4
PUBLIC HEARINGS
No public hearing was scheduled.
OLD BUSINESS
No old business was scheduled.
NEW BUSINESS
Consider Approval of Annual City Council Appointments to Boards, Commissions and
Committees
City Manager Boyles reviewed the proposed appointments.
MOTION BY KEENEY, SECOND BY MORTON TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 14 -010 DESIG-
NATING INVESTMENT AND BANKING AUTHORITY ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF PRIOR
LAKE.
VOTE: Ayes by Hedberg, Keeney, McGuire and Morton. Councilor Soukup was absent. The
motion carried.
MOTION BY MCGUIRE, SECOND BY MORTON TO APPROVE APPOINTMENTS AS CITED
IN THE AGENDA REPORT DATED JANUARY 13, 2014.
McGuire: Asked if the proposal for Acting Mayor was recommended by the Mayor.
Hedberg: Affirmed that it was.
VOTE: Ayes by Hedberg, Keeney, McGuire and Morton. Councilor Soukup was absent. The
motion carried.
Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing the Refurbishment of a 1993 Peterbilt /
Custom Fire Rescue Truck and Equipment
Fire Chief Hartman provided statistics on the fire truck proposed for refurbishment. Noted that
the maintenance regimen has extended the useful life of the truck and reviewed the mainte-
nance that has been done on this unit. Because of low mileage and current condition, the unit is
a viable candidate for refurbishment rather than replacement. Explained the work needed on
both the cab chassis and the box /equipment. Reviewed quotes received. Explained the need
to amend the 2014 budget for this project since it was delayed from 2013.
MOTION BY MORTON, SECOND BY MCGUIRE TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 14 -008 AP-
PROVING CERTAIN REPAIRS AND AUTHORIZING FUNDING FOR UNIT 9215 AS PART OF
THE RESCUE TRUCK REFURBISHMENT PROJECT WITH BOYER FORD.
Morton: Asked if the plan to migrate to a different system and assimilate parts from this vehicle
into a different system would happen after ten years.
Hartman: Replied that it would take place during the next ten years. When engines are re-
placed, they will have different electrical systems to accommodate extrication equipment.
Morton: Asked if the useful life of this truck is still expected to be ten years.
Hartman: Replied that it will be utilized even as some equipment is moved as a command cen-
ter or for ice rescue, etc. When it is replaced, it may be replaced with something different.
Keeney: Commented that the rolling stock replacement plan has this as a refurbishment. Clari-
fied that there is not a replacement truck for ten years. Asked why it was not included-in the
2014 budget.
Erickson: Replied the resolution was anticipated for approval in 2013, but was unable to be
addressed.
01 13 14 City Council Meeting Minutes 5
Boyles: Commented this is the first time the City has developed a refurbishment plan and a
considerable amount of time was taken to assure all information was researched.
Keeney: Will support.
Hartman: Commented that the City will be looking at other trucks as they approach half -life to
consider whether they are candidates for refurbishment. Ultimately that may change the
equipment matrix as some trucks may be amenable to refurbishment and others not.
VOTE: Ayes by Hedberg, Keeney, McGuire and Morton. Councilor Soukup was absent. The
motion carried.
MOTION BY MCGUIRE, SECOND BY MORTON TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 14 -007 TO
PROCEED WITH REPAIRS TO THE APPARATUS AND EQUIPMENT FOR UNIT 9215 PER
THE QUOTE IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $69,021.75 AND TO AMEND THE REVOLV-
ING EQUIPMENT FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $69,022.
VOTE: Ayes by Hedberg, Keeney, McGuire and Morton. Councilor Soukup was absent. The
motion carried.
Consider Approval of 1) an Ordinance Amending Subsections 1004.604, 1101.502,
1102.405, 1102.700 and 1108.406 of the Prior Lake City Code; and 2) a Resolution Approv-
ing an Ordinance Summary and Publication
Community and Economic Development Director Rogness and Planner Matzke provided
an overview of City Code subsections being considered for amendment and discussed the spe-
cific amendments being proposed. Matzke noted that the Planning Commission held a public
hearing on these proposals and recommends approving the amendments to provide clarification
and consistency.
MOTION BY KEENEY, SECOND BY MORTON TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 114 -01 AMEND-
ING SUBSECTION 1004.604, SUBSECTION 1101.502, SUBSECTION 1102.405, SUBSEC-
TION 1102.700 AND SUBSECTION 1108.406 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY ORDINANCE.
Morton: Asked if there was public discussion about aesthetics if one person's side yard be-
comes apparent from another person's front yard.
Rogness: Replied there was no public comment about that. The intent is to allow recreation
equipment to be stored back from the 25 foot front yard setback and more closely define how
the side yard is used for storage.
Keeney: Asked about the distinction of the terms "parking" and "storing." Questioned if a boat,
for example, could be on the driveway in the winter if it was being serviced.
Rogness: Replied that current language uses "parked," and the term "stored" was introduced
with these amendments. It appears "parked" is the term used for the on- season and at all other
times items shall be "stored" in the side or rear yard.
Hedberg: When considering whether to have an outlot vs. an easement, asked who would
maintain an outlot.
Matzke: Currently outlots are being maintained by homeowners.
Hedberg: Asked which homeowner would be responsible for maintenance if the City requires
homeowners to maintain an outlot as they require maintenance of the right of way between
property and curb.
Keeney: Asked if right of ways that include trails between houses are included.
Matzke: Trails are taken by easement or under parkland dedication. That has been maintained
by the City under parkland maintenance. When it is an easement, property owners have taken
care of it.
Keeney: Favors not reducing the setbacks from something used as trail or right of way. Clari-
fied that this is intended for utility lots.
01 13 14 City Council Meeting Minutes 6
McGuire: Added his concern about outlot maintenance and would like to know how that will be
dealt with.
Rosow: Commented that with a sidewalk in the right of way, property owners are required to
maintain it. The property owner still owns that property. The right of way dedication is in the
nature of an easement, and the property owner can use it in any way they want that does not
interfere with right of way use. If that property were vacated, the property would not go back to
the City, but rather it would go back to the property from which it came. Stated he is not sure
what authority the City has to make a property owner take care of an outlot that the City owns.
Hedberg: Believes this question will arise in circumstances where someone will want fence in
their back yard. Agreed this is an issue that needs to be addressed.
Keeney: Added there could be issues of enforcing trespass and whether neighbors could ob-
ject if people cut through there.
Hedberg: Stated this is recent addition to design standards and with more developments being
built, problems may have been designed in.
Keeney: Questioned whether people would be precluded from putting in a common fence since
the property is not theirs.
Boyles: Noted that the City has a concept of private use of public property. Perhaps agree-
ments could be entered into so people could install common fences with the understanding that
the City could enter onto property if needed.
Rosow: Commented that the reason to keep outlots is to keep structures out of that area.
Easements are not effective because people view it as their property. If a fence is within an
easement and the City has to go in for some reason and removes the fence; as a matter of
courtesy the City might put the fence back up but it is not required to as a structure should not
have been installed.
Hedberg: Cited areas of ordinance that seem to need more work as this problem will arise un-
less and until it is clarified.
Rogness: Staff has had recent discussions about outlots vs. easements in anticipation of de-
velopers being able to cite home locations, etc. Will continue to do so, but preliminary plats are
proposed that will implement these changes in a way that fits well into their plat designs.
Rosow: In a new subdivision, it would be possible to require restrictive covenants on adjacent
lots that require the homeowner to maintain the outlot as part of the conditions of the preliminary
plat. Stated such a covenant is not a tool that can be used for existing lots.
VOTE: Ayes by Hedberg, Keeney, McGuire and Morton. Councilor Soukup was absent. The
motion carried.
MOTION BY MCGUIRE, SECOND BY MORTON TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 14 -009 AP-
PROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 114 -01 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICA-
TION OF SAID SUMMARY.
VOTE: Ayes by Hedberg, Keeney, McGuire and Morton. Councilor Soukup was absent. The
motion carried.
Consider Approval of Resolutions Amending City Council and Advisory Committee By-
laws as Recommended by the Bylaws and Compensation Committee
City Manager Boyles reviewed proposed amendments to City Council bylaws and explained
that the proposals are responsive to direction to look at how the bylaws address the consent
agenda.
MOTION BY MORTON, SECOND BY MCGUIRE TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 14 -011 AP-
PROVING MODIFICATIONTS TO THE EXISTING CITY COUNCIL BYLAWS.
01 13 14 City Council Meeting Minutes 7
Morton: Stated the Bylaws and Compensation Committee tried to come up with a way to meet
public need and be able to move City business along. The Committee perceived fairness of
moving an item requested for removal to the end of the agenda so people who may be in at-
tendance for other scheduled agenda items are not delayed.
McGuire: Asked if it was discussed whether an individual requesting an item removed for dis-
cussion should be required to remain at the meeting to observe that discussion.
Morton: Replied that was not discussed, but it is expected that persons requesting removal of
an item be prepared to give a rationale for its removal.
Hedberg: Clarified that the intent is that the authority to remove something from the consent
agenda remains with the Council.
Morton: Affirmed.
Keeney: Supports the proposed revisions to the bylaws regarding the consent agenda. Under-
stands that it would only take one Councilmember to request an item to be removed from the
consent agenda. Wondered if section 401.2 should be clarified regarding the intent of public
forum topics.
Morton: Interpreted it to apply to any topic that has been a subject of a public hearing and not
just to a topic on the current agenda.
Hedberg: Believed that to be the intention, but the language used is ambiguous.
Rosow: Stated the phrase, "Topics may be addressed on the public forum that are on the
agenda..." may be unnecessary to the bylaws. Suggested the second sentence say that "Top-
ics that have been or are the subject of a scheduled public hearing or public information hearing
before the Council, EDA, Planning Commission or other City advisory committee are not topics
that may be addressed at the Public Forum."
Hedberg: Suggested that it be considered by the 2014 Bylaws and Compensation Committee.
Keeney: Previous bylaws specifically prohibited topics that were on the agenda, but wanted to
allow the public to make comments if the topic was not a subject for a public hearing.
Hedberg: Believes the exceptions are, broadly, the items that were or will be on a public hear-
ing.
Keeney: Recalled this was intentionally written to not allow lobbying comments on either side
of an issue to be made at the meeting where the Council deliberates a decision when no public
input opportunity had been published.
Hedberg: Stated the topic should be referred to committee to propose language that removes
any ambiguity.
Boyles: Stated the Council may want to withdraw the motion and refer this matter back to
committee.
Keeney: Suggested the proposed changes should be made now and additional changes sug-
gested by committee should be brought back to the Council.
VOTE: Ayes by Hedberg, Keeney, McGuire and Morton. Councilor Soukup was absent. The
motion carried.
MOTION BY MCGUIRE, SECOND BY MORTON TO DIRECT THIS ITEM TO THE 2014 BY-
LAWS AND COMPENSATION SUBCOMMITTEE.
VOTE: Ayes by Hedberg, Keeney, McGuire and Morton. Councilor Soukup was absent. The
motion carried.
City Manager Boyles reviewed the proposed amendments to the advisory committee bylaws
which are intended to define the role and relationship between staff and Council liaisons and
advisory committees. Noted that some committees had specific recommendations intended to
clarify operational procedures or objectives.
01 13 14 City Council Meeting Minutes 8
MOTION BY MORTON, SECOND BY MCGUIRE TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 14 -012 AP-
PROVING MODIFICATIONS TO THE EXISTING ADVISORY COMMITTEE BYLAWS.
Morton: Commented that advisory committees are not desired to have authority to spend mon-
ey, but rather to recommend that an expenditure be made.
VOTE: Ayes by Hedberg, Keeney, McGuire and Morton. Councilor Soukup was absent. The
motion carried.
Consider Approval of a Resolution Approving a Preliminary Plat Known as The Enclave
at Cleary Lake 2nd Addition
Planner Matzke provided a history of the development and displayed its location. Described
site details including conceptual home design and proposed park and trails. City Engineer /
Inspections Director Poppler noted that most of the grading and stormwater plan has been
implemented and only minor modifications will be needed. Described the plans for utilities.
Matzke reviewed the conditions of approval recommended by the Planning Commission.
Boyles: Offered amendments to the resolution as suggested by the City Attorney.
MOTION BY MORTON, SECOND BY MCGUIRE TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 14 -013 AP-
PROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS THE ENCLAVE AT CLEARY LAKE 2ND
ADDITION WITH REVISIONS PROPOSED BY STAFF.
Keeney: Stated it appears there are houses already built in the area.
Matzke: Replied that all current construction is in the first addition.
Keeney: Clarified that there will be no gravel road between Revere and Mushtown.
Matzke: Correct.
Keeney: Asked if there will be concerns about additional traffic on Mushtown.
Poppler: Replied the new roadway will not be a collector route. There are currently around 200
trips per day and it is anticipated to increase by another 100 or so trips per day.
Matzke: Concurred that the traffic count is minor.
Hedberg: Commented there is heavy traffic going to playfields and asked if this will become an
alternate route to get to those fields.
Keeney: Wondered if additional housing would increase the burden on Mushtown into south
downtown. There is other land that appears to be poised to be developed. This development
will not put us over the tipping point, but there may be a long term trend to increased traffic.
Poppler: Agreed further development here could increase trips to south downtown and Mush -
town has been identified has a major collector due to that reason.
Keeney: Asked if sewer capacity comments refer to this development or additional develop-
ments beyond this.
Poppler: Replied there is an opportunity to extend on 180th Street to the west and it is desirable
to look at the area as a whole.
Keeney: Asked if that should be a condition on the plat.
Poppler: Replied that it is known where the lift station will be located and the sanitary sewer
lines will not be oversized; the decision is whether the line is ended here or extended.
Hedberg: Asked staff to depict where trails would be constructed. Asked whether the require-
ment to reconstruct 180th Street to a rural standard was questioned by the developer.
Poppler: Replied the developer is aware of that requirement. Noted that paving will be difficult
due to wetland and drainage issues. Stated the 180th Street design needs to be worked out with
the final plat.
Hedberg: Asked if the adjacent township properties are part of the Orderly Annexation Agree-
ment.
01 13 14 City Council Meeting Minutes 9
Matzke: Replied they are not.
Hedberg: Anticipates some of the areas may be annexed by petition.
Poppler: Commented that the type of trails in front yards and driveways could be considered
for different standards such as eight -foot sidewalks rather than bituminous trails. When bitumi-
nous driveways are put in place, trails become absorbed by driveways.
Hedberg: Suggested that be worked into the final plat.
VOTE: Ayes by Hedberg, Keeney, McGuire and Morton. Councilor Soukup was absent. The
motion carried.
Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of Network Hardware
Assistant City Manager Meyer reviewed the need for the purchase and quotes received.
MOTION BY MORTON, SECOND BY MCGUIRE TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 14 -014 AU-
THORIZING THE PURCHASE OF NETWORK HARDWARE FROM COMPUTER INTEGRAT-
ED TECHNOLOGIES.
Keeney: Questioned why only one manufacturer of the device was considered.
Meyer: Replied that the City's information technology consultant recommended this as the
most effective device and manufacturer although more than one quote was sought for the de-
vice. Described the process used to obtain pricing.
VOTE: Ayes by Hedberg, Keeney, McGuire and Morton. Councilor Soukup was absent. The
motion carried.
OTHER BUSINESS
No other business was brought forward.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business brought before the Council, a motion to adjourn was made by Morton
and seconded by McGuire. The motion carried and the meeting adjourned at 9:52 p.m.
qu..! Frank es, City Manager Charlotte Green, Administrative Assistant
01 13 14 City Council Meeting Minutes 10