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