Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 09-10-1996 SpecialMinutes Special Council Meeting September 10, 1996 A special meeting of the Plymouth City Council was called to order by Mayor Tierney at 8:10 p.m. in the Public Safety 'Training Room, 3400 Plymouth Blvd., on September 10, 1996. COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor Tierney; Councilmembers Anderson, Wold, Lymangood, Preus, and Granath. ABSENT: Councilmember Black. STAFF PRESENT; City Manager Johnson, Assistant City Manager Lueckert, Community Development Director Hurlburt, Public Works Director Moore, and City Clerk Ahrens. Mayor Tierney reviewed the meeting agenda: 1) Consider a Discretionary Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Plymouth Ponds Building Four (tabled from September 4, 1996), and 2) Consider Charter Commission recommendation on proposed Charter Amendment regarding super -majority vote requirement for tax levy increase. Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Preus, to reverse the order of the agenda items. Motion carried, six ayes. Motion was made by Councilmember Wold to add to the agenda discussion on the first meeting of the Computer Subcommittee. Manager Johnson stated that under the Open Meeting Law requirements, no new items may be discussed at this special meeting. Councilmember Wold withdrew his motion. Proposed Charter Amendment regarding Supermajority Vote Requirement for Tax Levy Increase Assistant City Manager Lueckert reported that on September 9, 1996, the Charter Commission held a public hearing on the proposed supermajority vote requirement for a tax rate increase. The Charter Commission voted six to five to defer action on the proposed charter amendment until their next meeting on Monday, September 30, at 7 p.m. The Charter Commission will make its report by the deadline, October 15, 1996. Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Wold, that all staff directives be in the form of motions. Motion carried, six ayes. Special Council Meeting September 10, 1996 Page 2 Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Granath, to direct the City Manager to ensure that meticulous notes are being taken of this meeting and that the proposed supermajority vote requirement for a tax rate increase, along with the proposed 1997 budget, be added to the next regular council meeting. Councilmember Lymangood explained that he wants a summary of this meeting given by the City Manager, and an opportunity to discuss on camera the proposed Charter amendment and issues regarding the 1997 proposed budget that were discussed at the Charter Commission public hearing. Councilmember Granath stated that he watched the entire public hearing and supports the motion. Councilmember Wold also spoke in favor of the motion. Motion was made by Councilmember Wold, seconded by Councilmember Anderson, to amend the motion to direct staff to supply the City Council with the minutes of the Charter Commission public hearing, and to indicate on the staff summary memo which Commissioners voted for and against the tabling action. Vote on the amendment, six ayes. Mayor Tierney asked Councilmember Lymangood to clarify his motion. Councilmember Lymangood stated that he would like more detailed commentary included in the minutes of this meeting because the proposed Charter amendment is an important issue and this meeting is not televised. Mayor Tierney asked why the proposed 1997 budget would be added to the upcoming regular council agenda, rather than discussing issues later at the Truth in Taxation hearing. Councilmember Lymangood stated he would like to discuss the proposed 1997 budget at the next regular meeting because issues were raised at the Charter Commission public hearing regarding the proposed 1997 budget. For example, Councilmember Wold made a statement that when taxes are paid, they are gone permanently and that behooves the Council to keep the tax rate as low as possible. A Charter Commissioner said the plan for 1997 is to lower the tax rate, but the proposed budget would allow for a minor tax increase. Councilmember Lymangood stated he was moved to consider making additional suggestions to staff relating to the proposed 1997 budget prior to the Truth in Taxation hearings that will be held in December. Main motion as once amended carried, six ayes. Special Council Meeting September 10, 1996 Page 3 Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Anderson, to direct staff to provide a report at the next regular council meeting regarding specific options available to the Council, including timelines, for calling of a special election on the proposed Charter amendment regarding a supermajority vote req, i; -ement for a tax levy increase, in light of the tabling action by the Charter Commission. Councilmember Lymangood stated that he wants to ensure that by the next regular council meeting, the Council is prepared to consider an election timeline, should the Council choose to pursue that alternative given that the proposed Charter amendment cannot be on the November 1996 election ballot. He stated that perhaps the Council could still call a special election for 1996. Manager Johnson said that is possible. Mayor Tierney stated that a special election could be held anytime and prior to the next City election which would be in November 1998. Councilmember Lymangood stated that the City Council has allowed for the 1997 preliminary budget to include a special election. The Council has been informed that there will be a significant budget surplus in 1996, so perhaps the special election cost could be removed from the 1997 budget and levy, and funded in 1996. Councilmember Granath supported the motion. He stated that he generally supports the proposed supermajority amendment and he was disappointed by the Charter Commission's tabling vote. He would like to see the issue progress at the next regular council meeting. Mayor Tierney stated that no one had given the Charter Commission any indication that this was a "hurry up" item. She stated that the City Council has a 10:00 p.m. adjournment time, and they should not expect the Charter Commission to meet past that time. Councilmember Granath stated that he would like the voters to be able to vote on the proposed Charter amendment. Mayor Tierney said that the Charter Commission needs time to discuss the issue. Motion carried, six ayes. Councilmember Wold stated that six of seven Council members voted in favor of the proposed Charter u•::.endment regarding a supermajority vote requirement for a tax levy increase. He believes that all Councilmembers were disappointed in the Special Council Meeting September 10, 1996 Page 4 Charter Commission's tabling of the item. He stated that the Charter Commission showed a remarkable "paralysis of analysis", and he was distraught over their meeting. Councilmember Wold said that no one on the Charter Commission could make a decision. The Charter Commission was empowered to make a decision at the meeting on September 9, and they failed to do so. Councilmember Wold also responded to Mayor Tierney's comment that the Council had not indicated there was a hurry on the proposed Charter amendment issue. He stated that twice the City Council passed a motion requesting that the Charter Commission make a decision because the Council felt it was important to let the voters decide on the issue. He said that the November General Election is the last opportunity to reach the greatest number of voters that will be seen for four years — into the next century. He stated that the Charter Commission was irresponsible. The City Council was ready to act, and the Charter Commission should have taken a position either for or against the issue. Councilmember Wold stated that at the Charter Commission meeting, he was accused of this being a political issue. He was appalled that the Mayor did not defend him, and he was ashamed of the Mayor. Councilmember Wold stated he looks forward to discussing the entire issue at the next Council meeting, and he requested a copy of the videotape from the Charter Commission public hearing. Mayor Tierney commented on the Charter Commission public hearing. Councilmember Wold raised a point of order that Mayor Tierney had already made comments regarding the public hearing, and other Council members who had not yet spoken to the issue wished to speak. Mayor Tierney continued with her comments. Councilmember Wold challenged the ruling of the Chair. Mayor Tierney recognized Councilmember Preus. Councilmember Preus stated that the proposed Charter amendment is very clearly not an issue of "why the rush", but of "why the delay". He stated that the City Council reviewed and considered three proposals relating to the proposed Charter amendment on May 15. The Charter Commission public hearing was held on September 9. This was the first time the Charter Commission reviewed anything other than the single proposal recommended by the City Council. He asked why the Charter Commission waited four months to consider anything other than the Council's proposal. Councilmember Preus stated that some of the comments by the Charter Commission indicated that they knew they had an opportunity to consider the issue and some members had decided their view on the issue. He said Special Council Meeting September 10, 1996 Page 5 it is very disappointing that it will be the next century before a very large number of voters would have the opportunity to vote on the issue. The Charter Commission's duty was to review the City Council's recommendation and respond. The Commission has prevented the City Council from exercising the option of sending the issue to the voters at the general election. He said that the argument that the Charter Commission needs more time is impossible to legitimately argue. Councilmember Anderson supported the comments made by Councilmembers Lymangood, Preus, Wold, and Granath. He made a motion at the last council meeting to request that the Charter Commission take action on the City Council's proposal because tonight is the deadline to put a question on the November ballot. He said that the arrogance involved in this issue bothers him, as a limited number of people are trying to keep the proposed Charter amendment from all of the citizens in the City. The City Council wants the issue in front of the taxpayers, and it needs to be openly discussed on television. Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Anderson, to direct staff to present at the next regular meeting three options for ongoing showing of the Charter Commission public hearing of September 9, including timing and frequency of playbacks and how it would interfere with other scheduling, with one option being to run the three-hour meeting in a continuous playback loop. Councilmember Lymangood stated he was moved by the meeting. It was significant and contemporaneous. He believes that the fairest way to present the events of the meeting is with unbiased commentary by viewing of the hearing. Mayor Tierney questioned whether the showing of the hearing should pre-empt other programming. Councilmember Lymangood said that at least one option — the ongoing showing - would definitely pre-empt other programming. This can be evaluated when the options are presented. Mayor Tierney asked what it will cost to have ongoing showing of the hearing. Councilmember Wold stated that the cost involved will be part of the staff report, as every staff recommendation comes to the Council with a cost estimate. Motion was made by Councilmember Preus, seconded by Councilmember Wold, to call the question. Motion carried, six ayes. Motion carried, six ayes. Special Council Meeting September 10, 1996 Page 6 Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Granath, that Councilmember Lymangood's comments at the Charter Commission meeting be included as part of these minutes. Mayor Tierney referenced one of Councilmember Lymangood's comments at the hearing relating to her conflict of interest. She said that no conflict of interest exists from her service on the City Council and the Charter Commission. Councilmember Preus raised a point of order that the motion under consideration relates only to whether the comments should become part of these minutes. The motion does not relate to the substance of the comments. Motion carried, six ayes. Mayor Tierney stated that some Charter Commissioners took offense and felt that the City Council had figured this issue out and were telling them what to do. The Charter Commission reviewed the information, took public testimony, and were ready to debate five items relating to the proposed amendment. She said that the Charter Commission did take action and hold a meeting when the City Council sent the proposal to them. The Charter Commission was advised that it is possible to send two language options to the voters. The Commission was told that this would be disastrous. She said that the League of Minnesota Cities and City staff did not recommend the proposed Charter amendment. The Charter Commission conducts its deliberations in a responsible fashion. She said that Councilmembers have been concerned about people being left out. However, on May 15 the proposed amendment was placed on the Council agenda for consideration when she was out of town. Councilmember Lymangood raised a point of order. He said that it is not allowable under Roberts Rules of Order for a member to attempt to assail the intent of another member, and that the Mayor's comments are out of order. Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Preus, to close discussion for this evening and move to the next agenda item. Motion carried, five ayes; Tierney nay. Consider Discretionary Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Plymouth Ponds Building Four Councilmember Lymangood stated that a meeting was held at 6 p.m. on this issue. At the meeting, staff submitted a written update on issues discussed at the September 4 regular Council meeting. The homeowners then expressed their concerns relating to the development, while the developer went to a separate room. The parties were then brought together and there was a good exchange of Special Council Meeting September 10, 1996 Page 7 ideas. However, the parties did not come to an agreement. The parties have now met again, and he suggested that the Council either consider a proposed agreement between the developer and the neighborhood or table the issue to the next regular meeting on September 18. Councilmember Anderson said there are three options to consider. Depending on the outcome of the meeting with the homeowners and with the developer, Moen- Leuer, the Council can vote on whether to order an EAW. The Council could also adopt an alternate resolution based on the discussions of the parties involved. The third option would be to table the item to a future date. He recommended hearing from the developer and the neighborhood. Community Development Director Hurlburt summarized the discussions that took place between the neighborhood and the developer at the meeting. She said that the residents appreciate the efforts made by the developer and want to move forward. However, there are a couple of unresolved items. The neighbors have suggested another meeting be held with the developer this week on the unresolved issues. These issues include details of the additional landscaping and screening, as well as future uses of the property with respect to that which Moen-Leuer may agree to and what the new Zoning Ordinance may allow. She said that the consideration of whether to order an EAW could be tabled to September 18. If no EAW is ordered at that time, there would be no delay to the developer on the project. Councilmember Preus asked for confirmation that tabling the issue will not cause a delay. Director Hurlburt responded that there would be no delay, assuming the Planning Commission does not take extra time to review the final development proposal. Staff could begin review of the building plans in order to move the project along, but no building permits would be issued until final approval of the development is granted. Councilmember Preus stated that the project is in the final stage of this development. He asked about the impact of the proposed Zoning Ordinance and whether it would not only impact future developments. Director Hurlburt stated it is generally correct that the new Zoning Ordinance would only affect future developments, but any use made of property after the Zoning Ordinance is adopted must comply with the new ordinance. Councilmember Preus expressed the caution that the Council is looking at a proposed ordinance. He does not want to give a developer or the residents the Special Council Meeting September 10, 1996 Page 8 impression that the staff or Council knows what the final Zoning Ordinance will include. Director Hurlburt agreed, and noted that there are also unresolved issues relating to this particular PUD and how it will transition to the Ordinance. Councilmember Anderson asked if the meeting between the neighborhood and developer had been accurately summarized. Mike Leuer, the developer, responded yes. He said that many issues were discussed relating to items such as the environment and traffic. He believes that the Council should act on the EAW decision. The developer will continue to work with the neighborhood on the landscaping and on maintaining good tenants in the building. He does not believe there is anyone who continues to believe that an EAW is needed. Brad Moen, the developer, said that none of the issues discussed at the neighborhood -developer meeting related to the EAW. He urged the Council to act on the EAW, as the developers have a meeting scheduled with the neighborhood on Saturday. He said that the only remaining unresolved issues relate to berms, plantings, shields, and screening. He has agreed to do what is needed on these issues to satisfy the neighbors. He said that most of the infrastructure has been installed, with the exception of the water service line to Building 4. He asked if the Council would allow them to begin installing the utilities to the proposed building site. Councilmember Lymangood stated he would not support the request. He would not want to consider approval of utilities to serve the site before the Planning Commission has completed its work. He believes that the Council needs to address the EAW issue in order to allow the Planning Commission to address the development application. He asked if there is a detriment to the developer in delaying the decision on the EAW. Director Hurlburt said that there is no material difference whether the Council acts tonight or tables the issue until September 18, other than the uncertainty of the Planning Commission's decision in two weeks. If the City Council decides not to require an EAW, the development application will be scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting in two weeks. A resident said that the neighborhood entered into negotiations with the developer at this meeting in good faith. The neighbors are sensitive to the developer's concerns about timing of the project. He said the neighborhood would like the issue tabled to September 18 in order to fully resolve the remaining issues. Special Council Meeting September 10, 1996 Page 9 Councilmember Wold stated that he will support tabling the issue because it will not impact the project deadline. He wants to resolve the issue without further delays. He said that the neighbors and the developer have a vested interest in the City, and he looks forward to receiving the results of their meeting on Saturday and taking action on September 18. Councilmember Granath agreed. Councilmember Anderson also agreed with the concern about getting the issues resolved, and he also intends that the Council will take action on September 18. Motion was made by Councilmember Anderson, seconded by Councilmember Wold, to table consideration of a Discretionary Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Plymouth Ponds Building Four to September 18, 1996, at which time the Council will vote on the issue. Mayor Tierney stated she would like the Saturday meeting to be productive by getting all issues resolved. She would not want any further delays. Councilmember Anderson thanked the staff, neighbors, and developer for their work on this issue. The developer thanked Councilmembers Anderson and Lymangood for their assistance with the neighborhood meeting. Motion carried, six ayes. Motion was made by Councilmember Anderson, seconded by Councilmember Lymangood, to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Motion carried, six ayes. ity Clerk Special Council Meeting September 10, 1996 Page 10 Charter Commission Public Hearing September 9, 1996 bu k Lymangood Introduction 1. Thank you for holding this hearing 2. Joy's conflict of interest Reasons to vote FOR the super majority requirement 1. higher taxes are bad, lower taxes are good 2. bigger government is bad, smaller government is good 3. the power to tax is the power to spend - M. Friedman 4. this is a political issue, not legal or economic 5. the beauty of this proposal lies in its simplicity 6. there are no better alternatives - only drawing at straws 7. this requires action by the Charter Commission 8. let the people decide - whether you are for or against the proposal 9. the people have already given their tacit approval Extraneous excuses 1. the majority does not rule absolutely 2. there is nothing more to think about 3. no outside experts will help - just more straws 4. the people ARE smart enough to decide, trust the people Special Council Meeting September 10, 1996 Page 11 How you should proceed: 1. have Joy step down - for her sake and your own integrity 2. DECIDE OR DEFER 3. the Council and the people are waiting YOU HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE, INSIGHT, WISDOM AND POWER - EVEN THE OBLIGATION TO DECIDE! 09/13/1996 16:34 6125570839 PAGE 01 SOP -43-S6 OZi4OP LOgIcon T*chmolvglo's Olz 950 lies P.OZ 09113RO 2;43 FM no tiodoisignoct cmunuilmmibum ace Balling a nwiat taceting 00 Friday, Sc:ptambw 20- u 12:00 (noon) at Ow plymouth City HWt couucil chamberx• lbc putpusc of tWs mcclins will ba: C:an.,wer any ac:tim by the Vi3arwr Commirxion on tho Stupor Majority atmmondmm"t to the charter and tako action prTxua»t to thAt. Pogo for 1