Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4 - 12 08 14 Minutes 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES December 8, 2014 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Present were Mayor Hedberg, Councilors Keeney, McGuire, Soukup and Morton. Also present were Manager Boyles, Assistant Manager Meyer, Attorney Rosow, Finance Director Erickson, Engineer/Inspections Director Poppler, Public Works/Natural Resources Director Gehler, Community and Economic Development Director Rogness, Police Chief O’Rourke, Fire Chief Hartman and Executive Assistant Dull. 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 7:04 p.m. and seeing no one wishing to speak, closed the Public Forum at 7:04 p.m. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION BY MCGUIRE, SECOND BY MORTON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS WRITTEN. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Soukup Aye ☒☒☒☒☒ Nay ☐☐☐☐☐ Abstain ☐☐☐☐☐ Absent ☐☐☐☐☐ The motion carried. APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 24, 2014 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MOTION BY MORTON, SECOND BY MCGUIRE, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 24, 2014 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Soukup Aye ☒☒☒☒☐ Nay ☐☐☐☐☐ Abstain ☐☐☐☐☒ Absent ☐☐☐☐☐ The motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA Boyles: Reviewed the items on the consent agenda. 1 A. Consider Approval of Claims Listing B. Consider Approval of Resolution No. 14-186 Approving Appraised Values and Authorizing the Officials to Make Offers to Purchase Interests in Real Property at the Appraised Values for the Maple Lane, Mushtown Road, and Panama Avenue Improvement Project, City Project #TRN14-000001 C. Consider Approval of Resolution Nos. 14-187, 14-188, and 14-189 Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Execute Amendments to the Verizon Water Tower Antenna Agreements D. Consider Approval of Ordinance Amendments, Ordinances 114-16, 114-17, 114-18, and 114-19, to Prior Lake City Code Section 600 Relating to Health and Sanitation E. Consider Approval of 2015 Massage Therapy License Renewals F. Consider Approval of 2015 Cigarette License Renewals G. Consider Approval of Resolution No. 14-190 Approving the Eagle Creek Commercial Final Plat H. Consider Approval of Resolution No. 14-191 Authorizing Full and Final Payment to Northwest Asphalt for the Crest Avenue and Carriage Hills Parkway Improvement Project, City Project #15-002, TRN14-000003 MOTION BY KEENEY, SECOND BY SOUKUP TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS WRITTEN. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Soukup Aye ☒☒☒☒☒ Nay ☐☐☐☐☐ Abstain ☐☐☐☐☐ Absent ☐☐☐☐☐ The motion carried. PRESENTATIONS: NONE. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7A. Public Hearing for Proposed 2015 City Budgets and Property Tax Levies Boyles: Reviewed the staff report dated December 8, 2014 and presentation in connection with the agenda item. Staff recommended holding the public meeting. MOTION BY MORTON, SECOND BY SOUKUP TO OPEN THE PUBLIC BUDGET MEETING AT 7:35 P.M. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Soukup Aye ☒☒☒☒☒ Nay ☐☐☐☐☐ Abstain ☐☐☐☐☐ Absent ☐☐☐☐☐ The motion carried. Members of the Public Who Testified at the Public Hearing: Steve Vespested (14662 Glendale Ave. SE) Jon Schlegel (5488 Candy Cove Tr.) Dawn Glatzel-Beck (5490 Crossandra) Wes Mader (3470 Sycamore Trail) Linda Schaefer (15223 Bluedorn Cir.) Carolyn Engquist (4262 Priorwood St. SE) Alexandra Matyja (5417 Amblewood Dr. NE) Chris Hokanson (2039 Belmont Ave., Shakopee) Patricia Riordan (8511 Grove Circle, Shakopee) Curt Hennes (17286 Sunset Tr.) Kim Churchill (16209 Evanston Ave. SE) Anne Cassens (1632 Stemmer Ridge Road) Janice Klun (5429 Deerfield Cir. SE) Donna Schiff (3852 Regal Pass NW) Roger Miller (14215 Shady Beach Tr.) Woody Spitzmueller (4279 Grainwood Cir.) Dave Thompson (15738 Island View Rd.) 2 12 08 14 City Council Meeting Minutes Nature of comments and concerns included: Tax statement confusion as it shows individual property tax going up 20% and not the 4.83% as proposed; poor decisions on behalf of the city with purchase of property and requiring other cities to change their position on road improvements; hold the line on taxes; Friends of the Library raised funds and many residents and non-residents concerned that the library was a proposed cut; library at the top of the list for most heavily used even though community survey results from the City Manager seemed to differ; library is a quality of life issue and it shows Prior Lake cares about education, literacy and community gathering space; thanks to Council for exercising constraint and not approving the original proposed increase; increase in tax levy wanted to cover events such as flooding and hope it doesn’t happen again but wouldn’t break the bank; alternative to protecting city reserves is to reduce spending rather than increase tax levy; costs for consultant fees, studies, and downtown welcome signs expensive provided as examples to cut spending along with purchase of dilapidated houses at twice the last sold price, new boat for fire department, and the Rolling Oaks and Stemmer Ridge projects as these expenditures serve the needs of residents or neighborhoods; Scott Co. and School District kept increases low as did the City of Minneapolis which is not a fiscally conservative government and city management should learn from them; no cuts in services last year and it should be the same this year without the 10% increase; cutting the library would not result in immediate savings due to 18 month notice requirement; citizens entitled to library services and the county may push back; library is in a city building but personnel and materials are paid for by the County; closing the library does not grow the community; citizens feel like they are being pushed into a position to agree with raised taxes in order to keep the library; intent may not be mean-spirited but perception is that which becomes citizen reality; Prior Lake mission statement to provide recreation and civic pride which is not accomplished by closing the library; 2040 Vision provides for trail system and community centers which seem to include places such as Lakefront Park, Club Prior, etc. and reduction in services will not meet the vision; library is an important part of Prior Lake and so is Club Prior which may get busier as the boomers continue to age; looking at the last several years, a small increase may have been palatable instead of projecting a fall under the 40% reserve threshold; suggestion to replenish reserves through the property taxes of new houses; residents asked Council to hold down spending after the new buildings and while 10%, equating to $88, is nothing, the way the City is going about it is a problem; proposed cuts were fear tactics by city management; no members of the current council want to close the library and every budget hearing says the same thing that residents are taxed less than neighboring communities and the tax levy was less than the rate of inflation; reference to an article in the Star Tribune showing Prior Lake is number two from the top in terms of proposed tax increase percentage with the only one higher being Shakopee and when compared was 25% less per median home value; the 10% increase should not be adopted and there is no reason that the City would even consider a number larger than the current rate of inflation; the Prior Lake American stated that the city has about $14 million in unrestricted funds in various accounts that could be used to help offset some of the increased costs; claimed spending and tax increases compared to rate of inflation since 2001 was a 38% growth but a 213% increase in city spending and debt service has increased 40%; differences define the course the city is running and request to city officials to be careful as it is unsustainable; other options available to reduce budget and suggestion to review with a fine-toothed comb to determine what was necessary; surprised about declining services yet community survey shows opposite; request to Council to eliminate tax increase and get back to what residents want which is nothing more and nothing less; disconnect between city hall and residents; stop nickel and diming residents by cutting community events and look at other big ticket things to cut; stop funding a community survey when results have been typically the same; request to explore other options to maintain the small town feel and not cut services that citizens value; city management hasn’t done due diligence when recommending budget cuts; city is pushing for projects that residents don’t want; citizen confidence in city government is low; request to Council to go through everything, scrutinize the budget carefully, and ask the city residents what they want to cut; can’t close the library because young families will not come to a community with limited services; Police Chief is required to protect the community and should not be a consideration in budget cuts; referendum to build the library was passed and paid for by the Friends of the Library; library is supposed to 3 12 08 14 City Council Meeting Minutes be a community center; Friends of the Library paid for doors yet City paying for the cost to print and distribute the 2040 Vision & Strategic Plan booklet; recreation is probably the best value in the city; the list of potential cuts were more of a threat than anything else; suggestions to replenish reserves in 36 months instead of all at once. Questions to Council included: How are property taxes calculated due to one individual’s going up 20%? Could Council eliminate the electronic signs to reduce budget? Is the city still paying the referendum from the library construction? How much would it cost to mothball the library building? Would Club Prior and the other businesses in the library building also close if the library closed? In the order of cuts, where would the library fall? If the library building was closed, where would Club Prior and the businesses relocate? Meeting rooms at the library are greatly used; where would the public be able to have meeting space? Are there other options for free meeting space in the city? What is the message Council is trying to send to citizens if closing the library? What are the actual savings to the city if the library building were to be closed? Was Council aware of the 18 month notice requirement to close the library? Is the average increase of $85 per year or per month? How was the 40% reserve threshold determined? Does the reserves reflect the current times? Could reserves be replenished over a few years instead of all in one year? Could Council do a 1.5-2% increase instead of what is proposed? Could the City operate with less? Were there any trial scenarios to reduce the budget further and could those, if any, be presented to the public? What did it cost to print and distribute the 2040 Vision? Does the proposed 10% levy include cuts to any of the list of services such as library, recreation, communications, etc. or does it keep everything operational? With the 10%, where does that put the City in regards to the reserves? Erickson: Explained individual property taxes, how they were calculated, and why one person’s taxes may show a higher increase than another. Advised that the bond for the library would mature in 2017 and thus still paying and the 10% increase equated to an $88 total per household per year for an average valued house. Clarified that the 40-50% reserve amount was established by the Council a number of years ago and it is needed for emergency situations and cash flow purposes as taxes are not received until June and December each year as well as other things that may come up. Added that the state auditor recommends a 35-50% reserve depending upon a municipalities cash flow and that the reserves also dictate bond ratings thereby reducing interest rates. Commented that the City tries to budget for normal years and does not anticipate extraordinary years such as 2014. Also noted that estimated FEMA reimbursement was also included in the budget and that reserves were projected to be at 39.5% at the end of the year. However, the year-end projection for reserves could differ from that amount as it was projected about a month ago. Boyles: Explained why the library was on the list of potential cuts and the criteria used for the list and added that no programs would be eliminated but some would shrink with the 10% proposed levy. Commented he was aware of an agreement but not specifically the 18 month notice requirement. Added that the intent of the recommendation was that the business in the building could either remain or close and Club Prior was a part of recreation. Also stated he was not sure of the costs to mothball the building. Confirmed that recovery of reserves could be spread over 36 months but that next year is likely to also have challenges and cautioned the Council to look ahead. Stated the 2040 Vision was mailed to all Prior Lake homes but he was unsure of the total cost for printing and distribution. Explained the proposal with regard to the police chief position was to utilize existing supervising personnel such as the lieutenant and sergeants; however, the Council has authorized staff to proceed with recruitment and that is underway. Hedberg: Commented that the proposed 10% will maintain existing services and would not eliminate any programs but there would be cuts embedded into each of the departments. Explained that Prior Lake was a growing community that receives no government aid unlike Minneapolis which receives over 50% from state aid. Stated he voted against the 10% increase originally because he believed it wasn’t enough and that Prior Lake was at the bottom 10% of all cities whether using per capita or per household. Stated that when the list of potential 4 12 08 14 City Council Meeting Minutes cuts was first presented, the city manager was responding to the City Council when asked if there had to be cuts, where could it come from. Commented that he has been tallying property taxes and property values in the various precincts to further understand the adjustments and the community’s performance. Noted that even with the proposed increase, it was still less than what was paid years ago. Stated this is a quality community and services are changing and provided examples that street plowing policy was recently changed so it may take longer, recreation allocation will cut seasonal employees and activities, park maintenance will be further stretched, and there are fewer police officers per thousand residents than other communities. Explained other cuts to reduce the budget to the 10% commenting that the Council has not provided enough funds to maintain some services to the level once provided. Added that an area of significant increase was water quality programs including street sweeping, pond clean-up, water treatment, etc. Concluded that he didn’t support this budget because it cut services at a time when services shouldn’t be cut. Keeney: Explained that the presentation was an abbreviation of the numerous budget discussions had to date and that the public was welcome to attend those discussions. Stated that the reason for the low tax levy in the last few years was because there was a surplus in the reserves and many of the residents suggested returning it to the taxpayers which is why taxes were reduced. Added that the Council did not spend it just because it was there and a reserve is required for cash flow purposes to keep the business running. Stated the tax levy keeps the reserves in place and when inflation and growth are factored in, the 10% is pretty modest. Commented that decisions have already been made for projects and now the money has to come through and for that reason, he was not as sensitive about the tax levy. Commented he also looked at historic spending over the 2008-2015 range and discussed some of his results which concluded some increase was for inflation and additional increases for growth and paying debt previously incurred. Explained that the public budget meeting wasn’t the appropriate time to make decisions on spending as those come up on a project by project basis. Added that the bonds have already been issued and the City has to pay its debts. Stated residents may not believe studies are valuable but disagreed and that many people testified against cutting the library but the Council would not allow that to happen so it wasn’t pursued any further. Added that other things that people don’t see as much is the quality of roads which Council had a policy for the pavement level to be maintained. Commented that there has been pressure from residents to not go the extra step while others say go bigger and that the Council was somewhat divided on that. Explained that he was looking at some reductions on the spending side moving forward and that there was some misinformation in the reduction of services in some areas. Stated all departments have had a hit while still being able to fund everything. McGuire: Noted that the replenishment of the reserves in one year would put the City at the 40% mark adding that hind sight is 20/20 and while a 1-2% increase each year would have been more palatable than 10% in one year, replenishing the reserves was important. Morton: Advised that everything was on the table when Council had budget discussions and that the list that included the library, Club Prior, etc. didn’t mean that’s where the cuts would come from. Apologized if it was perceived as threatening. Noting a comment regarding losing faith and trust in the officials, she commented that the Council was trying to understand all options equally. Stated that from the levy standpoint, the reserve target was important and even her home owners’ association requires a reserve. Noted that the reserve was used to maintain the .24% increases over the past few years. Believed it was better to replenish the reserve in one shot than kick the can down the road. Soukup: Echoed comments of councilors before her stating budget decisions were personal to her also as her family uses the library and recreation activities. Stated everything had to be on the table as the City subsidizes many things noting that Club Prior is used by both residents and non-residents and asked whether the City could sustain that when the overhead costs would grow. Suggested small membership fees could be in place to make 5 12 08 14 City Council Meeting Minutes sure these amenities aren’t eliminated completely and pointed out that P.L.A.Y. required fees for those that use their services. Supported the 10% tax levy. MOTION BY MORTON, SECOND BY SOUKUP TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC BUDGET MEETING AT 9:36 P.M. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Soukup Aye ☒☒☒☒☒ Nay ☐☐☐☐☐ Abstain ☐☐☐☐☐ Absent ☐☐☐☐☐ The motion carried. Hedberg: Thanked residents for their participation in the public budget meeting. Recessed the meeting at 9:38 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:42 p.m. OLD BUSINESS: 8A. Consider Approval of a Resolution Entering into a Contract with Honeywell ESG for a Guaranteed Energy Savings Performance (GESP) Contract, Entering into a Lease Agreement with US Bank, and Terminating the Joint Powers Agreement with the State of Minnesota Related to Energy Performance Contracting Gehler: Reviewed the staff report dated December 8, 2014 in connection with the agenda item. Staff recommended approval of Resolution No. 14-192 entering into a contract with Honeywell ESG for a Guaranteed Energy Savings Performance (GESP) Contract, Entering into a Lease Agreement with U.S. Bank, and Terminating the Joint Powers Agreement with the State of Minnesota Related to Energy Performance Contracting. Keeney: Understood the capital portion of the project would be funded with energy savings and inquired how that money would be paid to Honeywell. Also asked for departmental budget clarification. Morton: Asked how these energy savings would be measured to ensure the guaranteed savings and what process was in place to complete the measuring. Also asked whether items would be owned at the end of the lease term. Gehler: Explained that U.S. Bank would receive lease payments and the project would be accomplished over 12-18 months. Noted the 2015 budget would not include the savings but 2016 will reflect savings. Advised there were international standards for measuring energy usage and savings and the document specified a process to measure the savings noting that if greater savings is achieved, the City keeps; if not achieved, Honeywell’s guarantee was in place to pay the difference. Added that Honeywell would complete the reports to measure savings and city staff would review with them to ensure accuracy of information. Hedberg: Commented that most assets to be replaced would have a longer life span than the ten year debt service schedule therefore, spending could be reduced beyond year ten assuming rates to not escalate. 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. 6 12 08 14 City Council Meeting Minutes VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Soukup Aye ☒☒☒☒☒ Nay ☐☐☐☐☐ Abstain ☐☐☐☐☐ Absent ☐☐☐☐☐ The motion carried. NEW BUSINESS 9A. Consider Approval of Resolutions Adopting 2015 City of Prior Lake Budgets and Certifying Final 2015 City of Prior Lake Property Tax Levies to Scott County Department of Taxation Hedberg: Clarified with Counsel that the two resolutions could be approved in one motion. Morton: Inquired about the GESP program and why the total amount, rather than just the annual cost, showed as a liability and revenue. Keeney: Inquired about line items with regard to parks improvements and the 2014 amendments. Erickson: Explained that government accounting required showing the amount as both and explained the process and reasoning for the accounting method. Also advised that there were two amendments in 2014 including the maintenance storage building and the $76,000 trail grant and noted the line item as presented corresponded with the CIP. MOTION BY MORTON, SECOND BY SOUKUP, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 14-193 (#1) RESOLUTION ADOPTING 2015 PRIOR LAKE BUDGETS AND CERTIFYING FINAL 2015 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE PROPERTY TAX LEVY TO SCOTT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Soukup Aye ☐☐☒☒☒ Nay ☒☒☐☐☐ Abstain ☐☐☐☐☐ Absent ☐☐☐☐☐ The motion carried. MOTION BY MCGUIRE, SECOND BY KEENEY, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 14-194 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2015 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BUDGET AND CERTIFYING THE 2015 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PROPERTY TAX LEVY TO SCOTT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Soukup Aye ☒☒☒☐☒ Nay ☐☐☐☒☐ Abstain ☐☐☐☐☐ Absent ☐☐☐☐☐ The motion carried. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA: NONE. OTHER BUSINESS / COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: Keeney: Confirmed with the Council and staff that a public hearing for the Stemmer Ridge Road Improvement Project was on the Council Agenda for December 22, 2014 and people can expect to be heard. Asked whether 7 12 08 14 City Council Meeting Minutes it was appropriate for the public to comment on the SMSC agreement during the public hearing or the public forum. Hedberg: Commented that during work session, the Council reviewed a draft cooperative agreement with the SMSC and advised that if completed, Council may not proceed with the 429 assessment process. Rosow: Advised that the Stemmer Ridge Road project and the SMSC agreement were interrelated and therefore it was more appropriate to receive comments during the public hearing. ADJOURNMENT With no further business brought before the Council, a motion to adjourn was made by KEENEY, seconded by SOUKUP. The motion carried and the meeting adjourned at 10:04 p.m. ___________________________________ Frank Boyles, City Manager 8 12 08 14 City Council Meeting Minutes