Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 10-02-1996Minutes Regular Council Meeting October 2, 1996 The regular meeting of the Plymouth City Council was called to order. by Mayor Tierney at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 3400 Plymouth Blvd., on October 2, 1996. COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor Tierney; Councilmembers Lymangood, Granath, Preus, Wold, Anderson and Black. ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Johnson, Assistant City Manager Lueckert, Public Works Director Moore, Community Development Director Hurlburt, Finance Director Hahn, Park Director Blank, Public Safety Director Gerdes, City Attorney Knutson, and City Clerk Ahrens. Item 3 Forum - 19th Avenue Speeding Dick Swenson, 18415 20th Avenue North, asked that the Council consider removal of the speed humps at 19th Avenue and Peony Lane off of County Road 6. He said the bumps are marked with a 20 mph speed limit, but vehicles must travel slower over the humps. He believes it would be more reasonable to install reminder bumps at the top of the hill on 19th Avenue. Mr. Swenson contacted the Homeowner Association President who indicated that the City made no contact with them prior to installing the speed humps. Mayor Tierney announced that a neighborhood meeting is scheduled on this issue at 7 p.m. on October 10. Public Works Director Moore explained that a neighborhood meeting was held prior to installation of the speed humps. Eighty area residents were invited to the meeting. Speed checks were done in the area prior to the installation of the speed humps, and it was determined that at the 85th percentile vehicles were traveling at 38 miles per hour. Staff has received comments both for and against the speed humps. Notice of the upcoming neighborhood meeting will be mailed this week. Councilmember Lymangood said he was unaware of the neighborhood meeting and suggested that notice be placed on Cable Channel 37. Mayor Tierney said the neighborhood meeting for 19th Avenue was scheduled today, and notice will also be provided to the homeowner association. Regular Council Meeting October 2, 1996 Page 2 Item 4-A Introduction of Ice Arena Manager, Bill Abel Park and Recreation Director Blank introduced Bill Abel, Ice Arena Manager. Item 5 Approve Agenda Manager Johnson distributed a staff report on the recommended timeline for advertising Board and Commission vacancies. Mayor Tierney suggested adding this as Item 9-B. Additional information was also provided on Item 9-A. Councilmember Lymangood requested that the October 17 Special Council meeting time be added as Item 9-C, and that the court's ruling regarding Senator Moe and the use/misuse of government facilities for campaigning and how that may affect Plymouth be added as Item 9-D. Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Anderson, to approve the agenda with the additions noted. Motion carried, seven ayes. Item 6 Consent Agenda Manager Johnson noted that an amendment has been made to Item 6-K. It remained on the consent agenda. The following items were removed from the Consent Agenda: Item 6-A minutes of August 28 and September 20), 6-F3 and 6-174, 6-L, 6-J, and 6-N. Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Preus, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Motion carried, seven ayes. Item 6-A Approve Minutes Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Preus, to approve the minutes of the September 4 and September 18, 1996 regular council meetings. Motion carried, seven ayes. Item 6-B Approve Disbursements Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Preus, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-521 APPROVING DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 13, 1996. Motion carried, seven ayes. Regular Council Meeting October 2, 1996 Page 3 Item 6-C Charles Carlson. Site Plan Amendment and Variances (96089) Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Preus, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-522 APPROVING A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT AND VARIANCE FOR CHARLES CARLSON FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3425 HIGHWAY 169 96089). Motion carried, seven ayes. Item 6-D Home Depot (Marfield, Belgarde and Yaffe Companies). (96075) Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Preus, to adopt ORDINANCE 96-23 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO CLASSIFY CERTAIN LANDS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF COUNTY ROAD 6 AND I-494 (96075). Motion carried, seven ayes. Item 6-E City of Plymouth. Revised Plat, Site Plan, Variances and CUP (96003) Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Preus, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-523 APPROVING SITE PLAN, VARIANCES, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH AND LIFE TIME FITNESS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF PLYMOUTH BLVD. BETWEEN 35TH AND 37TH AVENUE NORTH (96003). Motion carried, seven ayes. Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Preus, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-524 APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH AND LIFE TIME FITNESS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF PLYMOUTH BLVD. BETWEEN 35TH AND 37' AVENUE NORTH (96003). Motion carried, seven ayes. Item 6-F Site Performance Guarantee Reductions and Releases Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Preus, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-525 REDUCING SITE IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE, WELSH COMPANIES, INC. / AUTO SOUND ENTRONIX (95111). Motion carried, seven ayes. Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Preus, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-526 REDUCING SITE IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE, ISD 284, CENTRAL SERVICES FACILITY (95049). Motion carried, seven ayes. Regular Council Meeting October 2, 1996 Page 4 Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Preus, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-527 REDUCING SITE IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE, RYAN BUILDERS INC. / HONEYWELL CHII.LER ADDITION (95128). Motion carried, seven ayes. Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Preus, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-528 REDUCING SITE IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE, CALIBER DEVELOPMENT CORP. / BASS LAKE BUSINESS CENTRE H 96029). Motion carried, seven ayes. Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Preus, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-529 REDUCING SITE IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE, LITTLE FLOWERS MONTESSORI SCHOOL (95043). Motion carried, seven ayes. Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Preus, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-530 RELEASING SITE IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE, PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY (95034). Motion carried, seven ayes. Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Preus, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-531 REDUCING SITE IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE, ABINGDON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION/ORCHARDS OF PLYMOUTH, PHASE I (94050). Motion carried, seven ayes. Item 6-G Amendment to Ordinance Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Preus, to adopt ORDINANCE 96-24 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER XIII OF THE PLYMOUTH CITY CODE CONCERNING OPERATION AND REGULATION OF MOTORIZED GOLF CARTS. Motion carried, seven ayes. Item 6-H Firearms Training Range Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Preus, to enter into an agreement with each of the cities of Medina and Wayzata to allow their law enforcement personnel to use Plymouth's Firearms Training Facility. Motion carried, seven ayes. Regular Council Meeting October 2, 1996 Page 5 Item 6-I Appointment of Election Judges Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Preus, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-532 APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES FOR 1996 GENERAL ELECTION. Motion carried, seven ayes. Item 6-K Financial Management Policies Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Preus, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-533 APPROVING FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT POLICIES, as amended. Motion carried, seven ayes. Item 6 -Ml Award of Bid - Ice Rink Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Preus, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-534 AWARDING AND REJECTING BIDS AS NECESSARY FOR THE ICE ARENA PROJECT NO. 415. Motion carried, seven ayes. Item 6-M2 Award of Bid - Increase Ice Arena Construction Budget Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Preus, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-535 INCREASING THE PROJECT BUDGET FOR THE ICE ARENA/LIFE TIME FITNESS PROJECT FROM $8,200,000 TO $9,000,000 INCLUDING CONTINGENCY AND $800,000 IN REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES. Motion carried, seven ayes. Item 6-0 Mission View subdivision Street Names Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Preus, to adopt ORDINANCE 96-25 APPROVING STREET NAME CHANGES IN THE MISSION VIEW SUBDIVISION. Motion carried, seven ayes. Item 6-P Building Construction Regulations Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Preus, to adopt ORDINANCE 96-26 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO REQUIRED INFORMATION FOR BUILDING PERMITS AMENDING SECTION 400.13 OF THE PLYMOUTH CITY CODE. Motion carried, seven ayes. Regular Council Meeting October 2, 1996 Page 6 Item 6-Q Landscape Partnership Program with MN/DOT Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Preus, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-536 AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT NO. 75490 WITH THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT BY THE STATE TO THE CITY OF THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF LANDSCAPE MATERIALS TO BE PLANTED IN THE NORTHWEST AND SOUTHWEST QUADRANTS OF THE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 494 AND COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY NO. 15 (CARLSON PARKWAY) INTERCHANGE WITHIN THE CORPORATE CITY LIMITS UNDER STATE PROJECT NO. 2785-969B (TH. 494=393). Motion carried, seven ayes. Item 6-R REDUCTIONS IN FINANCIAL GUARANTEES Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Preus, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-537 REDUCING REQUIRED FINANCIAL GUARANTEE, CHURCHILL FARMS 2"D ADDITION (91079). Motion carried, seven ayes. Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Preus, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-538 REDUCING REQUIRED FINANCIAL GUARANTEE, CHURCHILL FARMS 3RD ADDITION (92021). Motion carried, seven ayes. Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Preus, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-539 REDUCING REQUIRED FINANCIAL GUARANTEE, CHURCHILL FARMS 4TH ADDITION (92022). Motion carried, seven ayes. Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Preus, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-540 REDUCING REQUIRED FINANCIAL GUARANTEE, HUNTERS BLUFF ADDITION (94145). Motion carried, seven ayes. Item 6-S Change Order No. 1, City Project No. 417 Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Preus, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-541 APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. 1, 1996 PARK BOND TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS, CITY PROJECT NO. 417. Motion carried, seven ayes. Regular Council Meeting October 2, 1996 Page 7 Item 6-T Change Order No. 6, City Project No. 330 Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Preus, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-542 APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. 6, WEST MEDICINE LAKE PARK IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE I, CITY PROJECT NO. 330. Motion carried, seven ayes. Item 6-U Stop Sign Installations Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Preus, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-543 INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGNS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS. Motion carried, seven ayes. Item 6-V Policy City -Owned Land Structures for Wireless Telecommunications Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Preus, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-544 ADOPTING POLICY STATEMENT REGARDING THE USE OF CITY OWNED LAND FOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS, ANTENNAS, AND TOWERS. Motion carried, seven ayes. Item 6-W IMR Product Building Addition Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Preus, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-545 APPROVING FILLING WETLANDS AND THE WETLAND REPLACEMENT PLAN FOR DUFFY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - IMR PRODUCT, BUILDING ADDITION (96071). Motion carried, seven ayes. Item 6-X Caliber Builders, Inc./Greentree Addition Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Preus, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-546 AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION FROM THE 1991 WETLAND ACT, CALIBER BUILDERS, GREENTREE ADDITION, COUNTY RD. 24 & HWY. 101, S%2 SEC. 19; LOT 16, BLOCK 1. Motion carried, seven ayes. Item 6-Y Amendment to Personnel Policy Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Preus, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-547 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PERSONNEL POLICY PROVIDING FOR ADDITIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR RESIGNING EMPLOYEES. Motion carried, seven ayes. Regular Council Meeting October 2, 1996 Page 8 Item 6-Z TwinWest Position on Tax Increment Financing Reform Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Preus, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-548 APPROVING THE POSITION OF TWINWEST CHAMBER OF COMMERCE RELATING TO REFORM OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING LEGISLATION IN THE 1997 LEGISLATURE. Motion carried, seven ayes. Item 8 -AA (6-N) Eliminate Hard Court in Maple Creek Park Marion S. Barber, 2800 Blacks Oaks Lane North, asked that the hard court not be removed from Maple Creek Park. He said it is needed to help young people develop values of responsibility, justice, honesty, and respect. Removal of the court from the park will send a negative message to children who need somewhere to play in the neighborhood and should not be encouraged to go elsewhere. He was not present at the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission meeting when the issue was discussed. Mayor Tierney explained that the hard court was existing in the park and was initially going to be moved to another location in the park during reconstruction. At the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission (FRAC) meeting, residents said they wanted the court removed from the park. Councilmember Wold was present at the PRAC meeting when the item was discussed. He said that this City Council has been very responsive to children, through development of parks, ice facility, and joint City/School facilities. In this instance the court was removed. Due to the ADA requirements, there was not enough space to reinstall the court at its prior location. Two options for relocation of the court were presented. The majority of residents at the PRAC meeting were opposed to both of the alternative locations. He supports having basketball courts available and having park facilities wherever possible. He volunteered to serve on a Subcommittee to meet with the neighborhood and reconsider the issue. Eileen Bohn, 16315 27`h Place North, represented neighbors in the Mapledell/Maple Creek neighborhood. She presented a petition from 40 homeowners requesting that the hard court remain in the park. The park is between three neighborhoods, with a pond to the north, and it is only accessible by walking paths. Parking is not provided. She said that two open areas were considered for installing the new playground equipment - the large grassy area to the south and the existing area of the basketball hard court. Residents were notified that the park was being reconstructed, and that it would mean moving the playground equipment. Residents assumed that the basketball pad would be relocated to either the large grassy area or the area adjacent to the playground. In August, residents learned there was indecision about where to put the basketball hard court. She said that some residents Regular Council Meeting October 2, 1996 Page 9 spoke in favor of the basketball hard court, but the opposition appeared in greater numbers. Stie believes that more residents in favor of the hard court should have appeared at the meeting. However, they had assumed because there was a pad before, it would be relocated within the park. The basketball hard court should remain in the park to serve the future needs of children who will outgrow the playground equipment. Councilmember Lymangood thanked residents for appearing in support of the issue this evening. He believes it is inappropriate for the Council to determine the issue tonight because it deserves more discussion. He suggested referring the issue back to PRAC with direction to do a broader distribution of the meeting announcement. Councilmember Wold thanked the residents who spoke. He noted that it is too late to build the hard court this year, so there is time for PRAC to conduct another meeting on the issue with clear notice to residents of the options under consideration. Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Granath, to refer the issue to PRAC. for consideration of the issue, with input from Councilmember Wold and Park Director Blank on specific procedures and issues for consideration. Councilmember Granath stated that he couldn't support the request tonight, but supports further consideration with the neighborhood. Councilmember Preus provided direction to PRAC that he hopes a solution can be found that everyone in the neighborhood is happy with. He believes this is a very nice place for a basketball court, and eliminating the hard court does not seem to be the right solution. He asked that PRAC and the neighborhood work on a creative solution for placement of the basketball court that is least disruptive to residents who don't want it in the neighborhood. Mayor Tierney agreed that the issue deserves a full hearing with all interested residents involved. Motion carried, seven ayes. Item 8-A Dean and Alice Fjelstul (96107) Community Development Director Hurlburt presented the staff report on the request of Dean and Alice Fjelstul for preliminary plat and variance for Sycamore Woods Addition, located at 410 Sycamore Circle. The applicants are requesting preliminary plat approval on this 3.2 acre parcel to create three single family lots, of which two would be new home sites and one would Regular Council Meeting October 2, 1996 Page 10 contain an existing home. A variance is also requested to allow one of the lots to have a width of less than 100 feet at the required front yard setback line. On September 10, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request. Concerns were raised at the hearing primarily relating to drainage, removal of trees, and the requested variance. She said that drainage is not an issue from staff's perspective. This site is subject to the Tree Preservation Ordinance, and only 10 significant trees would be removed which would exceed the requirements. A variance is requested only for the lot width for the existing home. Because of the unusual lot shape and the placement of the existing home on the lot, it is difficult to divide property in such a way that preserves the existing home. She showed alternatives for development of the property without the variance, but the result would be significant loss of trees or removal of the existing home. Staff believes there are unique circumstances for the variance and recommends approval of the requests. Ted Kemna, Shoell and Madson, Inc., said he has worked with the Fjelstuls in developing a layout that preserves the natural amenities. The Fjelstuls want to preserve the existing home and surrounding area in its entirety. He requested approval of the requests. Motion was made by Councilmember Anderson, seconded by Councilmember Preus, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-549 APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR DEAN AND ALICE FJELSTUL FOR SYCAMORE WOODS LOCATED AT 410 SYCAMORE CIRCLE NORTH (96107), and RESOLUTION 96-550 APPROVING VARIANCE FOR DEAN AND ALICE FJELSTUL FOR SYCAMORE WOODS, LOCATED AT 410 SYCAMORE CIRCLE NORTH (96107). Councilmember Lymangood said the plan indicates that the common driveway will serve as the driveway entrance for the new lots. He asked if a driveway easement would be required or how access would be legally documented. Director Hurlburt said that the preliminary plat resolution includes a condition that "Lots 1 and 2 shall share a common access point from Sycamore Circle North and are restricted from having an individual driveway for each lot." Legal documents will be recorded to ensure this. Motion carried, seven ayes. Item 8-B Request for "All Way Stop at 55`h Avenue and Ximines Lane Public Works Director Moore stated that residents of Harrison Hills in the vicinity of 55th Avenue and Ximines Lane have submitted a petition requesting the installation of four-way stop signs at that intersection. The request is in response to the additional traffic from the new Ponds at Bass Creek Regular Council Meeting October 2, 1996 Page 11 Subdivisions. Engineering staff has investigated the request. As stated in the Uniform Manual of Traffic Control Devices, the purpose of stop signs is for the intended use where traffic is to stop. There are several situations where stop signs are warranted such as intersections of less important roadways and major roadways, where streets enter a through highway, unsignalized intersections in a signalized intersection area; and intersections where high speed, serious accident record, or obstructed view indicate the need for a stop sign. He said there is adequate sight distance at this intersection. A speed study was conducted 200' from the intersection. The average speed was 22 mph. The speed at which 85 percent of the vehicles were traveling at or below was 28 mph, which is below the speed limit of 30 mph. He said that numerous studies indicate that the speed of traffic away from a stop sign generally increases or vehicles do not stop at the stop sign if an unwarranted stop sign is installed. The most speeding took place from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. Staff recommends that this area be directed for selective enforcement, particularly during that time, and that the request for an all -way stop be denied. Sam Gurst, 5500 Yorktown Lane, represented the Harrison Hills Homeowner Association. He said the issue is that there is a lot of construction at The Ponds which creates a lot of traffic at the 55h Avenue outlet. In fact, construction traffic is the reason for the speeding problem between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. The problem would not occur if the outlet to County Road 10 was completed. He said that there is a school bus stop at the intersection of Ximines Lane and 55th Avenue, and residents are concerned about safety in the event of bad weather and slippery conditions. He said that stop signs are not the long-term solution. Getting traffic directly to County Road 10 and completion of construction will resolve the problem. In the interim, residents would like something done to alleviate safety concerns. In response to a question by Councilmember Anderson, Public Safety Director Gerdes stated that adding enforcement in this area is no problem. Councilmember Black asked if consideration has been given to temporary placement of stop signs during construction and removal when construction is completed and the County Road 10 intersection is opened. She also suggested moving the school bus stop away from the intersection for safety. Public Works Director Moore said that a speeding problem currently does not exist. When County Road 10 access is opened, the traffic patterns will only slightly change. The County Road 10 connection will not be made until late spring or early summer 1997. He said that staff has inquired of the school district about moving the school bus stop, but has not pursued anything without feedback from the neighborhood on whether they want the stop sign moved. Regular Council Meeting October 2, 1996 Page 12 Mr. Garston said the bus could come from 55th Avenue rather than 53rd Avenue, but otherwise relocation would be difficult during snow due to the hill and school bus access and turn -around. Manager Johnson suggested that warning signs could be installed to notify drivers of construction traffic at this intersection. Director Moore responded that residents have indicated that construction workers driving to and from the site are causing the traffic concerns, rather than construction vehicles. Councilmember Preus noted that a petition requesting the four-way stop sign was signed by about 83 residents. He asked if there is opposition to installing the signs. Director Moore said that the petition was circulated by the residents, and staff does not know if residents who did not sign the petition were not home at the time or are opposed to the signs. Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Mayor Tierney, to accept the staff recommendation and deny the request for an all - way stop at Ximines lane and 55th Avenue. Motion to amend was made by Councilmember Black, seconded by Councilmember Anderson, to direct staff to work with the school district and the area residents to establish a safer school bus stop. Motion carried, seven ayes. Motion to amend was made by Councilmember Anderson, seconded by Councilmember Wold, to direct that the Public Safety Traffic Unit monitor the intersection and conduct periodic enforcement, particularly during the problem hours noted in the staff report. Motion carried, seven ayes. Councilmember Preus said he will vote against the motion. He said the staff report makes sense, but an overwhelming number of residents requested the all -way stop by petition. Perhaps this is evidence that the studies may be contrary to the reality of the situation. Councilmembers Granath and Black indicated they also would vote against the motion. Motion failed: Lymangood and Tierney ayes; five nays. Regular Council Meeting October 2, 1996 Page 13 Motion was made by Councilmember Preus, seconded by Councilmember Black, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-551 INSTALLATION OF "ALL - WAY" STOP SIGNS, with the addition that staff is directed to work with the school district and the residents to establish a safer school bus stop, and the Public Safety Department Traffic Unit is to monitor the intersection and conduct periodic enforcement. Councilmember Wold said he will be happy to reconsider the issue when the County Road 10 access is opened, but he believes the all -way stop is needed now during construction. Mayor Tierney said she can also accept the all -way stop on a temporary basis. She feels that it needs some review in the future. Councilmember Lymangood noted that the original motion does not include a statement that this is temporary. Motion was made by Mayor Tierney to review the all -way stop signs in the future when construction is completed or when the access to County Road 10 is opened. Motion died for lack of a second. Councilmember Lymangood spoke against the motion. He said that the original configuration of this neighborhood and street layout was at the request of the homeowners in 1994, and it was not intended to connect to County Road 10. Also, the staff report indicated that with the sharp cul-de-sac to the east and a stop sign installation, it may encourage people to speed through the area to make up for lost time. Mayor Tierney supported Councilmember Lymangood's comments. She believes that safety can be better addressed without the stop signs. This may move a problem to another neighborhood. Motion carried, five ayes; Lymangood and Tierney nays. Item 8-C (6-A) Approve Minutes Mayor Tierney noted a correction on Page 8 of the August 28, 1996, minutes. The minutes indicated that Mayor Tierney stated the Community Improvement Fund was modeled after a similar fund in Minnetonka where "only the interest is expended from that fund for capital projects." She believes that this was their practice at the time, but that was not their long-term objective. Councilmember Lymangood suggested replacement language. Regular Council Meeting October 2, 1996 Page 14 Motion was made by Mayor Tierney, seconded by Councilmember Lymangood, to approve the August 28 Special Council Meeting minutes with amended language on Page 8 to read: "At the time the Plymouth Charter Commission reviewed Minnetonka's practices, only the interest was expended from their $20 million fund for capital projects." Councilmember Lymangood said that Page 2 of these minutes also references the manner in which the City of Plymouth received detailed tax calculation documentation from Hennepin County and direction provided to staff. He asked if this has been handled. Manager Johnson responded that action was taken at the subsequent regular Council meeting and a copy of the information sent to the County was included in the Council Information Memorandum. Councilmember Preus asked if a response was received from the County. Finance Director Hahn said Hennepin County has contacted him. They are meeting with their staff members and considering ways to improve the process. Councilmember Lymangood asked if copies were provided to the County Commissioners. Director Hahn said no. Councilmember Lymangood requested that a copy of the City's letter and the County's original document be sent to each of the County Commissioners. Motion carried, seven ayes. Mayor Tierney referenced the minutes of the September 20 Special Council Meeting. She questioned whether Councilmember Anderson was quoted correctly on Page 3, and asked if he wanted to comment. The minutes said that Councilmember Anderson gave an historic perspective on becoming involved in local politics six years ago by forming the League of Plymouth Voters, and at the time, Joy Tierney was the President of League of Women Voters (LWV). She said that is correct; however, the minutes state that the League of Plymouth Voters asked the LWV to support allowing voters to decide whether terms of office should be extended. Mayor Tierney said that was not the issue. The issue was two groups coming together because they were concerned about activity on the City Council. She said Councilmember Anderson wanted the LW to bring a lawsuit against the City. The minutes further indicate that "Joy Tierney would not let the LWV take a position because she could r,det decide the issue." She said Councilmember Anderson Regular Council Meeting October 2, 1996 Page 15 could not have said this because she cannot decide an issue for the LWV. She took the issue to the State LWV and asked whether the LWV brings lawsuits. The State LWV said that it is done only as a last resort, and the vote of the local LWV was that they would not bring a lawsuit against the City of Plymouth. Then, Councilmember Anderson proceeded to have a lawsuit brought against the City of Plymouth. The LWV pushed to get a Charter Commission established for the City to resolve issues that were causing volatility. She asked if his comments were correct. Councilmember Preus brought a point of order. He said the purpose of approving the minutes is to approve what they say and not to rediscuss the issue. He said that Mayor Tierney nor he were present at this meeting, and Councilmember Anderson and others at the meeting should determine whether the minutes accurately reflect the issue discussed. Mayor Tierney said the minutes also say that the deciding vote on the Charter Commission to table consideration of the proposed amendment was made by Mayor Tierney. She said this wasn't true. It was a six to five vote. Had she voted a different way, it would have resulted in a tie vote. She doesn't understand his comments, and asked if the minutes reflect what he said at the meeting. Councilmember Anderson stated yes. Councilmember Lymangood said the Mayor is correct that a five to five vote would have resulted in a failed motion. The final motion to table was by a six to five margin; therefore, any of those voting with the majority did cast the deciding vote. That was a point that he raised at that meeting, and the last statement by Councilmember Anderson could have been made for any of those voting in the affirmative. It was also his recollection that he interjected at that point as to the specificity about the calling of the meeting. Councilmember Granath said that was correct. Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Granath, to amend Page 3 of the September 20 minutes to add that "Deputy Mayor Lymangood read the call of the special meeting and respectfully requested that remarks be pertinent to that call. Motion carried, seven ayes. Motion was made by Mayor Tierney, seconded by Councilmember Black, to approve the September 20 Special Council Meeting minutes as amended. Motion carried, seven ayes. Regular Council Meeting October 2, 1996 Page 16 Item 8-D (6-F-3 and 6-F-4) Plymouth Ponds Development Councilmember Black said there has been a great deal of discussion about Plymouth Ponds development. She is hesitant to approve a reduction in their bonds until assurances have been made to resolve those issues. She suggested that the Council not consider reduction of the bonds until a later date. Manager Johnson said there are alternative mechanisms in place and asked Community Development Director Hurlburt to respond. Director Hurlburt said that this item refers to Site Improvement Performance Agreements that cover landscaping and other improvements. There are additional financial guarantees in the development contract that cover the NURP ponds. Staff is confident that no financial guarantees are being proposed for release for items that are unresolved. She said the landscaping is completed, except for additional landscaping that was promised as part of the approvals for Building Four. If it is not already completed for Building Four, it will be required before the building permit for Building Four is approved. Councilmember Black asked for clarification that this is for only the landscaping that was approved as part of the final plat. Director Hurlburt said yes, and it is completed. The plantings around the NURP ponds is part of the remaining financial guarantee. Motion was made by Councilmember Black, seconded by Councilmember Lymangood, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-552 REDUCING SITE IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE, PLYMOUTH PONDS DEVELPMENT L.L.C./3555 HOLLY LANE BUILDING #1 95005), and RESOLUTION 96-553 REDUCING SITE IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE, PLYMOUTH PONDS L.L.C./3500 HOLLY LANE BUILDING #2 (95134). Motion carried, seven ayes. Item 8-E (6-L) Dissolution of Suburban Alliance Councilmember Anderson requested a staff report on the proposed dissolution of Suburban Alliance and asked if a CPA or accountant has been retained to investigate the shortfall. He noted that the City will be responsible for shortfalls that Suburban Alliance has incurred, and he wants to ensure that the shortfall was not created by unnecessary or unauthorized expenditures. Assistant City Manager Lueckert responded that the 21 joint power cities have retained a CPA to do a final audit of Suburban Alliance to determine what the cities will be obligated to pay. This process has been going on since early July when Hennepin County first notified the joint power cities that Suburban Regular Council Meeting October 2, 1996 Page 17 Alliance was having serious financial difficulties. From the investigations to date, there is no indication of inappropriate expenditures. It appears to be mismanagement through such things as commingling of funding sources and using some funding sources to pay for salaries that perhaps shouldn't have been paid. Councilmember Anderson asked for an estimate of the deficit and the potential exposure for the City. Assistant Lueckert said that the total deficit will likely be between $100,000 and $130,000. She believes that the maximum exposure for Plymouth will be about $20,000. However, there is no limit to the City's exposure. Councilmember Lymangood said that one of the outstanding issues is the dissolution of the long-term lease that is continuing at $3,000 per month, and the uncertainty on an exit strategy. Assistant Manager said the lease is an unknown factor in determining the maximum exposure to the City's bottom line. Actions are continuing to work with the landlord to try to resolve the issue. Councilmember Lymangood asked what the maximum exposure to Plymouth would be to joint power cites absent the lease, and what the maximum exposure would be if Suburban Alliance is unable to get out of the lease. Assistant Lueckert said the estimated maximum amount, excluding the lease, is about $130,000 which would be split between the 21 joint power cities. Plymouth's portion would be $20,000. If Suburban Alliance is unable to end the lease, she anticipates a total additional exposure of $130,000, again split between the joint power cities. She said the audit report is not yet complete. The agency officially closed earlier this week, and work is continuing to discontinue equipment leases. Councilmember Lymangood asked if the potential additional exposure of 130,000 would be similarly divided among the joint power cities. Assistant Manager Lueckert said that it is the intent of the joint power cities to divide the costs the same way. Councilmember Anderson asked if Plymouth's financial staff need to become involved in examining the books or reviewing the audit in order to protect Plymouth's interests. He also asked about the current lease obligation. Regular Council Meeting October 2, 1996 Page 18 Manager Johnson responded that staff does not feel it is necessary to duplicate the audit efforts of the joint power cities. He noted that the City Attorney has been involved in the issue. Assistant Manager Lueckert explained that the lease is for the duration of five years from 1994 through 1999, with an escalator each year. Councilmember Lymangood noted that to vote on the dissolution is a major issue because joint power agreements are not often dissolved. Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Black, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-554 DECLARING INTENT TO DISSOLVE RELATIONSHIP WITH WEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES PLANNING BOARD, A.K.A. SUBURBAN ALLIANCE, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 31, 1997, AND PROVIDING FOR ITS ORDERLY DISSOLUTION. Councilmember Granath asked if the Executive Director who resigned last spring was ever replaced? Assistant Manager Lueckert said the Executive Director was not replaced. Their staff has been dwindling since last spring and they didn't have the funds to replace their staff director. She said that this problem occurred over time. Councilmember Lymangood thanked Assistant Manager Lueckert for her involvement in the issue. Mayor Tierney said she has been in contact with some former Suburban Alliance workers who indicated that they tried to bring financial issues forward several years ago. Motion carried, seven ayes. Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Anderson, to direct staff to provide an estimate on maximum potential exposure on what the audit reveals and the maximum potential exposure if the lease is unable to be terminated. Motion to amend was made by Councilmember Anderson, seconded by Councilmember Preus, to direct staff to provide continuing status report on the issue and a summary of the audit as soon as it is published. Motion carried, seven ayes. Main motion carried, seven ayes. Regular Council Meeting October 2, 1996 Page 19 Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Wold to direct staff to explore all possibilities of replacement services for Suburban Alliance including the possibility of having Plymouth served by one social service agency. Councilmember Lymangood said that Plymouth has difficulty at times establishing its own identity because there are three county commissioners representing the City, four school districts, and two social service agencies. It may be feasible from a community identity and a good business and economic standpoint to consolidate services in one agency serving Plymouth. Motion carried, seven ayes. Item 8-F (6-J) 1995 Financial Trend Report Finance Director Hahn presented the 1995 Financial Trend Report. He said the report indicates the trend based on past revenue and expenditures compared to current revenue and expenditures. As an example, he noted that Page 2 indicates that revenues per capita are decreasing, which is something the City should be watching. However, on Page 23 it indicates that expenditures per capita are also decreasing. Each trend is something to monitor, but currently there are no areas of serious concern. Councilmember Anderson said that his concern is that the City will soon lose its healthy building permit revenue stream so that reliance on that in the future would be difficult for the City. Finance Director Hahn said the permit fees are currently up, but the trend for the future will be decreased permit revenues. He said there will be some replacement type permits and staff levels will not continue to increase. Staff is looking at alternatives to replace those revenue sources. Councilmember Anderson asked the future Council to keep in mind that building permit revenue sources will be declining and future planning is needed. Motion was made by Mayor Tierney, seconded by Councilmember Lymangood, to accept the Financial Trend Report for the calendar year 1995. Motion carried, seven ayes. Item 9-A Consider Report from Charter Commission and Special Election Options Robert Sipkins, 2621 Comstock Lane, member of the Plymouth Charter Commission addressed the Council. He was designated by the Charter Commission to appear on its behalf and to provide the final report on the proposed charter amendment relating to the super -majority vote issue. He Regular Council Meeting October 2, 1996 Page 20 read from the September 30 minutes of the Charter Commission: "Motion by Bill Pribble, seconded by Ty Bujold: The Plymouth Charter Commission rejects the charter amendment proposed by the Plymouth City Council which would require a super -majority vote of the City Council to approve a tax rate increase. The motion carried on a 6 to 5 vote. Commissioners Bujold, Pribble, Milner, Patterson, Speck, Duntley voted aye. Commissioners Peterson, Sipkins, Singer, Bobra, Schneider voted nay." He said the Commission further acted: "Motion by Ty Bujold, seconded by Bill Pribble: The Plymouth Charter Commission hereby gives its reasons for rejecting the proposed charter amendment requiring a super -majority vote for a tax rate increase: 1. There has been no public support for the concept of a supermajority requirement for the increase of a tax rate. 2. A super -majority rule does not represent good government as it relates to issues of taxation. We endorse the principle of majority rule when it comes to fiscal responsibility. 3. As a matter of constitutional law, we do not believe that future councils should be bound by a super -majority voting requirement on fiscal matters. Such issues should be resolved by traditional democratic procedures, at the heart of which is the majority rule. 4. Expert testimony presented to the City Charter Commission has not supported the idea of a supermajority requirement. The contrary has been true. 5. In the two year process of drafting the City Charter, this Commission considered and rejected the supermajority concept as it related to taxation. 6. The Charter Commission is irrevocably opposed to the concept of the `tyranny of the minority.' Issues relating to taxation ought to be controlled by the majority. 7. The Charter Commission is not opposed to future reconsideration of the super -majority requirement if valid evidence in support of the concept is presented. 8. The supermajority requirement does not exist in the form proposed in any other Minnesota city charter. The motion carried. Commissioners Bujold, Speck, Pribble, Schneider, Bobra, Milner, Patterson, Duntley, Singer, Sipkins voted aye. Commissioner Peterson voted nay. Mayor Tierney offered apologies to the Charter Commission and the City Council, as she was out of town and unable to attend the September 30 Regular Council Meeting October 2, 1996 Page 21 meeting. She asked if there was discussion on the additional proposals that were put before the Charter Commission by Commissioner Pribble. Mr. Sipkins said there was some discussion of several options that Commissioner Pribble had proposed. Also, there was discussion precipitated by Mr. Sipkins before the 6 to 5 vote, of his intent to bring a motion to endorse the third option which was an amendment that would simply enable the City Council and future Councils to enact by ordinance a super -majority requirement for tax levy increases. This was not voted on. He believed that there this would have been in the interest of the Charter Commission, the City Council, and the electorate that the Charter Commission and the City Council seek some kind of consensus and agreement on what it would present to the electorate. Mayor Tierney asked if there was any discussion about what the Charter Commission would do now on the issue. Mr. Sipkins said there was no discussion about future action on the issue. He said there certainly is the possibility of the Charter Commission meeting again, depending on what the Council decides to do with respect to calling a special election. That meeting may be called in the near future. Councilmember Preus asked Mr. Sipkins to explain the rationale for first voting against rejecting the charter proposal and then voting in favor of the reasons to reject the proposal. Mr. Sipkins said he can only speak for himself as to the reasons he voted nay on the initial vote and aye on the second vote. He doesn't favor the general issue of a super -majority vote, and he was the first Commission member to make that position known some time ago. He believes that the four members who voted "nay" on the initial vote, agreed with him. He said that in the five months the issue has been discussed by the Charter Commission, there has not been one commissioner who has been persuaded that the super -majority vote as a concept in this proposed amendment is a good idea. He believes that the four members voting with him were interested in a compromise, notwithstanding the fact that they were opposed to the concept of a super - majority. He said that if this Council or a future Council believes that they should be governed by a super -majority vote on taxation or other issues, they should be free to set their own rules. It is his sense that other Charter Commission members feel the same way. Councilmember Lymangood said that Mr. Sipkins said last month at the Charter Commission meeting that he would not have a problem with a given Regular Council Meeting October 2, 1996 Page 22 Council setting super -majority restrictions on themselves. However, the current Charter prevents the Council from doing that. Mayor Tierney said that she was not present at the City Council meeting when the issue was first discussed, but the super -majority issue was referred to the Charter Commission by the City Council with scant debate and without real consideration of the third option of adoption of an ordinance. She said the issue referred to the Charter Commission was that the Council wanted the issue to go in the City Charter - not the option to allow the City Council to vote to set its own rules. Councilmember Lymangood said that under state law when initiatives are made by City Councils, the Council is required to state a specific language. The Council went further and presented three options to the Charter Commission for consideration. He was not asked for his view of those three options during the Charter Commission public hearing. Discussion did not occur until after the motion was made to table. He said that Mayor Tierney, being a member of both bodies, could have pursued options for a compromise at that time. That opportunity is no longer available. He expressed concern about one commissioner's comment that "whatever the Charter Commission does is irrelevant to what the Council ultimately will do." He spoke against that as he would not have invested his time and endeavor to address this issue if the Charter Commission's discussions were irrelevant. If the Charter Commission had voted to recommend a different option to the Council, the Council would now have the opportunity to choose between the options. Because the Charter Commission rejected the language sent to them, the Council does not have that option. It would have been very relevant had the Charter Commission chosen a different option. Mayor Tierney said this can be reconsidered by those on the Charter Commission who voted against it and a different recommendation can be made. She believes that a compromise is still possible. She said the Council came down hard and the Charter Commission came down hard on opposite sides, but a compromise is still possible. Councilmember Lymangood said he never presented his comments as "coming down hard" and he does not appreciate that characterization of his presentation. Mayor Tierney said she was not making comment on his presentation. She was referring to the option adopted by the Council and the response by the Charter Commission. The harshest option was selected by the Council. Regular Council Meeting October 2, 1996 Page 23 Councilmember Wold said the Mayor should not characterize the Council's action as harsh. Mayor Tierney saic .he is characterizing the firmness of the Council's action. Of the three options voted on by the Council, the most firm option was to put the language into the Charter. There was the less firm option to make it a majority vote for the Council to select at some time. Councilmember Wold said the Mayor made the comment that the Council could give it back to the Charter Commission and allow them to reconsider it. Mayor Tierney said that she hadn't made that comment. The City Council has the option at this point to reconsider. Councilmember Wold said the Council does not have that option now. The Council can either take the Charter Commission's recommendation or adopt what the City Council originally proposed to them. The Council must select one option or the other. He asked the City Attorney to comment on the timeframe in which the Council must take action. Attorney Knutson responded that the statute does not specify a time limit under which the Council must act after receiving the report from the Charter Commission. Mayor Tierney asked whether the Council can reconsider the initial vote. Attorney Knutson said the only way the issue could be reconsidered is for the City Council to start the process over and refer something to the Charter Commission. He said that the Council cannot now select Option 1, 2, or 3. The Council can only select Option 1 or start the process over. Mr. Sipkins asked if the Council does not have an additional option of tabling the matter and, in the spirit of additional cooperation, requesting that the Charter Commission meet again to reconsider their position. It is his sense that perhaps both bodies are moving closer to the middle and that a compromise may be possible. Attorney Knutson said that option would also be available. The Charter Commission has until October 15 to report to the Council and, under Roberts Rules of Order, has until the next Charter Commission meeting to reconsider the issue provided that the Council takes no action on the report tonight. Regular Council Meeting October 2, 1996 Page 24 Councilmember Lymangood said someone voting in the affirmative on the Charter Commission would need to make the motion for reconsideration. The motion could not be made by anyone voting in the negative. Mayor Tierney favored continued work toward a compromise. She noted that members were missing from the Charter Commission meeting on September 30. Mr. Sipkins stated that Subd. 7 of the statute relating to charter amendments enables an amendment to the Charter by ordinance. He recommended that perhaps if the Commission is allowed to reconsider the issue, without the Council taking action this evening, that may be another option. He believes that the electorate is better served by reaching a compromise, especially when the alternative is to spend $13,000 on a special election where the turnout could be very slim. Manager Johnson said that if the Charter Commission reconsiders the issue, the Commission should clearly indicate in their recommendation whether they are proceeding under subdivision 5 or subdivision 7 of the statute. Councilmember Lymangood raised a point of order. It is his understanding that this issue is proceeding under subdivision 5 which relates to amendments proposed by the Council, and that subdivision 7 is unavailable to the Charter Commission at this time. Manager Johnson said that the Charter Commission can initiate a charter amendment process under the statute at any time. Attorney Knutson said that the procedures in subdivisions 5 and 7 are not mutually exclusive. If the Charter Commission came forward with a recommendation, the Council could proceed under either subdivision 5 or 7. If the Charter Commission were to come forward with a recommendation, the Council could operate under either subdivision. Councilmember Anderson asked if it is correct that the Charter Commission would likely find subdivision 7 more palatable than subdivision 5 because an ordinance could be adopted by the Council versus an approval by the voters. Mr. Sipkins said that all he is representing is that it behooves the Council and Charter Commission to keep working toward a compromise that will be to the benefit of the electorate and that enables this Council and future Councils to use a super -majority if they so choose without it being a mandatory provision. Regular Council Meeting October 2, 1996 Page 25 Councilmember Anderson agreed and said that is what he is trying to do. He would like something back from the Charter Commission to work with, and asked that this be relayed to the Charter Commission members. Mr. Sipkins said he is pleased to hear that because some other comments in the past have caused some of the fellow commissioners to take positions that perhaps have been more harsh than they would be otherwise. He believes it is unfortunate that this issue has become controversial and filled with recriminations. He would like the Charter Commission to revisit the issue once more to determine if a compromise is possible. Councilmember Anderson said that this issue is one in which elected officials are representing the interests of the voters. He has a concern when appointed people decide for the will of the majority. The Councilmembers were elected based upon a certain public stance that many Councilmembers took and on many points that were pledged to the voters. He wants it to be clear to the Charter Commission that the Council simply wants to follow through with what the public has embodied in them as elected officials. Mr. Sipkins appreciated that sentiment, but said the Charter Commission has held several meetings at which the only individuals speaking in favor of the proposal were members of the Council. He said that at a recent meeting, one candidate running for City Council indicated that none of 300 to 400 people she met during door -knocking cared about the issue. In addition to the fact that the Commission does not believe there is a present problem, there does not appear to be any public sentiment favoring the proposal other than among six existing Councilmembers. He said that is perhaps a reason that it has taken the Commission as long as it has to consider the issue. The Commission has been looking for public support and expert testimony which would indicate the proposal is good government. The Commission has not found that to be the case. Mayor Tierney added that the Charter Commission has been authorized by the general public, and the Charter was adopted by the majority of the public. There has been public involvement in the issue. Councilmember Granath thanked Mr. Sipkins for his involvement in the issue. He is disappointed and frustrated because the significant evidence that there is public support for this is that Councilmembers were elected. This issue was specifically injected in the last campaign by Councilmember Preus, who was elected city-wide in a hotly contested race. He said that when the elected people are taking a position and developing it through the electoral process, it shows there is popular support. That doesn't mean it will necessarily be popular enough to pass, but it means that we should find out. This fall would Regular Council Meeting October 2, 1996 Page 26 have been a prime opportunity to do that in the general election. He noted that in the Charter Commission minutes, Commissioner Schneider explained his reasons for being opposed to the motion and then indicated he is fearful that the City Council will put the question to the voters and there will be a small turnout; however, he believes it would pass. Councilmember Granath said that if Commissioner Schneider is accurate, then it indicates there may be significant public support for the issue. He said that there can be reasonable differences on whether this is a good or bad idea, but his frustration is that the City has missed an 'opportunity to get the issue in front of the voters. He fully respects the reasons behind the majority sentiment on the Charter Commission opposing the concept, but said the paramount issue is that the voters should have had an opportunity to directly vote on the issue this fall. Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood that the Plymouth City Council disagrees with the Charter Commission findings 1-4 and 6-8 and further be it resolved to adopt RESOLUTION 96-555 CALLING FOR AN ELECTION ON A CHARTER AMENDMENT with an election date of November 1998. Councilmember Lymangood said he agrees with Item 5 in the Charter Commission's findings, but disagrees with the other findings. He stated that by placing the issue on the ballot in 1998, it will be considered by the most voters possible. If the Charter Commission wishes to reconvene and make another recommendation, they can do so. The City Council could then alter its motion. He said the Charter Commission had opportunities to act, and the City Council scheduled the item on its agenda following those meetings. He favors compromise, but at some point the issue needs to be concluded. He encouraged the Charter Commission to reconsider the issue if there is sufficient energy to do so. The City Council would then have another option to consider. Mayor Tierney asked staff to clarify whether the Charter Commission has opportunity after the October 15 deadline to consider this issue. Manager Johnson responded that the Charter Commission must finish this process initiated by the City Council by October 15. The Commission has other options under state law to make charter amendment proposals to the Council. He said that the Council's resolution calling for an election on the issue could be amended or undone up until 45 days before the 1998 election date. Motion to amend was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Anderson, to add "unless further action on this item is taken prior to 45 days before the election date." Regular Council Meeting October 2, 1996 Page 27 Councilmember Preus expressed concern about the timing stated in the amendment. He is unsure that anything can be done between 45 days and perhaps six months before the election date. If the Charter Commission came forward with a different proposal, and the proposal is to come from the City Council, the process will have to be started over again. The alternative is if the Charter Commission came forward with its own proposal, in which case the City Council would have the option of dropping its proposal. He believes that the Charter Commission has left the City Council in the difficult situation of either doing what the Council proposed or doing nothing. Councilmember Lymangood said the intent of his motion is that the Plymouth City Council can take action on this issue again up until 45 days prior to the November 1998 election. Councilmember Preus said that it needs to be understood that the City Council is limited to leaving its question on the 1998 ballot or removing it completely, absent a new proposal by the Charter Commission. Manager Johnson said that the City Council would also reserve the right to invoke another subdivision 5 charter amendment process at any time. Attorney Knutson restated the amendment, that the City Council would have to take action before 45 days of the next election, if the Council wanted to remove the question from the ballot. Councilmember Wold understood that the intent of the amendment is to clarify that the Council could reconsider the issue. However, the Council always has that option under Robert Rules and under state law up until 45 days before the election. He does not believe that the amendment accomplishes anything new. He said the Council would give full and sincere consideration to any proposals received between now and 45 days before the next election. He understands the intent, but does not believe it is needed. Vote on the amendment failed: Lymangood and Anderson ayes; Wold, Preus, Black, Granath, and Tierney nays. Councilmember Preus spoke in favor of the main motion. He expressed disappointment in the manner in which the Charter Commission has addressed this issue. He believes that Mr. Sipkins has taken reasonable positions and would have allowed the Commission to come back to the Council with an alternative. However, the issue cannot go on the November ballot, and the Council is left with only the options of its own proposal or taking no action at all. The Charter Commission was told on many occasions what the deadlines and options were. They knew that they could present an alternative and that if Regular Council Meeting October 2, 1996 Page 28 they didn't, the Council was left with only its proposal. The Charter Commission waited to table until it was too late to get the issue on the November ballot, and then voted to reject the Council's proposal. All of the findings given by the Charter Commission in rejecting the Council's proposal were reasons that he discussed with the Charter Commission last July. He questioned why the majority of the Charter Commission would decide to delay for several months other than to prevent the voters from having an opportunity to address the issue. While he appreciates that the Charter Commission members disagree with the philosophy of the proposal or whether it is good government, it seems that the Charter Commission majority made a deliberate effort to prevent the entire issue from going to the voters this November. Under the state law provision under which the City Council proposed the charter amendment, the Charter Commission was to review it, state whether they agree with it, and provide a response to the Council. He believes that the Charter Commission majority made a decision early on and then decided to deliberately postpone as long as they could. They went beyond their responsibilities. Councilmember Preus addressed the specific reasons cited by the Charter Commission. He disagrees with the first reason that there has been no public support for a concept of a super -majority requirement for an increase in the tax rate. He has talked with many residents during campaigning. He acknowledges that this is not an issue that people are actively promoting; however, they support it and have indicated that it's exactly what is needed in governments at all levels. It needs to be more difficult to raise taxes. In response to the second finding, he said that an individual from the Citizens Taxpayer Association at a Charter Commission meeting explained that taxation has gone too far at most levels of government. This would help to add another check to bring taxes back to where they should be. He said that the City can take a proactive approach and demonstrate ideas for keeping taxes in line. This could be adopted by other levels of government. He believes that the Charter Commission's position on this is narrow and shortsighted. In response to the third finding, Councilmember Preus believes that majority rule operates well on most items. However, it has failed on items relating to taxation. He said the City of Plymouth has been quite good, but there is the potential to get into the same rut as other levels of government. With respect to the fourth finding, he stated that after reviewing the minutes of the Charter Commission, he would not characterize the testimony given as "expert" any more than members of the City Council. These were individuals with certain political views, and he doesn't believe that political views qualify as expert testimony. In response to the sixth finding, he didn't recall the phrase "tyranny of the minority" being used at the Charter Commission meetings and viewed it as expressing a bit of paranoia. He said that in practical circumstances the tax Regular Council Meeting October 2, 1996 Page 29 rate is reached through give and take among the members, and ultimately a compromise. He does not believe that process constitutes a "tyranny of the minority." Councilmember Preus stated that he interprets the seventh reason given by the Charter Commission as that they have rejected every argument made thus far and that they will never reconsider this because there is nothing new to add. He has some concern with leaving the door open to have this item go back to the Charter Commission because the majority of the Commission has taken an absolutely strong position that they think it is a bad idea and they will never approve it. However, Mr. Sipkins has been extremely conciliatory. Councilmember Preus takes that as a good gesture and he will always be willing to consider any good positive alternative by the Charter Commission. Councilmember Preus said his response to the eighth finding that the super - majority requirement does not exist in the form proposed in any other Minnesota city charter is that maybe it should be. He added that maybe it should be imposed on other levels of government as well so that taxation can be brought back in control. He is disappointed in how the majority of the Charter Commission handled this issue. He believes that the Commission exactly knew its views on this issue months ago and took an action deliberately designed to prevent it from going to the voters. The role of the Charter Commission was not to do this, but rather to consider the issue and give its view on whether it was good or not, or to present an alternative. Motion to amend was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Anderson, that the Plymouth City Council wholeheartedly agrees with and publicly acknowledges the intellectual leadership that Councilmember Preus just demonstrated through his comments and his support of this concept from the beginning. Mayor Tierney spoke against the motion. She said it is unfortunate that this issue started in a way that polarized the City Council and the Charter Commission. She would have liked the two bodies to work together. She stated that Councilmembers brought this issue forward as a political issue from the campaign platform at a time when she was not present. The issue was not well discussed by the City Council. Councilmember Lymangood made a point of order. He stated that Councilmember Preus originally brought this item to the City Council on May 1 when Mayor Tierney was present. Mayor Tierney stated that the issue was brought up on May 1 as a future issue. She said that Councilmember Preus was either unaware, or did not bring to the Council's attention for discussion, that the Council could have one proposal Regular Council Meeting October 2, 1996 Page 30 and the Charter Commission could present an alternative proposal. She does not consider it being well versed or well prepared to suggest something to the Council for a vote, especially a proposal that was firmly rejected by the Charter Commission years ago. She said that this was taking two opposite views and trying to bring a co*!,promise. This is a philosophical issue, and education on such a process takes time. She feels that either side can take offense. She said the issue did not come to the Charter Commission as friendly or conciliatory; therefore, she cannot support that Councilmember Preus has done a good job on this. Mayor Tierney stated that when the Council and City Attorney started looking at the issue, there were three proposals, and other alternatives were discussed by the Charter Commission. There are probably additional alternatives. She said that the Council's single proposal does not speak to the ability to compromise. She fails to see that the Charter Commission is not doing its duty in trying to come to a compromise or understanding on the issue. She said that to try to put this before the voters as some important issue that needs to be addressed immediately does not make sense. The City has a Aaa bond rating and the lowest tax rate of the 77 cities over 10,000 population in Minnesota. The majority vote has held solid and true for the City of Plymouth, and there is no evidence that the super -majority would do better. The evidence would suggest that putting something as firm as the position adopted by the City Council could be a detriment in the future. She said that to try to get two groups with chosen polarities to work together in a compromise will take time, education, and desire to work together. It is important to give due consideration to the interests of both bodies. She is not convinced that veering from majority rule is always good. She said that the phrase "tyranny of the minority" was used at the Charter Commission meeting. She said that giving the minority the opportunity to have the power through a super -majority vote requirement can undo the democratic process. She questioned why a super -majority vote would be required on this issue, rather than on all issues. Councilmember Wold stated that the amendment is solid and clear, and he will support it. He commended Councilmember Preus for moving forward, considering the options, and bringing this option to the Council. He was sorry to hear the Mayor say that an amendment proposed by the Council under state law (charter amendment subdivision 5) was viewed by the Charter Commission as being forceful. He doesn't understand why there would be a divergence in the process established by state law. Councilmember Preus selected a legitimate process as provided by state law to bring an issue forward. Councilmember Wold is concerned that anytime the Council may propose an amendment under this section of state law, the Charter Commission will oppose it, view it as being hostile, or take all tactics to delay. He said that if future Councils are -oing to follow this process, they should allow 6 1/2 Regular Council Meeting October 2, 1996 Page 31 months because the Mayor has clearly indicated that the Charter Commission will delay. He finds that disturbing. Mayor Tierney said that she said nothing about delay. The Council deliberately chose a date when she was out of town and wanted to put before the voters the most restrictive of the options relating to the super -majority requirement. Councilmember Wold stated that Mayor Tierney has said on more than one occasion that this process "got the gumption up" of the Charter Commission or that the process forces the issue on the Charter Commission. These comments gave him the understanding that she believes it is a shifty sort of deal. He said that Councilmember Preus looked at the options and selected a mechanism for bringing the issue forward as provided by state law. Mayor Tierney said that there will be no agreement on this and suggested moving forward. Motion to amend carried, six ayes; Tierney nay. Councilmember Black supported the main motion. She is disappointed that the issue will not be considered by the voters at this election because she is not as tied to the 5n vote as she is to letting the voters decide the issue. Unfortunately, it is too late to get the issue on this November election ballot. While there will be a smaller number of voters in the 1998 election, it is the best remaining option. She clarified that the comments made by Councilmembers that there are "no other options" refers to the fact that the issue cannot be brought before the largest number of voters until the year 2000. Mr. Sipkins reminded the elected councilmembers that the members of the Charter Commission are a wholly nonpolitical group. He has no idea of any of their politics. Those who have sat on the Commission since it was formed have diligently worked long hours, and are individuals that the City should be proud of. Mr. Sipkins vehemently disagreed with the suggestion of Councilmember Preus that the Commission either individually or collectively intended to operate in a manner as to deprive the electorate on a vote on this issue. He said that regardless of what future issue is sent to the Charter Commission by the Council under subdivision 5, whether a super -majority or other proposed amendment, that the Charter Commission will give it as full deliberation as deemed necessary regardless of the timing because the members see that as their charge by law. He does not believe there was an intent to delay on this issue. If the Council remains as acrimonious as he has heard this evening and as he had read in previous minutes, then he believes the Charter Commission members are the unfortunate individuals who have been pulled Regular Council Meeting October 2, 1996 Page 32 into this, who have done their best to remain out of the politics on this issue, and who have received all of the criticism. He objects to that. Councilmember Wold stated that his previous comments were based on what Mayor Tierney had said. He appreciates hearing from Mr. Sipkins that subdivision 5 is recognized by the Charter Commission, as he was concerned about Mayor Tierney's comments that subdivision 5 was offensive to the Charter Commission. Mayor Tierney said that she had not made that comment. Mr. Sipkins said that the Charter Commission is a non-political body and none of the Charter Commission members, except perhaps Mayor Tierney, have enjoyed being dragged into this political situation. He believes that the Charter Commission members are worthy of the Council's and the electorate's respect. Councilmember Anderson said that the Council agrees that respect is due the Charter Commission. However, the "ball was dropped" by the Charter Commission and the issue cannot be placed on the November ballot. Councilmember Anderson said that he was elected by a group of people who pay taxes in the City, and they asked him to let them vote on the issue. He said that the problem he, has with the liberal form of government, such as the President, is that they think they should make the decisions rather than let the citizens make the decisions. Councilmember Anderson said he wanted the Charter Commission to take a position on the issue, regardless of the position, in order to get the issue before the largest number of voters in November. It was an obligation of the Charter Commission and they chose not to exercise that. He said that Councilmembers Wold, Black, and Preus ran for election with a specific pledge that they would bring the super -majority tax issue to the Council for a vote. They were elected by a large percentage of the population and that validates what the Council is doing. He said that Ms. Johnson, the local candidate who spoke before the Charter Commission, has not run for or held political office. He said the Council is not trying to attack people; they just want the voters to decide the issues. Mr. Sipkins responded that Councilmembers Anderson and Granath have indicated that public support for this is somehow expressed in the vote that elected three members to this Council. He believes that the majority of people who voted for them, including him, voted for them because the City was in great need of an arena. He doesn't think the vote had much to do with the super -majority issue because it was not their only issue. Since their campaigns were inextricably tied with building an arena, it is disingenuous for anyone to say that it creates evidence of strong public support, especially when Regular Council Meeting October 2, 1996 Page 33 everything the Commission has seen at public meetings indicates that the only individuals interested in the issue sit on the City Council. Councilmember Granath stated that he fully respects the members of the Charter Commission but disagrees with the way this occurred. He blames the Charter Commission for it, but this has nothing to do with anyone's integrity. Councilmember Granath said the discussion has centered on how much support is out there for the issue. Councilmembers believe the threshold only needs to be sufficient to let the voters decide on the issue. Had the Charter Commission taken a position earlier, the issue could have gone to the voters in November. Now the issue will not be resolved for some time. He believes that this was a good opportunity to reach the largest number of voters and that there is at least credible evidence to suggest that there is enough interest on the issue to have an election. Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Anderson, to waive the 10:00 p.m. adjournment rule and extend the adjournment time to 10:20 p.m. Motion carried, seven ayes. Councilmember Preus said that it was not his intent in any fashion to attack the integrity, enthusiasm, or dedication of members of the Charter Commission. He said that the Charter Commission knew the statute, the issues, and the time frame. The majority of the Charter Commission chose to table the issue, and the result is the issue is now prevented from going to the voters in November. He is disappointed because it appeared quite clear that some members if the Charter Commission tabled the issue with the sole purpose of preventing it from going to the voters, instead of genuinely needing more time to consider the issues. He said that the statute provides that the Charter Commission reviews a proposed amendment and provides a recommendation. The Charter Commission has done that, but they have also done it in a fashion to take enough time so it cannot go to the voters. Councilmember Preus said that he believes the comments about the issue being acrimonious are only from the side of the Charter Commission. If there are things that the City Council has done to cause them to come to that conclusion, it is unfortunate. He doesn't believe that the Council views the issue as acrimonious, rather Councilmembers are disappointed. He agreed with Councilmember Anderson that the Charter Commission "dropped the ball" so the issue could not be resolved in a timely fashion. Mr. Sipkins said that the issue was referred to the Charter Commission rather late. The Charter Commission only used the time that was allotted to it by statute. If this issue was the core of the platform on which Councilmembers Regular Council Meeting October 2, 1996 Page 34 ran, then it was incumbent on those members to get the issue to the Charter Commission earlier. Councilmember Preus said that under the statute, the City Council can propose a charter amendment at any time. Just because the statute allows the Charter Commission 60 days, with an additional possible 90 days, does not mean that the entire time has to be used, especially on this relatively simple issue. The Charter Commission could have come back with the same amount of information and the same recommendation in a more timely fashion. Mr. Sipkins said the same thing could be true of the process if the issue had been forwarded to the Charter Commission on July 15. While it is true that the Council can take action at any time they choose, no action was taken until May. He disagrees that the Charter Commission "dropped the ball" because it could have been referred to the Charter Commission earlier. Councilmember Anderson requested a roll call vote on the motion. Councilmember Lymangood clarified that his motion does allow flexibility on this issue in the future at the initiative of the Charter Commission. He said that the intent of his motion is to allow time for the discussion to continue. He noted that the Council could have set an election date on the issue which would have prevented further consideration of the issue. He read the motion. Motion carried: Preus, Granath, Black, Anderson, Wold, Lymangood, ayes; Tierney nay. Mayor Tierney stated she believes a compromise can be worked out. She hopes that this can be accomplished before the 1998 election. As the Council has been aware, there seems to be no urgency involved in the issue at all because nothing is broken and nothing needs to be fixed. The hurry and urgency is not an issue. Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Anderson, to move to the next agenda item. Motion carried, seven ayes. Item 9-B Committee and Commission Vacancies Motion was made by Councilmember Wold, seconded by Councilmember Anderson, to direct staff to advertise for committee and commission vacancies beginning the week of October 14, 1996, as recommended by staff. Motion carried, seven ayes. Regular Council Meeting October 2, 1996 Page 35 Item 9-C October 17 Council Meeting Time Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Wold, to change the time of the special Council meeting on October 17 from 7:00 p.m to 5:30 p.m. Motion carried, seven ayes. Item 9-D Request City Attorney Summary on Use of Employees and Equipment for Re-election Purposes Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Anderson, to direct the City Attorney to provide the City Council with a summary of the recent judge's ruling which dismissed charges against Senator Moe with respect to using employees and equipment for reelection purposes as it may or may not relate to the City of Plymouth. Mayor Tierney asked for clarification on how specific the summary would be given the motion to address how the issue may or may not relate to the City of Plymouth. Attorney Knutson estimated it would take less than one hour to research and report on the issue. Motion carried, seven ayes. Motion was made by Councilmember Anderson, seconded by Councilmember Lymangood, to adjourn the meeting at 10:13 p.m. Motion carried, seven ayes. r,aK-f_ 1 a4z,7 City Clerk