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