2022-10-18 CC Meeting MinutesMOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
October 18, 2022
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in a special meeting on Tuesday, October
18, 2022 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the Centennial Building.
Members present: Mayor Ray Salazar; Council Members Paula Larson, Phil Velsor, Jason Holt and Sherrie Pugh
Others present: City Manager Eric Hoversten, Community Development Director Sarah Smith
Public Present: None
1. Open meeting
Mayor Salazar called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
2. Approve Agenda
MOTION by Velsor, seconded by Pugh, to approve agenda. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
3. Discussion on the City of Mound Development Committee and potential alternatives
Pugh introduced her concern that favorable comments or feedback from the Development Committee (DC) during
its review may allow or feed misinterpretation by the applicant of project success even before review by Planning
Commission (PC) and Council.
The Council discussed existing procedures and reviewed a document sourced from Minnetonka that describes the
project approval workflow for that community; and what, if any elements might improve the Mound process if
benchmarked.
Hoversten described that all of the activities in the Minnetonka workflow are described in the Mound city code
except the "Council Introduction" step, noting the Mound process presently offers DC review not included in the
Minnetonka workflow. The principal difference in the workflow sequence was with exception to application, Planning
Commission Review, and Council review approve/deny; the remaining steps are all `options' for Mound applicants
and mandatory for Minnetonka.
Discussion proceeded to evaluate each of the elements in the Minnetonka workflow and their applicability to
improve the process in Mound. This discussion included the merit of continuing the current DC review step. The
current intent of the DC is to provide applicants a voluntary, non -decisional review by elected -officials at the
conclusion of their fact-finding and project -shaping discussions with Staff to give them a sense of project viability.
DC membership is approved by the Council at its first meeting in January each year based on the Mayor's
recommended appointment.
In the course of discussion, the Council arrived at a consensus recommendation to adopt a workflow for projects
that include major subdivision/preliminary plat following the applicant's fact-finding discussions with the Staff that
includes in sequence:
Optional review by the DC
A mandatory neighborhood meeting — (presently optional)
A project introduction to the Council that would include allowance for public comments
Formal project application ***
Planning Commission review
Council review, approve/deny
***Applicants desiring formal sketch plan or concept plan review by PC and Council would make specific application
for that versus project approval, and all the investment in formal exhibits/documentation that requires, after the
Council intro is completed.
Minutes — October 18, 2022 Special Meeting Workshop
Statutory Council review/final-action timeline clock would not begin until formal application is submitted after the
Council Intro.
Council also recommended that Staff produce a lay -language process description similar to the Minnetonka handout
for applicants and a similar process description for residents.
4. Discussion on policies regarding sale of city owned parcels
Hoversten introduced this discussion conveying past comments raised by Council members on the current process
and procedures to evaluate request by others to purchase city land assets. Larson added her concern is whether
the policy in place was intended to cover sale of commercial parcels as well as residential. Hoversten clarified that
the policy was intended to address residential -zoned parcels only and that non-residential lands had traditionally
been managed as development assets and addressed separately based on past -established development
objectives of the Council. Smith confirmed that when she wrote the policy it was intended for residential -zoned
lands only.
Larson asked that the current Admin-10 policy be re -titled to clarify its residential -only intent; and that she would
want to bring forward a request to develop a similar formal policy for non-residential lands after the New Year.
5. Discussion on how and when to proceed with evaluating governance procedures and best practices
Hoversten introduced this item conveying previous input by Council members seeking clarification on Council roles,
responsibilities, and processes identified to Hoversten and Director of Administrative Services Pausche at previous
meetings with members. After framing and clarifying the concerns with the Council members, Pausche had
connected with City Attorney Gilchrist to identify resources to assist with training/coaching and Gilchrist referred
Pausche to a fellow attorney at K&G with vast experience training and coaching councils on governance.
Preliminary field work and interview of several Council members indicated that training would be valuable to the
Council; but timing may not be optimal as the Council undergoes foreseeable transformation; and the Council
should determine its desire for further engagement, and when: prior to year-end with any "elects" invited, or after the
new year.
Pugh elaborated her specific governance concerns regarding roles, practices, and meeting management to the
other members highlighting the need for tightly coordinated efforts in the coming year to secure outside funding for
the critical City water treatment project.
The Council discussed the merits of the training and timing, landing on preferring to request the training after the
New Year.
6. Adjourn
Motion by Holt, seconded by Pugh, to adjourn at 9:53 p.m. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
A"Kelly,'
Mayor Raymond J. Salazar