Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 11-27-1995 SpecialMINUTES SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 27, 1995 A special meeting of the Plymouth City Council was called to order by Mayor Tierney at 7:05 p.m. in the Public Safety Training Room, 3400 Plymouth Blvd., on November 27, 1995. COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor Tierney, Councilmembers Anderson, Lymangood, Edson, and Wold. Councilmembers-elect Black and Preus. Councilmember Granath arrived at 7:12 p.m. ABSENT: Councilmember Helliwell. STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Johnson, Assistant Manager Lueckert, Community Development Director Hurlburt, Public Works Director Moore, Finance Director Hahn, Park Director Blank, Public Safety Director Gerdes, Housing Supervisor Goldsmith, Attorney Fuchs, and City Clerk Ahrens. OPEN SPACE NEGOTIATIONS Park Director Blank stated that the successful May, 1995, bond referendum provided $3.2 million for trail construction and open space acquisition. Seven trail segments are currently under construction, and public information meetings are scheduled for twelve additional segments. He updated the City Council on negotiations for the acquisition of open space sites. He stated that the City Attorney has worked on acquiring three parcels (Mission Partners, Hardenbergh, and Olsen sites) as a first priority because of their imminent threat of being developed. Both the Mission Partners and the Hardenbergh parcels were acquired with the owners making substantial contributions via tax write-offs as part of the sale of the property. The purchase price of the Olsen property was higher than the appraised value because the City and School District 284 had purchased the adjoining property for $17,500 per acre, and Mrs. Olsen was being offered more than $20,000 per acre from developers at the time the City began negotiations. The total cost for the first three sites was within the parameters the City had set for the total acquisition of the three parcels. These negotiations were somewhat easy because there was only one property owner involved in each parcel. Approximately $650,000 remains for acquisition of the fourth site. Park Director Blank stated the fourth area proposed for acquisition is three separately -owned, contiguous parcels, located in southeast Plymouth. He presented information on total acres, wetland/buffer acres, appraisal amount, current offer, and owners' asking price for the three parcels owned by Seitzer, Stewart, and Johnson Bros. Special Council Meeting November 27, 1995 Page 2 Councilmember Granath arrived at 7:12 p.m. Park Director Blank reviewed each of the parcels. He said that the Stewarts' own two parcels. He noted that 15.51 acres, of the total 19.47 acres, are wetland and buffer. Therefore, `the City would have some control over most of the site through the City's Wetland Protection Ordinance. There is also a home on the Stewart site. He recommended that if the City acquires the Stewart site, the property should be subdivided and the portion of the site with the home could be resold. Director Blank stated that the Johnson parcel has unknown environmental factors. Large pieces of concrete have been dumped on the site. He said that the primary open space asset of this site is the water quality of the tamarack swamp. He stated that staff does not see a need to consider condemnation and recommended that the negotiations be allowed to continue. Attorney Fuchs stated he has submitted a written offer to Johnson Bros. He said that the Stewarts' do not believe that the City's appraisal is accurate for their parcel, and they believe that the wetland classification on their site is incorrect. The Stewarts' asking price is $1,451,000, compared to the City's current offer of 335,000. Mayor Tierney asked if the Stewarts' have taken steps to determine the wetland classification on their property, since they don't accept the City's information. Attorney Fuchs explained that in response to a request by Johnson Bros., the City had the wetland areas delineated on all of the sites. Community Development Director Hurlburt stated that there are wetlands on the Stewart site which are indicated on the DNR Wetland Inventory. The Stewarts' believe that the site was cultivated a number of the years ago and that it is exempt from the Wetland Conservation Act. Councilmember Lymangood stated that these property owners have been contacting the City Council regarding the status of the acquisition, and he believes that the City needs to make its position clear. He stated that the reason the City is interested in this area for open space acquisition is different than the other sites already acquired. The previously acquired sites have diverse ecosystems. This site has a unique tamarack wetland area. This area also has multiple property ownership which makes negotiations for acquisition more difficult than working with a single property owner. Councilmember Lymangood suggested that the City needs to clearly indicate its intentions to the owners. A written notice should be sent to each affected property owner indicating the wetland and protected buffer acreage, and inviting the property owners to rebut the wetland delineation. The notice should state that the Special Council Meeting November 27, 1995 Page 3 City's primary objective is to acquire the wetland portion of the sites, and there is no high degree of interest to acquire the high ground areas. A specific offer should be extended for a specific period of time to bring closure to this process. He stated that the notice should indicate that despite the City's expressed interest in the wetland area, the property owners are not prevented from marketing their property elsewhere. Councilmember Lymangood further suggested that the Open Space Committee should be reconvened to propose guidelines for use of the three sites already acquired and to look at possible alternative sites for acquisition. Councilmember Wold agreed that pursuing other options for acquisition through the Open Space Committee is appropriate in the event that these negotiations are unsuccessful. Attorney Fuchs stated that the existing wetland laws will protect much of these sites even if the City is unable to acquire them. He stated that the affected property owners have received the appraisals and the wetland delineation reports. The Council directed staff to send written offers to each of the affected property owners, as outlined above by Councilmember Lymangood, with a response required in 15 days. The notice should include that the owners are not prevented from marketing their property elsewhere. The Council also directed that the Open Space Committee should be reconvened to propose guidelines for use of the three open space sites already acquired and to recommend alternate sites for acquisition in the event that these negotiations fail. RECREATIONAL SPORTS FACILITIES REPORT Park Director Blank provided a summary of the report from the Sports Facilities Committee. Information was gathered from interviewing 14 athletic associations and by reviewing Park and Recreation technical information. The Committee identified eight issues: 1) Projected growth of all youth activities as the City continues to grow, specifically the 5 to 11 age group; 2) The extreme shortage of indoor ice time for ice hockey and figure skating; 3) The continued demand for indoor gym space for youth basketball, soccer and adult volleyball and basketball; 4) Lack of adequate facilities for girls' fast pitch softball; 5) Lack of available pool time for competitive swimming at the club and high school level, as well as the lack of any leisure swimming pool facilities; 6) The growth of indoor soccer; 7) Developing fair and equitable fee schedules for use of City and school district facilities; and 8) Developing appropriate maintenance levels of school district facilities such as baseball and softball fields. Director Blank stated that based on the Committee's review of existing and future needs, a time line for phasing of development was established. He reviewed the ten-year time line for development which was divided into immediate, mid-term, Special Council Meeting November 27, 1995 Page 4 intermediate, and long-term needs. He also presented cost estimate information and proposed sources of funding for various recreational facilities. City Manager Johnson stated that the Downtown Plymouth plan includes a proposal for major recreational facilities as an anchor. Also, people have approached the City about the need for a private health club in the City. The City recently sent out letters for franchise health/fitness clubs to determine whether there is interest in joining with the City in a partnership to jointly develop certain recreational facilities. The letter identified characteristics of a joint venture that the City would consider necessary or desirable for a successful joint venture: 1) The private club would construct all City facilities, as well as its own privately -owned facilities; 2) The City would contract with the club and pay a fair cost to the club for the items to be owned by the City; 3) All construction of City facilities would be subject to public bidding laws; 4) The City would own and operate the ice facilities and the multi-purpose center, if built. The Club would own or lease all other facilities and operate them, including all of the pools, at no financial cost to the City; 5) All residents of Plymouth would have access to all facilities, including the private club facilities, on a daily fee basis. In addition, the club may have normal membership plans; 6) The Club would be responsible for all marketing of the entire facility; 7) The City would assist with construction of the necessary parking facilities and provide the land for the entire facility; and 8) The funding sources for the City portion of the facilities would be subject to a public referendum that would be held in early 1996. Three companies responded to the letter; however, two of the companies indicated it was unlikely that they could offer reasonable daily fee rates to Plymouth residents. Life Time Fitness has responded favorably to the proposal. Manager Johnson stated that a partnership arrangement may also be possible with School District 284. The District earmarked $1.5 million for pool facilities in the new high school bond referendum, and the school board has written to the City offering to consider a joint project. He said that final commitment of the School District 284 funds for a joint project may depend on the final decisions on use of old Wayzata Senior High as a middle school and on the overall bids for the high school project being within an acceptable range. The fourth major bid package for the new high school will be opened in mid-December. He stated that implementation of the recently approved City Tax Increment Financing (TIF) plan to return to the school districts some excess levy referendum money accumulating in City TIF funds provided funds are used for some community sports/recreation purpose would help with the funding issue. Manager Johnson explained that the Swim Club originally proposed to raise $2 million and construct and operate a pool complex, including a 50 -meter competition pool, if the City donated the land. The Swim Club has not been Special Council Meeting November 27, 1995 Page 5 successful in raising significant funds, but still desires some usage arrangement with any competition pool that District 284 or the City may develop. He presented information on the status of the Community Improvement Fund through the year 2002, and provided a scenario assuming a $5 million expenditure for recreational purposes. He recommended that it would be desirable to maintain 5 million in the Community Improvement Fund, and this could be accomplished with a $5 million expenditure in 1996. Manager Johnson reviewed various facility options, along with the associated costs and possible partnership arrangements. He asked if the Council agrees with the priorities indicated in the Sports and Recreation Facilities Report (ice, pools, gym space), and asked the Council to discuss whether a bond issue should be considered to construct any facilities. If $3 million or more of Community Improvement Funds is proposed to be expended, approval of the voters is required by City Charter. He presented a possible ballot question authorizing the use of Community Improvement Funds and a possible timetable for development of sports and recreation facilities based on an early February special election. Councilmember Granath stated that he generally agrees with the priorities and supports the recommendations in the report. He would like detailed information on the estimated costs. The Council discussed the needs outlined in the report. Councilmember Lymangood stated he has been working on this issue for several months and believes the needs are significant. He agrees with the prioritized needs established in the report, but believes that ice and pools are needed slightly more than additional gyms. Councilmember Wold stated that the needs are so desperate for some facilities that if the facilities were completed today, they would be fully utilized. The recreational opportunities for children are limited by the available facilities. Mayor Tierney said that Plymouth is particularly lacking in ice facilities, and the growth of girls' hockey will further impact the shortage of available ice time. The City Council and Councilmembers-elect agreed with the needs prioritized in the report. Manager Johnson noted that there will be six gyms at the new District 284 high school which will help fill this immediate need so that it is appropriate that ice and pools would carry a slightly higher priority than additional gyms. The Council discussed possible partnerships for a recreational facilities project. Park Director Blank stated that if the City receives "Mighty Ducks Grant" funds for hockey facilities, the City would have joint agreements with the youth hockey association, City of Wayzata, and School Districts 281 and 284. Special Council Meeting November 27, 1995 Page 6 Councilmember Anderson suggested that the Council consider whether it wants to pursue a possible public/private partnership or whether only public partnerships should be considered. Park Director Blank stated that a public/private partnership would result in less capital cost and eliminate operating deficits for the City. A private fitness facility would pay taxes, and there would be less duplication of services. A joint private/public facility would draw more people to Downtown Plymouth. A private partnership also would have advertising and promotion advantages for the City. However, a public/private facility would feel and look different than a public facility. Private fitness facilities do not create the same atmosphere for kids that is found in public community centers. Recreation staff would not be housed in a public/private facility, and there would not be the social atmosphere found in other public models such as Shoreview, Chaska, and Maplewood. Manager Johnson added that the City would have more control over a purely public venture; however, more facilities are possible with a public/private partnership. He said that everyone needs to understand that a public/private recreational venture is not the same thing as a community center. Mayor Tierney asked if a public/private recreational facility has been done elsewhere. Park Director Blank stated that no similar projects are known. The City of Maple Grove is currently working with Northwest Swim and Fitness on a public/private arrangement. Councilmember Wold said the City should pursue the public/private arrangement or an opportunity will be missed to deliver more services to residents at a reasonable cost. Councilmember Lymangood stated that the joint City/School District 284 playfield and new high school site was a wonderful cooperative endeavor and the Council should explore alternatives for private partnership on this project as well. Councilmember Anderson agreed that a private partnership should be pursued. He believes that the capital cost of a solely public facility would be prohibitive, and future operating deficits would be created for the City. Councilmember Granath expressed a philosophical reservation about the public/private partnership. He agrees that more facilities may be available to residents at less cost with a private partnership arrangement and this option should be considered. However, he wants to ensure that the City's primary purpose is met -- to have adequate facilities for youth in the community. He would not want a public/private arrangement to result in a great private facility that doesn't welcome or serve children. Mayor Tierney believes the City should pursue this public/private opportunity and believes that the City can negotiate terms that will serve citizens. Councilmember Edson agreed that the City should investigate a joint private/public venture in Special Council Meeting November 27, 1995 Page 7 order to maximize the use of the City's money. He shared some of Councilmember Granath's concerns, but believes that a family-oriented sports/recreational facility can be developed. Councilmember Edson said that there are multiple recreational needs of the community that do not relate to organized sports, and it would be a mistake to develop a private fitness club oriented to adults. He also believes it would be appropriate to legally separate the property so that the City has full ownership and control of its portion of the project. Councilmember-elect Preus stated that the City should pursue public/private partnership options. He has some concerns about a private partnership and believes that it would be much more difficult than partnerships with public entities. The inherent convict between the private enterprise's goal to make money and the public entity's goal to serve residents could make an arrangement difficult. Councilmember-elect Black stated that a recreational facility needs to be family- oriented, and the City needs to be adequately protected. She has seen situations where the private entity abandons the project, and the public entity is left in a difficult situation. All Councilmembers agreed that the option of a public/private partnership should be explored. The City Council discussed whether the project should be partially funded through a bond issue or through existing City funds. Manager Johnson said that with a bond issue, it would be easier to ensure funding for intermediate and long-term needs of the City are met. However, Plymouth taxpayers have faced recent large increases from School District 284, and Districts 281 and 279 have recently attempted major referendums. He stated that the City has existing money in the Community Improvement Fund to adequately fund the City's proposed portion of the project, while retaining $5 million in the Community Improvement Fund. The City Council indicated that it does not support bonding for the project. The City Council discussed establishing a City spending limit for the City portion of the recreational facilities project. Manager Johnson suggested that a spending ceiling of $7 million be established. The City Council agreed that $7 million ($5 million from the Community Improvement Fund and $2 million from the Project Administration Fund) should be the City's spending limit on the project. Councilmember Granath stated he would like more detailed facility cost estimates. Manager Johnson explained that these proposed costs are based on the actual costs for other City buildings and public facilities. Manager Johnson asked if the Council concurs that the focus on this issue is whether (and how much) City money should be used for recreational facilities, rather than potential partnerships for the project. The Council agreed. Manager Johnson suggested that the public information material for a special election could discuss the possibility of partnerships. Special Council Meeting November 27, 1995 Page 8 Manager Johnson stated that if the Council were proposing a bond referendum for the project, the City would need to exactly specify the facilities that would be built. Since the focus of the ballot question will be the use of existing Community Improvement Funds, the City is not legally obligated to specify the exact use of the funds. This is helpful because if contributions or grant funds are received for a specific purpose, the existing City funds could be targeted elsewhere in the project for a different facility. Councilmember Granath said the intended facilities should be clear in the ballot question and information literature. Councilmember Anderson stated that the Council needs to move forward quickly in order to have ice facilities available one year from now. DRAFT HOUSING GOALS AGREEMENT Community Development Director Hurlburt presented a draft housing agreement required for communities participating in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act. She said that the agreement will be revised, as directed by the City Council, for consideration at the December 5 Council meeting. The Metropolitan Council must hold a public hearing and adopt the goals by January 15, 1996. After the goals have been established, the next step will be for the City to prepare an action plan to meet the goals by June 30, 1996. In response to a question by Councilmember Anderson, Director Hurlburt said that the benchmarks to which Plymouth is being compared, set by the Metropolitan Council in their one-page draft agreement, are based on the northwest suburban area. Staff is suggesting that a lengthier agreement based on the data generated for the Elm Creek Interceptor project be considered because Plymouth has much newer housing than the average northwest suburb area. David Crain, Chairperson of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, stated that it is important to consider an alternative agreement because housing age and housing cost are closely correlated. He supported the adoption of realistic, but aggressive, housing goals. He said that the number ofjobs in Plymouth in the $10 to $15 per hour range continues to increase, and it should be made possible to house more of these workers in the City. Councilmember Edson asked what the City can do, in a free market system, to achieve the goals that are adopted. Manager Johnson stated that the City could create conditions and opportunities for the goals to be reached. For example, the City could ensure that enough land is zoned to meet the adopted density goals. Councilmember Wold stated that the free market system is influenced by planning policies. Planning can guide the process to some degree to ensure more diversity Special Council Meeting November 27, 1995 Page 9 in housing. He supports the effort to increase the amount of affordable housing in Plymouth, and noted that the current apartment vacancy rates in Plymouth are about 2 percent. Community Development Director Hurlburt reviewed the affordability chart of homesteaded units in Plymouth by year built. Units built in earlier years are highly affordable, but units built in recent years have a much lower affordability percentage. She said that a 21 percent affordability goal is proposed in the agreement, which would be an increase from the City's current 8 percent affordability. She stated that Eden Prairie, Woodbury, and Eagan are proposing affordability goals of about 20 percent. Councilmember Edson expressed concern that the City may only be able to meet a 21 percent affordability goal if the remaining undeveloped portion of the City is developed with high concentrations of lower cost housing. This could result in future problems for the City. He believes in life -cycle housing, but doesn't believe that a certain type of housing should be concentrated in one area of the City. Manager Johnson stated that the 21 percent goal for new development would be less than the average 33 percent affordability of the entire City. Community Development Director Hurlburt stated that this proposed agreement does not imply or expect any MUSA expansions. The goal is limited to undeveloped land within the MUSA that has not received development approvals. She said there are about 225 acres that unapproved for development within the existing MUSA boundary. She stated that if the MUSA is expanded, the agreement would then apply. Councilmember Lymangood suggested that the language "This agreement does not imply any such MUSA expansion will take place," be added to the proposed agreement. Manager Johnson asked that Councilmembers contact staff with other suggested changes for the draft agreement. The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Laurie F. Ahrens City Clerk