Loading...
1998-12-08*1.0 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 8, 1998 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 24, MEETING. MOTION Hanus, Jensen, unanimously. 1998, REGULAR *1.1 RESOLUTION 98-RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL TO GRANT AN EXTENSION FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1999. RESOLUTION #98-131 RESOLUTION REQUESTING A NINE MONTH EXTENSION OF THE DECEMBER 31,1998 DUE DATE FOR REVIEW OF THE CITY OF MOUND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR CONSISTENCY WITH AMENDED METROPOLITAN COUNCIL POLICY PLANS Hanus, Jensen, unanimously. *1.2 PAYMENT OF BILLS. MOTION Hanus, Jensen, unanimously. 1.3 RESOLUTION 98-RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE PLANNING COMMIgSION PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION ON CASE 98-64, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE WESTONKA COMMUNITY CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT FOR THE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 22, 1998. Mayor Elect Pat Meisel stated that one of the reasons, she requested this be removed from the Consent Agenda is that her term starts in January and this is a project that will fall into her term. She would like to have the opportunity to review it at its fullest and also to be able to vote on it. She felt that with the new Council coming in and new positions being taken, that they should all have input into it. She has some bits and pieces of the plan as it exists, by attending the Planning Commission Meetings and she would like to have a better understanding in how it all connects together with the renovation and things the City wants to do in downtown Mound. She further stated that she feels this is being pushed. She stated she was able to obtain copies of the letters that were sent by the City Manager to the Councilmembers, but she did not receive one. She also stated that Councilmember Elect Bob Brown did not receive the letters. She stated the following: "I felt kind of pushed aside on it and that is the way I felt about it Ed. So I would like to have an opportunity to discuss it and to go over it. It's a major move for Mound and that building is a major part of Mound, downtown, and there are a lot of things that the EDC wants to do with downtown. I think Mound has to come together." 606 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 8, 1998 Councilmember Elect Bob Brown stated the following: "I also feel the same as Pat about this subject. After reviewing the two letters that were sent out, I felt like, in a way, we were getting blamed that we were against this project and I want to make it clear, I'm not against anything that improves Mound. I'm against things that I don't know about and by being at thc Planning Commission and looking at thc way some of these things are being done, and projects being shoved and turned and pushed, such as buying land and not getting approval first from the Planning Commission and telling the Planning Commission that their not going to have a public hearing forum, that it is just going to be the Council. Using green space for their project right now, such as the football field and the baseball field in the initial project and after everything is done and paid, then they are going to split this project. Are we sure we have enough green space there? I'm not sure of that. Do we have parking solved? I'm not sure of that. None of this seems to be, want to be told up front and I do feel that we're being pushed with this. They want to jam it down our throats and as a taxpayer of Mound, I think it's time to stop, listen to the citizens and take a good look at everything and I feel that I should be a part, along with the new Mayor, in some of the decisions. I know you've been working very hard on this. You people have done a great job but, I need to know what's going on for my future references with the whole downtown project and I would appreciate this being changed." Michael Mueller, 5910 Ridgewood Road and member of the Planning Commission. He stated the following: "I appreciate the opportunity to speak in front of you all. I've been a member of the Planning Commission quite a long time, a little less than 10 years. At no time do I ever remember that the Council put a resolution forward to tell the Planning Commission to move forward with something that they felt they were doing a pretty good job on. They felt that they were doing a review that was requested by the Council, that they were put in those positions to do and that is hold public hearings and review projects. Conditional Use Permits and other projects that come in front of us in order to make sure that they meet with the codes and laws set forth by the City of Mound. The resolution that was on the Consent Agenda and that I do have in front of me at this time, basically tells us to do our job. Well, I believe we've been doing that. Some of the things that we've been requesting are very valid and very straight forward and the action needed to be tabled in order to get the answers resolved. We've never had a legal description for the property that the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) was being submitted on until this very last time. The submission was sent without the appropriate information. It was tabled to get that appropriate information. At no time, and I can hold my head high, unlike some people here, I would say that it's time for this Council to understand that this is a difficult decision. It's a decision that's going to take us into the next 50 years. We want to do the right thing. We don't want to be forced, by a Council, to make a decision without all the information. I've also submitted a Letter to the Editor which will be out this weekend, which states, and I will encapsulize it. We are asking for public input from outside citizens on this plan. The referendum that was passed was done by the Westonka School District voters. Yet it's happening in the City of Mound and the City of Mound is going to have to maintain that structure, according to the agreement, my understanding is. If that's the case, we in the City of Mound, our citizens in the City of Mound, want to do the right thing. Please don't pass this resolution, it's a slam to the Planning Commission." Frank Weiland, member of Mound Planning Commission, citizen of Mound, stated the following: "The only thing that irks me is, if this is real important and we want to get it done tonight before anything else takes place so that we can get it passed and that, why didn't you have somebody appear at the Planning Commission to tell us about it, if it was this important. We got no information about the meeting tonight on this here. I think it wouldn't hurt if you were sending it out, I think the City Manager should have sent it out to the Planning 607 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 8, 1998 Commission as well as anybody else that was interested in it. And again, we haven't received a thing. If the City Manager couldn't have done it, the City Attorney could have acted on it because it's through him that most of this stuff has to go to be sure that it is given out. So it struck me, very bad, that it was trying to be pushed through, railroaded. A Councilmember never said a thing about it, that it was so important and he's our representative from the City Council. We have had no information, telling us that we weren't doing a good job. By the look of this here, we haven't been doing the job at all. I really do think it falls back to the City Manager, that he didn't send out the right information." Councilmember Hanus, stated he has some problems with the proposed resolution as well, "particularly when we get into the 8th Whereas which reads as follows 'WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted two public hearings on this matter and has tabled the item to another meeting scheduled for December 14, 1998.' That's true, but the intention of that is clearly to make it appear as if this has been a long drawn out affair and ! have to say that, and I sit on the Planning Commission as well, so I've been at those meetings as well. The first meeting that's referred to here, the Planning Commission was presented with what we know as Plan A. That was, if you recall, the plan without the two-way traffic along the alley way. Basically, that was that plan. There was not reference or mention, at that time, that Plan B existed. There was a reason for that because they hadn't negotiated any land on that next lot to the west, and so forth. But, the Planning Commission only knew about Plan A. That's what they were faced with, they wanted some more information, they tabled it for that information. Meeting number 2, which was on November 23rd, the plan changed completely and it changed from Plan A to Plan B. So now we were faced with an entirely new plan. The traffic flow changed in that plan. Landscaping requirements, the tree requirements, and so forth, were miscalculated the first time. They were completely, completely new and changed requirements at this time. So this was a brand new request that they were facing in meeting number 2. Again, there was missing information, that they wanted so they tabled it for that reason. I would note, as well, that the WCCB had not, at that time, and still has not ratified the purchase agreement so we don't even know if they have the land yet. Yet, we're asking the Planning Commission to approve a plan that includes land isn't even owned by the applicant. So this is getting the cart so far in front of the horse that the horse can't see it anymore, I don't think. Again, it was tabled. This is a very large and very complex project. We all know that. There's numerous variances required. It is a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) which with this kind of a structure and this kind of use is complex. There is a land subdivision required here and we don't know yet if it's a minor (if we get that change passed on that portion of the code where you can do an administrative redirection of lines. I don't know if this qualifies for it or not but, there has been no submission or no application for the subdivision yet. The new lot, if in fact it is acquired, requires attachment to the existing land. All of these are open issues and the Planning Commission is being asked to quick hurry up and approve this with ail of these unknowns, not to mention what we all know about unknowns such as the ponding requirements, if there's going to be a pond required or not. I don't think there is anything you can do about that but, deal with that as best we can. But, I just wanted to highlight some of the stuff in this proposed resolution that is meant to say one thing and really there's all kinds of reasons for it going as long as it has. The resolution itself will, no doubt, be viewed by the Planning Commission as nothing but an irritant. If, in fact, they follow the requests of this, the underlying message of this resolution is - quickly get this done, if you can't, in fact it even states, 'If the Planning Commission needs to detail any concerns, conditions, issues, etc., to the City Council, it should do so in the form of their recommendation but, it is clear that the recommendation has to be at the next meeting whether we have all the information or not. In other words, if you don't have the job done, wrap it up as best you can, highlight your concerns and send it to the Council and 608 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 8, 1998 let the Council make the decision for you. That is inappropriate. I have some real problems with this resolution. I think Mike made the comment that this hasn't been done before, not to my recollection either. I just don't know how appropriate it is and I do have some problems with this resolution." Councilmember Weycker. "I have several concerns, not necessarily about the resolution, but about delaying a process that has been started. Why should this project be treated any different than any other citizen or resident coming before us to drag out the process. Granted it has been changed. I sit on the Building Committee and that first proposal has always been our first proposal. I think it was a Staff call to not present it to the Planning Commission. I assumed it had been presented to the Planning Commission. For your information, Mark, there is a purchase agreement signed for that property." Councilmember Hanus, "But it hasn't been ratified." Councilmember Weycker. "Pending the CUP." Counciimember Hanus. "And pending the WCCB approval. Nobody's approved the purchase." Councilmember Weycker. "And you were speaking of putting the ca~ before the horse. Something has to go first. It's at a dead heat right now and I understand there is a terrible lack of communication between us, obviously, or the WCCB and the Planning Commission because the things that I heard coming out of the Planning Commission. I was surprised they didn't know who the WCCB was. They were surprised to hear that 3 Council people were on the WCCB. Terrible things have gone wrong here. I don't know how to account for it. I think the procedure is flawed, definitely." Mayor Poiston. "Why would the WCCB or the School District purchase property without some assurance that they were going to get a Conditional Use Permit?" It would seem to me that would be putting the cart before the horse, Mark." Councilmember Hanus. "I don't necessary disagree with that but, what should be done is at least the purchase should be ratified so we know we're going to purchase it. We don't even know if we're going to buy it." Mayor Polston. "Mark, you sit on the WCCB, as well as I do and you know, as well as we know, as we're sitting here tonight, that the intent of the WCCB, with great assurance, that if, in fact they get the Conditional Use Permit, they're going to purchase the property if they have the agreement, which they do. So to sit there." Councilmember Hanus. "I don't know, I'm sorry, I don't know if I'm in favor of it. Mayor Polston. "Maybe you can't say it to absolute certainty but, that is certainly the intent and I believe is what's going to happen and I think that you have heard that also." Councilmember Weycker. "I believe that was the direction that the people were given, to pursue looking into purchasing this property." Councilmember Hanus. "We did tell them to go and see if you can negotiate a deal. That is correct. However, thatdeal." MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 8, 1998 Mayor Polston. "We didn't tell them to go see if they can negotiate a deal, we told them to go negotiate the deal and if they could get a purchase agreement, to bring it back to the WCCB for ratification and you know where the votes were and who the people are and you know what they were going to do because it was the choice of all the people sitting on the WCCB." Councilmember Hanus. "Uh huh." Mayor Polston. "There was nobody against it, Mark. Councilmember Hanus. "That's correct but, that does not mean everybody will vote to purchase that property once they hear what the number is, cause it's significant. It's way over the value of the property and we have to move the people besides. So there are issues that have to be talked about, relative to the sale of that property, that I have to see before I'm willing to vote for it. Also, Leah, as far as the issue you raised about the process. Early on, when this first started coming before the Planning Commission, I wanted to give the benefit ..... even at that point, there were rumblings about pushing this thing through quickly. First of all, I'm not opposed to this project but, my opinion of the process is changing quickly because if you read letters that we have all received, it has become apparent that this, in fact, is trying to be pushed through quickly before the next Council is seated. That's not a happy thing to say but, that is truly quite evident to me and to many other people. That does not represent government at its best. That's government at its worst, in my opinion, and that is really, really bothersome to me right now." Councilmember Weycker. "I believe it was Mr. Mueller, at the Planning Commission, who actually said, let's delay this until the new Council comes on. I think that is poor process." Mr. Mueller. "May I respond to the accusation?" Mayor Polston. "Just a minute. She has the floor at this time. Let her get through." Mr. Mueller. "I said, I don't know that it's proper that it be sent to a Council where 3 members have sat on the community board and then 3 members can make a final decision with regards to the process as well. I don't know that it's proper. I did say, it may be better that it be delayed until the new Council is seated." Councilmember Weycker. "With the new Council, we will also have 3 members on the WCCB." Mr. Mueller. "I understand that, too." Councilmember Weycker. "This is going to be a continual process. How did we build City Hall? We had to vote on building City Hall as well. Mayor Polston. "Leah, if you would, let him finish, please, then we'll give you a chance to respond." Mr. Mueller. "I would also like to say, that one of the things that you stated earlier, Leah, is that we treat this project as we do any other project. I've yet to know of a project that has come before the Planning Commission that does not have a legal description for the project. You don't have a legal description for this project. Lot 8 is not included in the legal description of 610 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 8, 1998 the project that was submitted to the Planning Commission. The subdivision that will remove the football field and the Babe Ruth field from this, as it will be in the form that it's finally submitted, has not yet been submitted to the Planning Commission. Liz, who sat on the Planning Commission for a long time, is very well aware that you don't give a Conditional Use Permit on a piece of property that's not described. You can't give one. We aren't doing anything out of the norm. We are doing everything as to the book. It appears as though, from the letters that I've heard that have been written, and that it has been requested that we go in front of this Council, that is seated now, that that's inappropriate. That this should probably go to the next Council just to save face. Again, this resolution is a slam to the Planning Commission and don't think it isn't. I've been on this Commission a long time, as a volunteer, and I was asked by our City Manager to submit whether or not I want to be on it for another 3 years. I want to but, I also want good government practiced in this City and that's why we're here tonight. That's why there are other Planning Commission members here tonight. Please, understand where we're coming from." Counciimember Weycker. "About the subdivision. It is not intended to be subdivided until the project is completed in the year 2000 so it's a catch 22. We have to start with this project somewhere and where does it begin? I don't know. And where does the property description come in? Is that something... Who should have submitted that or is that a Staff issue? I don't knOW." Mr. Mueller. "You said we weren't treating it in the same way that we are treating all the others. We are treating it exactly the same. It's an incomplete proposal and incomplete proposals don't get acted upon. It would be the same thing as you saying, O.K. we're going to let Kromer Companies do anything they want in this building or not even in this building, anywhere in the City of Mound. That's what you're asking us to do." Councilmember Weycker. "No." Mr. Mueller. "You're asking us to give the WCCB a free hand to do whatever they want on any property that they decide they want in the future and that's wrong, Leah. That's wrong." Mayor Polston. "Mike, in the notice that I received for the Planning Commission and City Council, on the public notice that was mailed out, there is, in fact, a legal description." Mr. Mueller. "And what public meeting was that for?" Mayor Polston. "For the Planning Commission Meeting that was mailed out to all people who live within the 350 feet, there is a legal description included. Mr. Mueller. "And that's the one we're going to be reviewing on the 14th. We have not had that one yet." Mayor Polston. "The point is, that you said that you had no legal description." Mr. Mueller. "That is correct, we have not had that meeting yet, Bob. We don't have that legal description. This is a brand new legal description. This is a brand new proposal on the 14th. Mayor Polston. "O.K." 611 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 8, 1998 Councilmember Weycker. "To clarify too, Mike. I am not asking for any special treatment in this project at all. I am asking ..... Mr. Mueller. "If you pass this resolution, Leah, you're saying that you want special treatment for the WCCB over and above everybody else because this Council wants to hear it. That's special privilege." Councilmember Weycker. "I think you're trying, attempting, to delay the process. Mr. Mueiler. "I want to go through this project but, this is a project that's going to last for a good 50 years and that's hopeful. Hopefully, a good 50 years in the City of Mound. You don't do it slipshod and you don't have the Council directing you get it done. You do it in the correct manner and that's the correct process and the correct public hearings with the correct legal description that we're going to have now. And in my opinion and was requested at more than one or two meetings, that the future subdivision be submitted at this point, because we want to know what the hardcover is for this project. Not for this project plus the Babe Ruth field, plus Hadorff field, because that's not what the final project is going to be. The hardcover is going to be on that area which is subdivided off, which is going to be owned by the WCCB and not by the School District. That's hardcover that should be calculated based on what that is, not on something that's not going to be in the future." Mayor Polston. "Thank you Mike." Councilmember Elect Bob Brown. "Mr. Mayor and Council. One of the things that was brought up at the last Planning Commission Meeting and that's what I want to take a little issue with, but nothing personal, is that I believe our Planning Commission does treat everyone exact. I've watched them now, at the few meetings I've attended. They take pains to make sure everything is done the same way for everybody and they're really good at it. And as Mike said, one of the big things they do is, at the last meeting, they brought a different plan in, showing a whole different setup that they plan to do. That was a brand new program setup. It was a different design and everything. That's why it was tabled. It had new property without being acquired. It also shows, as Mike and Mark have said, they are including, as I said before, the baseball field and the football field as part of their green space. But all of a sudden that goes away. You could have as much as 85 or 90 percent hardcover if we don't know where the lines are. So I think the Planning Commission is really doing their job and they are treating people fair and equal, whether it's the school district or the everyday citizen that comes up. That group of people does a great job as far as treating everyone alike." Mayor Polston. "What's the consensus of the Council? I think we have a, obviously a split here, and looking for some direction from the Council. Councilmember Hanus. "I'll move denial of the resolution, as presented. Councilmember Jensen. "Second." Mayor Polston. "It has been moved and seconded that the resolution be denied. So basically what are we saying here that you want to do here? Do you want to send it back to the Planning Commission and have them relook at the whole process? 612 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 8, 1998 Counciimember Hanus. "No. All I'm saying is, just denying the resolution that was put in £ront o£ us. In other words, not approving it." Councilmember Jensen. "The other thing would be to let somebody else make a motion to pass the resolution and sec what happens to that. That might bca mom appropriate approach to take." Councilmember Hanus. "That's fine." Mayor Poiston. "So here's I'm looking for, what do you want to happen here? Do you want to modify this resolution? Councilmember Hanus. "No, I don't like the thing at all. Frankly, it pressures the situation that I don't think should be pressured. So, I'll move approval of the resolution. RESOLUTION g98-132 RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION ON CASE 98-64, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE WESTONKA COMMUNITY CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT FOR THE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 22, 1998. Councilmember Jensen. "I second it for purposes of discussion, because I'm not going to vote for it for a couple of reasons. I want to take action on this. I'd really like to see this come back for our meeting on the 22nd. I understand, the newly elected officials wanting to be involved in it and I think that's great but, as someone who is leaving and who was involved in this, I would like to be able to take action on it. However, having been involved with the Planning Commission for 13 years, I know how hard the group works. I think that in another situation if we got a half baked recommendation from the Planning Commission, you'd be upset about it and what we're looking at, is potentially getting something half baked and we'll sit here on the 22nd. As the situation exists today, we could sit here on the 22nd trying to do the work that we would have expected them to do. I'm hoping that they will be able to do that anyway and we'll have something on the 22nd but, I would rather not pass something that would have a tendency to create unnecessary friction with a group that we depend on for their recommendations. So that's why I will not vote for the resolution." Councilmember Hanus. My disdain is not with the project being delayed or coming back on the 22nd, it was rather with what was apparent to me, as the process being manipulated to move it quicker than it would naturally move. That is where my unhappiness is relative to the process. Mayor Polston. "Any further discussion?" Councilmember Weycker. "I just think something goofy is going on here and I don't know if it's an attempt to second guess the voters that voted for this project by changing of the project in that sense, because that can't happen. So I would hope that the Planning Commission can work with the Building Committee or the WCCB, whoever comes up with the plans, to make it the best project possible and that is exactly what I said at the Planning Commission as well. I think it's very unfortunate, the huge loss of 613 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 8, 1998 communication and I would hope, again, I offer you to call me anytime and discuss the plans." Mayor Poiston. "The question I have is of the attorney. When was the date of application?" City Attorney, John Dean. "As I understand it, the deadline would have been December 21st, and there's another extension letter that has been sent out to go beyond December 22nd." Mayor Polston. "When you send out the extension letter, how much time does that actually give?" City Attorney. "I think we asked for another 60 days, beyond the 21st of December." City Planner. "We asked for 30 days in the letter." Councilmember Ahrens. "Doesn't the 60 days start counting all over again when they submit a new plan?" City Attorney. "October 22nd was, I believe, the date we used." Councilmember Hanus. "But they came in with a completely new plan on the 23rd of November so the clock, in fact, could, very easily ...... " City Attorney. "I guess I would caution us to be very careful on that because the Statute indicates that unless within 10 days after we've received the initial application, we inform them that the application is anything but entirely complete, the clock must start running and it doesn't stop running beyond that point so even though there may have been a decision later on to monkey with that, it doesn't necessarily change the clock." Councilmember Hanus. "Can you tell me what form that notice needs to take?" City Attorney. "which notice?" Councilmember Hanus. "The notice that you just referred to within the ten days. Can it be verbal?" City Attorney. "Until about 45 days ago, it was written, but the court of Appeals recently ruled that an oral notice is sufficient." Councilmember Hanus. "And the reason I say that, is that it was clearly declared at the 23rd Planning Commission Meeting that the clock has stopped and started again as of that date. Now, whether that is a legal declaration or not, I don't know but, the applicant was there and heard that." City Attorney. "In view of that, we are in no peril of anything bad happening on December 21 st. 614 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 8, 1998 Mayor Polston. "A word of caution that I would just like to issue is, that I hope the project can go forward and I hope that at the Planning Commission Meeting on the 14th, that they will find the answers to whatever questions that they are seeking and will come back with a recommendation. The project is an extremely important project for the community and I understand that there seems to be some feelings that the project is trying to be massaged or they're trying to be given better than normal treatment at the School District and I don't think that ....... That certainly is not the intent of the City Council and obviously not the intent of the Planning Commission. I think that there are some real time constraints with the School District in trying to get this project up and going so that they can get it done. I think it's an important project for the community and I've heard members of the Planning Commission say that tonight and I would urge them to, if this fails, to try to do what they can to help, not the City Council, or not the Planning Commission, or not the School District but, the community that that community center is going to serve which are the senior citizens, the head start program, the extended education, the School District offices and a whole host of other services that are very vital services to this community. I do want to caution those, if there are people, who would use this opportunity as an opportunity to try and stop the project. That is not something that would be taken lightly, by, I don't think, the School District, or citizens. I don't think that under law it's something that can be done and if that attempt is made, I think that they will.., particularly on the part of City Officials or whether they be Planning Commission Members, or members of the City Council, that they would, in fact, I think, expose this City to litigation that would be unnecessary. So, if that is the attempt, let me caution those who would make that attempt, to be very careful, because you could be leading this City into litigation that would be extremely costly and upsetting between, what I hope are two good neighbors, the School District and the City in trying to accomplish something good for the overall community. Is there any further discussion on the motion?" Geoff Michael, 1730 Avocet Lane. "Planning Commission Chair and Planning Commission Member for 15 or 16 years, Chair for the last 3. I recently got a memo also from the City Manager asking me to make a choice whether to serve again or not. It took some thinking. I'm not sure I returned that letter yet. We're still thinking about it. In the years that I've been on the Planning Commission, I've served with Liz, Ken Smith, Steve Smith and we've had our differences. I've served under several good chairs. All of them have been great chairs, not as good as the last one for 3 years. I have never seen that Planning Commission deviate from their job, I don't care who it was. I've never seen a Chair allow that to happen and I am the existing and current Chair and I will not allow that to happen. Never has, never will. The Planning Commission, Mayor, doesn't need to be cautioned about subversion. There is no one who sits on that Commission that trying is to subvert the plan. We're just trying to do our job and if the City Council, or the community as a whole, doesn't like that, I really don't care. What they then have to do, is come to the meetings and express their opinion. I serve on the Planning Commission at the pleasure of you Councilmembers. If you don't want me on there,then you vote to take me off. That's up to you. But, I'm not going to do a job on there that I'm told to do. I'm going to do it by the rules, which are in your desk drawer and that is that Mike has outlined a minute ago. We have certain rules that we have to follow. We vote on these rules every year in January. That's the guidelines we're working under. We don't have an attorney that sits with us and allows us to make choices. So I would urge all of you to think about this resolution. Leah, you've been at the meetings. We've asked some pretty hard questions and we've 615 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER $, 1998 gotten some pretty loose answers. As you well know, we've gotten both projects, they've been 2 new ones. It's every right of every Planning Commission to ask for another plan. You can't make a decision right away. We've got another plan now. We're having a public hearing. Hopefully we'll have a lot of people come out, give us their input, and we'll turn it over to you guys. Hopefully, we'll move it on to you with a resolution for you guys to work on, but ......... I want to make one point. There's nobody on the Commission that's going to be subversive and if there are, I'll ask them to leave. The vote on Resolution ~)8-13~was 1 in favor with Ahrens, Hanus and Jensen voting nay. Weycker abstained because she didn't like either choice. Motion fails. 1.4 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE 98-65: UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW GARAGE, RICHARD KRYCK. 5986 SUNSET ROAD, PID 14-117-24 42 0065. The City Planner explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Mr. Kryck asked for approval. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilmember Hanus stated he has a correction on the proposed resolution as follows: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota to hereby approve the request to vacate the utility easement as shown and described on the easement drawing dated 10-22-98 with the following condition: g-:. 1_ The current easement remain active until the new easement, as described in the survey, is recorded at Hennepin County. The Council agreed. Ahrens moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION g98-132 The vote was unanimously in favor. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VACATION OF AN UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED AT 5986 SUNSET ROAD, LOT 30, MOUND SHORES, PID # 14-11%24 42 0065, P & Z CASE//98-65, AS AMENDED ABOVE Motion carried. 1.5 APPLICATION FOR AN OPERATIONS PERMIT, WELSH COMPANIES, ON BEHALF OF TRIAX CABLEVISION, 5308 SHORELINE DRIVE (BALBOA BUILDING). The City Planner reviewed his report dated December 8, 1998. The Staff and Planning Commission recommends approval with the following condition: 616 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 8, 1998 1. The Fire Inspectors recommendation for compliance to any fire and safety code issues be adhered to by Triax Telecommunications. The Council asked if something was going to be done about thc storage of items behind thc Netka and Mcisel property. Triax stated they are working on this. Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #98-133 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN OPERATIONS PERMIT TO ALLOW WAREHOUSE AND OFFICE SPACE FOR TRIAX TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOCATED AT 5308 SHORELINE DRIVE (BALBOA BUILDING) Motion carried. The vote was unanimously in favor. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. There were none. 1.6 APPROVAL OF FINAL 1999 BUDGET AND LEVY. The City Manager presented the resolution to approve the final 1999 Budget and Levy. He explained this reflects the discussion and direction that was given by the Council at last night's Truth in Taxation Heating. Hanus moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #98-134 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL GENERAL FUND BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,893,580; SETTING THE LEVY AT $1,868,660 LESS THE HOMESTEAD AGRICULTURAL CREDIT (HACA) OF $491,790, RESULTING IN A FINAL CERTIFIED LEVY OF $1,376,870; APPROVING THE OVERALL BUDGET FOR 1999 Councilmember Jensen stated she would not be voting for this resolution. "Consistent with the vote that was taken last night, a zero percent increase in the levy is sometimes admirable but, again I believe it is short sighted on our part not to keep in mind that we have additional costs that we are facing because of the Community Center and because of the Mound Visions Program. We have seen that there is a need for painting City Hall, for carpeting City Hall and we are setting aside no funds for that at all so a zero percent increase is not a wise thing for us to do. Therefore, I will vote against this resolution." Councilmember Weycker stated she had one thing to add, too. "I forgot to bring it up last night and I wish I would have. None of the Park Commission's recommendations were included in this budget at all. I feel like that's just a general upkeep of our park systems and it was totally left off the budget. So a zero percent increase is not even maintaining. Consistent with last night's vote, also, I will not vote for it." 617 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 8, 1998 Councilmember Hanus made the following comment relating to Councilmember Weycker's comment about the Parks. "That is an issue that probably does need resolution and that's between the Park Commission and Staff. We adopted, essentially, what was presented to us by Staff and you're aware of those discrepancies that we're not and if Staff is not presenting the budget items that the Park Commission thinks should be presented, I guess, I don't know if that means by passing through you or if that means, slapping somebody up along side the head. I don't know what it means you have to do but, we're taking what Staff is presenting to us and if that's not being done to your liking, I suggest you do something more. Bring it to us, do something." Councilmember Weycker. "I have tried and will continue to try." The Mayor asked if there was any further discussion. The City Manager explained that we start the budget in June with department heads coming in with their requests. The Dept. Heads and the City Manager sit down and go through their requests, analyze them and come up with a recommendation. He does not believe the Staff has anything against the Parks but they try to look at the budget as a whole and try to balance the figures and make sure we meet the system budget. He explained that in terms of the whole picture, some of those didn't appear to be a priority to him or the Staff and the Council has the option to change that in the budget process. Councilmember Hanus. "I don't disagree that there are some more things that we can, do relative to the Parks, to get them cleaner and neater and better kept but, I want to do that by plan rather than lets throw some money in this budget and let it work out the way it works out. We need to get a plan and we need to budget accordingly, not just throwing money into a fund. If that's done, I suspect things will happen a little more to your liking." Councilmember Weycker. "I do believe that was part of what was done. The recommendations come down as the oldest equipment needs replacing and pretty much all of our equipment, right now, is pretty old. It's not too hard to come up with that plan." Mayor Poiston. "I would just like to say we started out with a 12% proposed increase and then we went to a 6%. Those of us who work in the private sector, a 12% increase anytime, would be a windfall, a 6% would be a windfall. A lot of times we are looking at reductions in earnings and earning capacity because of competition and because we are in the private sector. Even a 3 % increase, I think, is generous in this day and age. And every time any layer of government takes a dollar in taxes away from a family, they are taking money out of those families pockets and I think government, like individuals and like families, has got to tighten your belts and do more with less and cut where they have to. I'm proud of the fact that the time that I've sat on the City Council we've have one 0 % increase, one 1.9 % increase and now another 0% increase and the amount of taxes and the amount of dollars that we're going to take out of the working family's pockets in Mound. I challenge future Councils to take their responsibility seriously and do everything within their power to not take one more penny out of the taxpayer's pocket then is absolutely necessary to do the job and I know that we can always make things sound like we're going to do this or do that or do the other in order to make improvements but, the best thing that you can do for people, in government, is quit 618 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 8, 1995 taking their tax dollars. Only take the very minimum that you absolutely have to take to get by." Councilmember Jensen. "And I would suggest that that's one of the differences of opinion that we are having. What you deem to be absolutely necessary, doesn't agree with what I deem to be necessary, and I think things like maintaining City Hall are important. Otherwise, we will be faced with a similar situation that we have at the community center. Where monies are not spent because we don't want to take anymore than we absolutely have to and we don't see the need to maintain what we have. That goes for parks as well and to not plan ahead for those expenses that we see coming, I just think that I see as things that we absolutely have to do." The vote on Resolution #98-13~ was 3 in favor with Jensen and Weycker voting nay. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: A. Department Head Monthly Reports for November 1998. Rules of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) adopted on November 24, 1998. Rule B - Erosion Control. Rule N - Stormwater Management for Land Development Projects. Basically Rule N covers the part of Rule B dealing with stormwater management ponding. It removes the fee that was charged previously and requires larger developments to have ponding on the development site. Smaller developments would not be required to have ponds but would require "Best Management Practices." Read them over and if you have questions, please contact me. REMINDER: ANNUAL TRUTH IN TAXATION HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR MONDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1998, 7:30 P.M. PLEASE BRING YOUR COPIES OF THE PROPOSED 1999 BUDGET WITH YOU TO THE MEETING. DEPARTMENT HEADS WILL BE PRESENT TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THEIR BUDGET REQUESTS. REMINDER: THERE IS NO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ON DECEMBER 15, 1998. NEXT MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 19, 1999. REMINDER: THERE WILL BE A SECOND REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ON DECEMBER 22, 1998, 7:30 P.M. REMINDER: HRA MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1998, 7 P.M., MOUND CITY HALL. REMINDER: WCCB MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1998, 5:30 P.M., MOUND CITY HALL. 619 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 8, 1998 ANNUAL CHRISTMAS PARTY IS SCHEDULED FOR SUNDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1998, BEGINNING AT 6:30 P.M., AL & ALMA'S. PLEASE RSVP TO JODI BY DECEMBER 8. CITY OFFICES WILL BE CLOSED FOR THE HOLIDAYS AS FOLLOWS: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 24, 1998, 12:00 NOON closed in the afternoon. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 25, 1998, closed all day. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 31, 1998, 12:00 NOON closed in the afternoon. FRIDAY, JANUARY 1, 1999, closed all day. 1.7 ADD-ON: TELECOMMUNICATIONS ORDINANCE. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Weycker to continue the moratorium for the wireless telecommunications facilities in the City of Mound until the second regular Council Meeting in January of 1999. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Hanus to adjourn at 8:40 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Atfest: City Clerk ~w~."~S~Manager 620 Bills December 8, 1998 Batch 8100 62,720.12 Batch 8101 114,462.82 TOTAL BILLS $ 177,182.94