Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4 - Minutes of 11 24 2014 O� P 0 ti U 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES �'IrnvEs°��` November 24, 2014 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Present were Mayor Hedberg, Councilors Keeney, McGuire, and Morton. Councilor Soukup was absent. Also present were Manager Boyles, Assistant Manager Meyer, Attorney Johnson, Finance Director Erickson, Engineer/Inspections Director Poppler, Public Works/Natural Resources Director Gehler, Community and Economic Development Director Rogness, Project Engineer Thongvanh, Communications Coordinator Peterson, and Executive Assistant Dull. PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Hedberg recited the language contained on the Certificates of Appreciation for outgoing advisory committee members, presented the certificates to members present, and announced the names of members that were absent recognizing all outgoing members for their service in the City of Prior Lake. Hedberg: Recessed the meeting at 7:13 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:15 p.m. 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 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. Boyles: Reviewed the process for the public forum. Hedberg: Opened the Public Forum at 7:15 p.m. and noted that those signed up were requesting to speak regarding topics for which a public hearing has been conducted but no final action taken in the other case the public hearing is scheduled tonight. Discussion ensued as to the appropriate course of action. Closed the Public Forum at 7:16 p.m. Keeney: Commented that since residents believed the topic of Stemmer Ridge Road was noticed, they should allow the two in attendance to speak. Noted they previously tabled the matter and did not notice a date fora new meeting stating the reason for the rule is not to keep people from talking but to preserve the public hearing process. Questioned that if the meeting was not noticed, would they still be risking polluting the record and not having a formal public hearing. Boyles: Explained that there was a recent neighborhood meeting but no invitations for public hearing have been sent out yet. 1 McGuire: Commented that notices has not been sent out and was concerned allowing only a couple people to speak now and then notice the public hearing for a couple weeks out. Asked at what point an informational meeting is switched to a public hearing. Johnson: Advised that the 429 route requires a public hearing but that informational meetings allow for some flexibility. Holding a hearing or meeting, respectively, would depend upon which route the Council decides to go with the project itself noting that a public hearing is a two week process for notification purposes. Stated that at this point, how the project will proceed is undecided and once resolved, it could be noticed for a public hearing. An informational meeting could be held at any time. Morton: Agreed with Councilor Keeney that it was warranted to have a conversation tonight since they seem to have a letter that tells them this topic would be discussed. Inquired whether there was anything in the bylaws that wouldn't allow the discussion and requested confirmation that if a discussion were allowed, it would not hinder the process. Johnson: Explained that an informational meeting would be an addition to the normal process and would not deviate from the required process and that an informational meeting, or allowing public forum comments regarding the topic, would be informal and would not constitute a statutory hearing. However, if the Council decides to move forward with the assessment route, the 429 process, it would require a formal hearing requiring specific notice.Added that an informal meeting could be conducted in addition to the 429 process and it shouldn't pollute the record. Boyles and Poppler: Didn't recall any notice being sent out by the City for a hearing on this date. Michele Skinner(2057 Belmont Ave NIS: Stated the date was thought to be in the letter with the new alignments but suggested it may also have been in an email sent around the neighborhood. MOTION BY MCGUIRE, SECOND BY HEDBERG, TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING ON DECEMBER 8T" REGARDING THE STEMMER RIDGE ROAD PROJECT AND TO SEND NOTICE OF THE INFORMATIONAL MEETING TO RESIDENTS WITHIN THE NEXT 2-3 DAYS. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Soukup Aye ® ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Nay ❑ ® ❑ ® ❑ Abstain ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Absent ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ CK The motion failed. McGuire: Was concerned there were only a few people that showed up to speak but others may have shown up if the topic was noticed. Stated he did not want to take testimony without allowing everyone else in the neighborhood the opportunity to be heard also. Commented he was not opposed to hearing the testimony but just wanted it to be fair for everyone. Keeney: Stated a public hearing would be noticed and those in attendance would have the opportunity to come back at that time as well as speak tonight. 1124 14 City Council Meeting Minutes 2 MOTION BY KEENEY, SECOND BY MORTON, TO RETURN TO AND REOPEN THE PUBLIC FORUM TO ALLOW THE RESIDENTS IN ATTENDANCE TO SPEAK REGARDING THE STEMMER RIDGE ROAD PROJECT. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Soukup Aye ❑ ® ❑ ® ❑ Nay ® ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Abstain ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Absent ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The motion failed. Hedberg: Returned to the regular meeting agenda due to failing motions. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION BY MCGUIRE, SECOND BY KEENEY, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS WRITTEN. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Soukup Aye ® ® ® ® ❑ Nay ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Abstain ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Absent ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The motion carried. APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 10, 2014 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MOTION BY KEENEY, SECOND BY MORTON, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 10, 2014 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AS WRITTEN. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Soukup Aye ® ® ® ® ❑ Nay ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Abstain ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Absent ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ER The motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA Boyles: Reviewed the items on the consent agenda. A. GonsideF AppFeval of Claims Listing B. Consider Approval of October 2014 Treasurer's Report C. Consider Approval of Building Permit Summary Report D. Consider Approval of Animal Control Services Report E. Consider Approval of Fire Department Report F. Consider Approval of Police Department Report G. Consider Approval of Resolution No. 14-180 Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Spring Lake Township with regard to Payment of Costs for Stormwater Ditch Improvements to 180th Street H. Consider Approval of Resolution No. 14-181 Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with the State of Minnesota which Outlines Roles and Responsibilities for Projects which Receive Federal Funding Morton: Requested removal of item 6A 1124 14 City Council Meeting Minutes 3 MOTION BY MORTON, SECOND BY MCGUIRE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. VOTE Hedberq Keeney McGuire Morton Soukup Aye ® S ® ® ❑ Nay ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Abstain ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Absent ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7A. Consider Approval of a Resolution Ordering the Highland, Marsh, Skyline, Grainwood, and Eau Claire Improvement Project(Project#TRN15-000004) and Preparation of Plans and Specifications Gehler: Reviewed the staff report dated November 24, 2014 and presentation in connection with the agenda item. Noted she received comments from residents who could not attend the meeting but were in opposition to street lights. Staff recommended conducting the improvement hearing and approving a resolution that orders the project and authorizes the preparation of plans and specifications. Morton: Asked how many lights were projected, what kind of comments were received, what currently exists in the neighborhood, and inquired about money and street width. Gehler: Advised lights were proposed at intersections and approximately every 300 feet and the nature of the comments received included light in homes, not being able to see the sky, dark neighborhood and would like to keep it that way. Commented that option 3 from the presentation was the existing condition for neighborhood lighting and that she was recommending to construct what is there as it currently exists with regard to road width. MOTION BY MORTON, SECOND BY MCGUIRE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:52 P.M. TO HEAR PUBLIC TESTIMONY REGARDING THE HIGHLAND, MARSH, SKYLINE, GRAINWOOD, AND EAU CLAIRE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Soukup Aye ® ® ® ® ❑ Nay ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Abstain ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Absent ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The motion carried. David Blenderman (15568 Skyline Ave.): Commented he was attempting to sell his house and had a limited income. Inquired about the amount of the assessments, when they would have to be paid, and the interest rate. Also asked whether his trees were to be removed and who would be paying for the proposed new lights maintenance and electricity costs.Also noted that his wife was handicapped and he needed to be able to get his car to the door and inquired about emergency vehicle access during the course of the project. Woody Spitzmueller (4279 Grainwood Cir. NE): Inquired about how the public access lot on Grainwood would be assessed as it is listed as owned by the public. Robert West (3834 Marsh St.): Expressed concern for street lights and costs. Inquired how homeowners pay assessments, how long homeowners have to pay, and if there were payment alternatives. Also noted a sewer pipe runs through his yard and asked whether maintenance/replacement would take place on the sewer pipe and further affect his property. Commented he needed to be able to get in and out of his house and was concerned with the disruption of construction activity. 1124 14 City Council Meeting Minutes 4 Jeff Carlson (3782 Marsh St.): Commented that the roadway curvature requires vehicles parking on the street to have one wheel on grass.Asked whether surmountable curbs were considered to allow for existing parking. Dennis Schmitz (15675 Highland Ave.): Objected to street lights stating that they don't have them and didn't need them as there were no sidewalks in the neighborhood either. Also suggested that since the neighborhood was a lakeshore/lake-access neighborhood and residents park on the street, a surmountable curb should be installed to allow for on-street parking. Fred Schmitz (15675 Highland Ave.): Requested clarification and the delineation of the reconstruction versus rehab/reclamation portions of the project and inquired about the difference in costs between the two different sections of project. Tom Savoy(15680 Highland Ave.):Asked whether there was a deadline to finish the project as there seemed to be too many projects stretching on too long and requested a finite date. Gehler: Advised that estimated assessments for Highland, Marsh, and Skyline were $9,469 per unit while Grainwood and Eau Claire were estimated at $8,619 per unit but final numbers wouldn't be available until completion of the project. Explained that assessment interest rates were 2% over the bonding rate but actual assessment rate was unknown until bonding and provided an example that 2013 bonding rate was 2.01%, assessment interest rate was 2% over the bonding rate and therefore, assessment interest rate was 4.01%. Advised assessments payment options included either pay off in full within 30 days of assessment adoption at no interest or let the assessment roll into taxes with interest which would show on property tax statements and pay over a 10 year period. Stated the assessment hearing would be late in the year after project completion. Explained that generally, trees outside of the right of way would not be affected. However, trees are evaluated on a case by case basis as it will depend on the tree trunk and root systems and whether they are within the project area. Advised she would have a definite answer at the informational meeting to be held in January following property surveys. Commented that lighting was a part of the project assessed costs and that the City would pay electricity but depending upon the utility company,either the City or the utility company would maintain street lights. Further explained that there were two lots owned by associations which would be assessed based on how many developable units could be built which would be paid by associations. Noted there was one lot owned by the City and since the City pays the project costs, it is not included in the assessments. Clarified that the storm sewer was previously reconstructed so it would not be disturbed and that construction would be completed in phases which would be communicated to residents by City staff on a day to day basis.Added that residents may not be able to park at home but would be able to park on a nearby street. Also explained that contractors would provide access however, there may be periods of deep trenching that would be difficult to access individual homes. Encouraged Mr. Blenderman to maintain contact with staff and contractors to work around schedules. Commented that with regarding to surmountable curb,staff was working through those issues with the design process noting other comments have been received supporting the surmountable curb but there were pros and cons to both types of curbing. Johnson: Advised there was an assessment deferral process that applies to senior citizens and persons with disabilities which requires that an application for deferral based on age and/or income be submitted at the time of the assessment hearing. Keeney: Noted portions of Grainwood were no parking on one side and asked whether there were any changes? Commented he didn't see a need to install street lights if the neighborhood didn't want them. Inquired whether any comments were received opposing the project itself. 1124 14 City Council Meeting Minutes 5 Gehler: Confirmed there would be no changes to existing parking. Displayed a map of the project delineating construction versus reclamation noting that the project would likely take an entire summer to complete and the contractor will be required to maintain a drivable surface. Advised that Eau Claire was slated for reclamation rather than reconstruction and there would be no assessments for that.Added that a contract would be awarded in March but that weather would dictate when it is started which is likely in May. Recommended the Council not make a decision on street lights or curbing but rather, direct staff to work with utility companies to provide cost estimates and bring to the informational meeting as well as bring information back to Council at the project approval stage.Advised she had not received any comments opposing the project. McGuire: Supported narrower roadway with street lighting and surmountable curb to be reviewed further. Morton: Supported the 28 foot roadway width,stated she would need to rely on the public works team with regard to curbing, and suggested street lighting be deferred but proposed lighting at intersections only, low level lighting, and/or lighting that only comes on when there is traffic. Hedberg: Also favored narrow road width as it could calm traffic and noted impervious surface improves water quality. Supported including lighting at intersections at this point but was not set on the decision. MOTION BY MORTON, SECOND BY MCGUIRE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:36 P.M. AND APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 14-182 ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR (PROJECT #TRN000004); FINANCING THE HIGHLAND, MARSH, SKYLINE, GRAINWOOD AND EAU CLAIRE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT TO BE UNDERTAKEN BY THE CITY SUBJECT TO A 28 FOOT STREET WIDTH FOR ALL STREETS WITHIN THE PROJECT, EXCEPT GRAINWOOD WHICH WOULD REMAIN AT THE EXISTING 26 FOOT WIDTH, AND ESTABLISHING COMPLIANCE WITH REIMBURSEMENT BOND REGULATIONS UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Soukup Aye ® ® ® ® ❑ Nay ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Abstain ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Absent ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The motion carried. Hedberg: Recessed the meeting at 8:37 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:40 p.m. OLD BUSINESS: 8A. Consider Approval of Resolution No. 14-183 Accepting the Feasibility Report and Scheduling a Public Hearing to Consider the Credit River Road Improvement Project(City Project#TRN 15- 000006) Poppler and Thongvanh: Reviewed the staff report dated November 24, 2014 and presentation in connection with the agenda item. Staff recommended approval of Resolution No. 14-183 accepting the Feasibility Report and establish a Public Hearing date. Morton: Advised that Mr. Poppler and Mr. Thongvanh reviewed many options during the assessment review committee meeting. Stated she didn't want to impact the homeowners near the intersection numerous times but that the relied upon study was from 2005 which would likely need to be redone in the future as the data had 1124 14 City Council Meeting Minutes 6 invalid assumptions. Accepted Mr. Thongvanh's proposal to defer the road option to use until additional design information is available to minimize disruption but noted the project accomplishes many goals and is needed. McGuire: Commented the sewer issue and approved development forces an increase to capacity. Asked staff to go back to the consulting engineer that made the mistake and suggested proceeding carefully as the credibility of the remainder of the report may be questioned. Keeney: Noted it appeared there would be a significant property taking from some properties on the west end. Stated he has problems assessing for a new road if it was only temporary but understood that the sewer needed to be fixed which required taking out the road. Would like to figure out road alignment so it only had to be done once and suggested a trade off with the right turn lane. Hedberg: Stated most issues could be addressed from a complete sewer assessment study and that long term orderly development was an issue. Commented Spring Lake Township was interested in making sure they increase the amount of land in the orderly annexation area which could be addressed in the comprehensive planning process. Noted the City may face pressure and annexation by petition and he would hate to be in a position to say the City doesn't have the sewer capacity. Asked staff to re-evaluate and bring back for consideration as he was in favor of deferring. MOTION BY MCGUIRE, SECOND BY MORTON, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 14-183 ACCEPTING THE FEASIBILITY REPORT AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE CREDIT RIVER ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CITY PROJECT #TRN15-000006 WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT FINAL ROAD LAYOUT WILL BE DETERMINED AT A FUTURE DATE. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Soukup Aye ® ® ® ® ❑ Nay ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Abstain ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Absent ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The motion carried. 813. Consider Approval of Resolution No. 14-184 Amending the 2015-2019 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Reflecting Changes in the Facilities Management Plan Gehler and Erickson: Reviewed the staff report dated November 24, 2014 in connection with the agenda item. Staff recommended approval of Resolution No. 14-184 amending the 2015-2019 CIP for changes in the Facilities Management Plan. Morton: Inquired about the GESP program and how those costs affect the facilities management plan as well as how cost savings are measured and tracked. Keeney: Asked about remaining 2015 projects in the facilities maintenance plan and stated he would rather not add lighting to Club Prior. Hedberg:Asked about the impact to the tax levy. Gehler: Briefly explained the program, projects, and advised that the savings were guaranteed with the program and that a majority of the projects are deferred maintenance. 1124 14 City Council Meeting Minutes 7 Erickson: Explained that under the program, the City would pay$85,000 more over 10 years but there would be about$1 million less in debt levy over the 10 years. MOTION BY MCGUIRE, SECOND BY KEENEY, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 14-184 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2015-2019 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR CHANGES IN THE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Soukup Aye ® ® ® ® ❑ Nay ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Abstain ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Absent ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The motion carried. 8C. Consider Approval of Resolution No. 14-185 Amending the Professional Services Contract with WSB &Associates for Maple Lane, Mushtown Road, and Panama Avenue Street Improvement Project(Project#14-011) Thongvanh: Reviewed the staff report dated November 24, 2014 in connection with the agenda item. An amended resolution was distributed to Councilors at the meeting. Staff recommended approval of Resolution No. 14-185 amending the professional services contract with WSB&Associates for the Maple Lane, Mushtown Road, Panama Avenue Improvement Project. 0 Morton: Commented the amount was an additional 40% while the mistake only affects four homes out of the entire project and asked how that was justified,what service the City was receiving for that amount, and whether the mistake was a county error. Keeney: Stated the amount was the consulting costs to conduct the acquisition from 13 properties as opposed to the previously identified 9. Inquired whether anyone else bid for more than 9 properties and whether they were aware of the error.Asked that if all proposals came back bidding acquisitions from 9 properties, how it was wrong if the companies did the initial survey work. Wanted to ensure it wasn't a WSB error. Thongvanh: Explained the additional cost was to obtain easements and the associated time and that RFPs were sent out with the specifications dictated by staff. Added that the companies reviewed county maps and original plats for the neighborhoods. However, the plats showed different property lines than the half section maps but, the assumption was there was a document obtained to revise the property lines. MOTION BY MORTON, SECOND BY KEENEY, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 14-185 AMENDING THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH WSB & ASSOCIATES FOR MAPLE LANE, MUSHTOWN ROAD, PANAMA AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Soukup Aye ® ® ® ❑ ❑ Nay ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Abstain ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Absent ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ S The motion carried. NEW BUSINESS 9A. Consider Approval of a Report with Respect to Requests by Property Owners to Delay Connection to City Sewer and Water Service as Required by Sections 704 and 705 of the Prior Lake City Code 1124 14 City Council Meeting Minutes 8 Boyles: Reviewed the staff report dated November 24,2014 in connection with the agenda item and explained the differences in the City Code provisions regarding water connection and sewer connections. Proposed a forth option not provided in the memo which included: charge owners the respective fees estimated at collectively approximately $30 per month once the one year connection deadline has passed; require the owners to obtain the appropriate permits within 90 days and pay the associated permit fees; and allow the permit process to proceed which provides that reasonable progress must be made in 180 days to complete the project. If no action is taken in either the 90 days to obtain a permit or the 270 total days which includes the permit process,the next step would be to move forward with an injunction which would require obtaining a court order, securing a contractor, constructing the connections, and specially assessing the amount back to the owners through the special assessment process. Proposed in the meantime, Council consider whether to amend the Code regarding water and sewer connections to parallel each other. Staff requested direction from the City Council. McGuire: Commented that the timeline for water and sewer connections under the Code should be the same and suggested annexation properties also be afforded the same timelines. Noted that if moving toward the three year deferment, the City would not receive revenue during that time for either sewer or water. Morton: Clarified with the City Manager that the deferment process in place was currently only for sewer connections and did not apply to water connections. Keeney: Agreed that water connection policy should mirror the sewer connection policy requiring certification and allowing for the three year deferral period.Was concerned with the funding side of things as the object was to recover costs. Approved the suggestion to allow 90 days to obtain the respective permit and collect the money as proposed but not aggressively pursue enforcement of the policy. Hedberg:Suggested treating the situation like a normal building permit with allows six months to show progress but also provides renewal periods. Also agreed with changing the policies to match and suggested moving forward with the City Manager's fourth option. Boyles: Commented that Council should also consider the message being sent to other property owners that have already connected if allowing select property owners additional time to pull permits and complete projects. Hedberg: Stated there was a late start and an early end to this year's construction season and allowing 90 days to pull a permit, with a timeline to begin with Council approval of this process, did not feel lenient and reflected the special circumstances of the year. MOTION BY KEENEY, SECOND BY MORTON, TO PROCEED WITH OPTION FOUR AS DETAILED BY THE CITY MANAGER REQUIRING: 1) CHARGE PROPERTY OWNERS THE APPROPRIATE MINIMUM FEES UPON THE EXPIRATION OF THE ONE YEAR DEADLINE TO CONNECT; 2) PROPERTY OWNERS TO PULL THE RESPECTIVE PERMIT WITHIN 90 DAYS AND THE 90 DAY PERIOD BEGINS NOVEMBER 24, 2014 OR MARCH 14, 2015 DEPENDING UPON THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY IN THE PROJECT AREA; 3) PROCEED WITH THE REGULAR PERMIT PROCESS WHICH PROVIDES THAT REASONABLE PROGRESS BE MADE TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT IN 180 DAYS AND ALLOW FOR EXTENSIONS IF APPLICABLE;4) NOT AGRESSIVELY PURSUE ENFORCEMENT OF THE POLICY; AND 5) STAFF WORK TO AMEND THE CODE SO WATER CONNECTION REQUIREMENTS MIRROR SEWER CONNECTION REQUIREMENTS. 1124 14 City Council Meeting Minutes 9 VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Soukup Aye S E N N ❑ Nay ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Abstain ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Absent ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ N The motion carried. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA: 6A. Consider Approval of Claims Listing Morton: Commented that the report from the new system looked great and was laid out well. MOTION BY MORTON, SECOND BY MCGUIRE, TO APPROVE THE CLAIMS LISTING. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Soukup Aye S E E S ❑ Nay ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Abstain ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Absent ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ N The motion carried. OTHER BUSINESS 1 COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: MOTION BY KEENEY, SECOND BY MCGUIRE, TO RECOMMEND TO THE BYLAWS COMMITTEE TO AMEND THE PUBLIC FORUM HEARING PROCESS AND REVIEW THE LANGUAGE. VOTE Hedberq Keeney McGuire Morton Soukup Aye ❑ S N N ❑ Nay E ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Abstain ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Absent ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ E The motion carried. ADJOURNMENT With no further business brought before the Council, a motion to adjourn was made by MORTON, seconded by KEENEY. The motion carried and the meeting adjourned at 9:48 p.m. — V"'q— Frank ity Manager 1124 14 City Council Meeting Minutes 10