Loading...
1999-11-01MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1999 MINUTES - MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE -NOVEMBER 1, 1999 The Committee of the Whole for the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in special session on Monday, November 1, 1999, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Workroom at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were Mayor Pat Meisel, Councilmembers: Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance: Acting City Manager Fran Clark, Finance Director Gino Businaro, City Engineer John Cameron, City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Sue McCulloch. Others present: James D. Prosser, Ehlers & Associates. Mayor Meisel opened the meeting at 7:31 p.m. 1.1 BUSINESS SUBSIDY CRITERIA. Mayor Meisel introduced Jim Prosser, Ehlers & Associates, TIF consultant. Mr. Prosser reviewed his memorandum, dated October 6, 1999. Beginning August 1, 1999, state and local governments face new requirements for granting business subsidies. These requirements replace the current wage and job goal reporting. The new law will be codified as Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.993. The regulation of business subsidies adds new complexities to the development process. It is important that the Council understand the statutory requirements before providing direct or indirect assistance to any for-profit or non-profit entity. If in doubt, ask questions. Many of these provisions are subject to interpretation. There appears to be a recognition that the statute contains flaws that should be addressed in the Legislature next year. The new law applies to any state or local government agency or public entity (including cities, housing and redevelopment authorities, economic development authorities, counties, townships, and potentially school districts) with the power to grant business subsidy. It requires that, in addftion to any requirements that may be attached to a particular form of subsidy (e.g. requirements to create a TIF plan and hold a public hearing), the entity must do the following: (1) Determine that the subsidy meets a public purpose -- other than increasing the tax base. Job retention is a public purpose only if job loss is "imminent and demonstrable;" (2) Establish business subsidy criteria. The entity must establish and hold a public hearing to adopt the criteria. The only statutory requirement for contents of the criteria is a policy for wages on jobs created by the subsidies. The statute does not discuss a process for amending the criteria. This provision seems to impose separate requirements for each potential grantor. If, for example, a city, a county and a school district were all abating a business' taxes, all three (including the school districO would need to establish and approve separate criteria. 794 MOUND COMMrI~EE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1999 (3) Enter into a subsidy agreement. The statue requires that the subsidy agreement define, among other things enumerated in the statute, wage and job goals, the nature of, the amount of, the reasons for, and the goals for the subsidy. The agreement must also describe what happens if the recipient fails to fulfill its obligations, and must contain a commitment from the recipient "to continue operations at the site where the subsidy is used for at least five years after the benefit date. Failure to meet goals requires partial or full repayment of the assistance with interest. The subsidy agreement requirement seems to apply to each grantor, which in the case of abatement could potentially mean the city, the county and the school district. This law may even apply to development agreements that were approved before, but executed (signed) after, August 1, 1999. This agreement must be signed by the local elected governing body. (4) Hold a public hearing on the subsidy if it exceeds $100,000. The statute contains specific criteria for the notice of hearing. The notice must be published at least 10 days prior to the hearing. Mr. Prosser then explained what a business subsidy is. The statute defines business subsidy as "grant, contribution of personal property, real property, infrastructure, the principal amount of a loan at rates below those commercially available to the recipient, any reduction or deferral of any tax or any fee, any guarantee of any payment under any loan, lease, or other obligation, or any preferential use of government facilities given to a business". The Statute specifically excludes certain items from the definition. The following are not business subsidies: * business subsidy of less than $25,000. * asistance generally available to all business or to a similar class of business. public improvements to buildings or land owned by state or local government that serve a public purpose and do not principally benefit a single business or a defined group of businesses at the time the improvements are made. * polluted redevelopment property (M.S. 116J.552) renovating old or decaying building stock or bringing it up to code if not more than 50 % of the total cost. * Assistance to job training/readiness organizations to assist with those services. * housing. * pollution control or abatement. 795 MOUND COMM1TrEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1999 * energy conservation. * tax reduction from conformity with federal tax law. * workers and unemployment compensation. * benefits derived from regulations. * funds from bonds allocated under Chapter 474A. * collaboration between Minnesota higher education institution and a business. * soils condition TIF district. redevelopment when recipient's investment in the purchase of the site is 70% or more of the current assessor's estimated market value. general changes in TrF law and other general tax law for a principally technical nature. The statute establishes a set of subsidy reporting procedures. The recipient of the assistance is required to provide information to the grantor for two years after the benefits date or until the goals are met, whichever is later. The information shall be reported on forms developed by DTED. The statute creates penalties for failure to provide the appropriate reports. Mr. Prosser then presented the following Business Subsidy Criteria: BUSINESS SUBSIDY CRITERIA 1. PURPOSE 1.01 The purpose of this document is to establish the Housing and Redevelopment Authority's (hereinafter refereed to as HRA) criteria for granting of business subsidies, as defined in Minnesota Statutes 116J.993, Subdivision 3, for private development. This criteria shall be used as a guide in processing and reviewing applications requesting business subsidies. 1.02 The criteria set forth in this document are guidelines only. The HRA reserves the right in its discretion to approve business subsidies that vary from the criteria stated herein if the HRA determines that the subsidy nevertheless serves a public purpose. 1.03 The HRA may amend this document at any time. subject to public hearing requirements pursuant 116J.993 through I 1 6J. 994. Amendments to these criteria are to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 796 2.01 e 3.01 MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1999 STATUTORY LAMATIONS In accordance with the Business Subsidy Criteria, Business Subsidy requests must comply with applicable State Statutes. The HRA of Mound's ability to grant business subsidies is governed by the limitations established in Minnesota Statutes 116J.993 through 116J.994. PUBLIC POLICY REQUIREMENT All business subsidies must meet a public purpose other than increasing the tax base. Job retention may only be used as a public purpose in cases where job loss is imminent and demonstrable e 4.01 4.02 4.03 4.05 4.06 4.07 BUSINESS SUBSIDY APPROVAL CRITERIA All new projects approved by the HRA of Mound should meet the following minimum approval criteria. However, it should not be presumed that a project meeting these criteria will automatically be approved. Meeting these criteria creates no contractual rights on the part of any potential developer. The business subsidy shall be provided within applicable state legislative restrictions, debt limit guidelines, and other appropriate financial requirements and policies. The project must be in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances, or required changes to the plan and Ordinances must be under active consideration by the HRA at the time of approval. Business subsidies will not be provided to projects that have the financial feasibility to proceed without the benefit of the subsidy. In effect, business subsidies will not be provided solely to broaden a developer's profit margins on a project. Prior to consideration of a business subsidy request, the HRA may undertake an independent underwrfing of the project to help ensure that the request for assistance is valid. Prior to approval of a business subsidies financing plan, the developer shall provide any required market and financial feasibility studies, appraisals, soil boring, information provided to private lenders for the project, and other information or data that the HRA or its financial consultants may require in order to proceed with an independent underwriting. Any developer requesting a business subsidy should able to demonstrate past successful general development capability as well as specific capability in the type and size of development proposed. The developer must retain ownership of the project at least long enough to complete it, to stabilize its occupancy, to establish the project management, and to initiate repayment of the business subsidy, if applicable. 797 4.08 4.10 o 5.01 5.03 MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1999 A recipient of a business subsidy must make a commitment to continue operations at the site where the subsidy is used for at least five years after the benefit date. Any business subsidy will be the lowest possible level and least amount of time necessary, after the recipient maximizes the use of private debt and equity financing first. Recipients of any business subsidy will be required to meet wage and job goals determined by the HRA on a mm-by-ease basis, giving consideration to the nature of the development, the purpose of the subsidy, local economic conditions and similar factors. TAX INCREMENT PROJECT EVALUATION CRITERIA All tax increment requests will be evaluated under the general criteria in Section I to 4 and the specific criteria in this Section.. Changes in local markets, costs of construction, and interest rates may cause changes in the amounts of Tax Increment subsidies that a given project may require at any given time. Some criteria, by their very nature, must remain subjective. However, wherever possible "benchmark" criteria have been established for review purposes. The fact that a given proposal meets one or more "benchmark" criteria does not mean that it is entitled to funding under this policy, but rather that the HRA is in a position to proceed with evaluations of (and comparisons between) various business subsidy requests, using uniform standards whenever possible. Following are the evaluation criteria that will be used by the HRA of Mound All business subsidy requests should optimize the private development potential of a site. All business subsidy requests should obtain the highest possible private to public financial investment railo. The HRA establishes a benchmark ratio of 3 parts private to I part public funding for manufacturing/warehouse projects. Housing and retail/commercial projects shall be reviewed on an individual basis. Co All business subsidy requests should create or retain the highest feasible number of jobs on the site at the highest feasible wages. De All business subsidy requests should create the highest possible ratio of property taxes paid before and after redevelopment. Given the different assessment circumstances in the City, this ratio will vary widely. However, under normal circumstances, the HRA will expect at least a 1:2 ratio of taxes paid before and after redevelopment. Business subsidy requests should normally not be used to support speculative industrial, commercial, and office projects. In general, speculative projects 798 MOUND COMMrFFEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1999 are defmed as those projects which have letters of intent or pre-leasing for less than 50% of the available leasable space. All business subsidy requests will be reviewed to determine the feasibility to provide the HRA with equity participation in new developments (through a share of the profits), or to treat the business subsidy as a second mortgage with fixed payments. All business subsidy requests involving displacement of low and moderate income residents should give specific attention to the re-housing needs of those residents. Normally, this should be done as a part of the business subsidy. Adequate solutions to these re-housing needs will be required as a matter of public policy. All business subsidy requests will need to meet the "but for" test. Business subsidies will not be granted unless the need for the HRA's economic participation is sufficient that, without that assistance the project could not proceed in the manner as proposed. Business subsidies will not be used when the developer's credentials, in the sole judgement of the HRA, are inadequate due to past track record relating to: completion of projects, general reputation and/or bankruptcy, or other problems or issues considered relevant by the HRA Business subsidies will not be used to support projects that place demands on City services, or other capital or operating expenditures, that exceed the average City expenditures for similar facilities. Consideration will be given to the total public costs that are required to support the project, including offsite facilities costs that are required. Ko Business subsidies will not normally be used for projects that would generate significant environmental problems in the opinion of the local, state, or federal governments. Mr. Prosser stated the Policy should show and demonstrate a public purpose. The Policy should help provide new jobs or new redevelopment improvements. The Policy would take on the format of a development agreement. Mr. Prosser stated it is important that all Councilmembers understand the Policy and are comfortable with the written information within the Policy. Mr. Prosser stated the Policy could be changed. He also stated the Policy should be generally acceptable to all Councilmembers. Councilmember Ahrens wanted to be certain if something unforeseen comes up that is not currently mentioned in the Policy, that the Policy could then be amended to reflect this unforeseen situation. Mr. Prosser stated this is a true statement. 799 MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1999 Councilmember Hanus stated, and councilmember Brown agreed that the language was "soft" and there appeared to be a lot of flexibility in the Policy which would be a benefit for the City of Mound. Mr. Prosser agreed with councilmember Hanus' statement. Councilmember Weycker mentioned a footnote in the Policy that may affect Coast to Coast agreements. Mr. Prosser stated the City Attorney is well aware of the Policy and that if there is a need to formullze any agreements under this Policy, then the City Attorney will accomplish these tasks. Mayor Meisel stated she wanted all Councilmembers to be aware of this Policy so the Council can act on it at the next City Council meeting. 1.2 STORM SEWER RATES STUDY/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP), The City Engineer handed out a summary of storm sewer rates from other cities. Mr. Prosser presented the storm sewer rates study information to the Councilmembers. He stated he is aware the City of Mound has some storm sewer projects that need to be done and the City of Mound would like to gain some revenue in order to provide funds for operating as well as completing the projects. Mr. Prosser stated he would like to define more specifically the range of operating costs under this revenue and try to develop a short term and a long term plan in terms of capital improvements for storm sewer and then bring back some funding options. Mr. Prosser stated the Councilmembers need to determine where a comfortable rate exists for the City of Mound. He stated typically the city identifies its short-term priorities for storm sewer work and then looks at longer term priorities at a later date. Mr. Prosser stated the City could issue some bonds and borrow monies and use revenues from this utility to repay those bonds. Mr. Prosser stated the City could also wait to make improvements until the funds are raised thorough the utility. Councilmember Hanus asked if hardcover would would be a factor in establishing rates? Mr. Prosser stated if hardcover is a factor, the City ordinance would need to be changed to accommodate this. Mr. Prosser stated to refine the ordinance for hardcover would cause more administrative work. He stated the trade-off would be more equity, but is it worth the extra administrative costs involved? Mr. Prosser stated there could be ponding to help with this issue also. Mr. Prosser stated the City of Mound should keep the plan simple. If the citizen is a commercial user, then the rate would be determined by area. If there are special exceptions that the City wants to provide, then that is appropriate but there needs to be guidelines set. Mr. Prosser stated in order to gain the support of all citizens, the council needs to communicate to the citizens: a. the purpose of the tax; and b. where the money that gets collected will be spent. 800 MOUND COMMrfTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1999 The Councilmembers then discussed the Capital Improvement plan (CIP). Mr. Prosser stated in the past cities have put together key financial strategies for a capital improvement plan. To accomplish this task, a city identifies all potential capital improvements for the next five years. Then the resources are located and then a financial plan is put together to accomplish this plan. Mr. Prosser stated once this capital improvement plan is put into place, the City would then have a plan to follow for any capital improvements. Mr. Prosser stated there should be a list of priorities to follow, which can be changed, but at least there is something to follow for improvements. Mr. Prosser stated capital improvement plans work great, but if is not followed through properly by Staff and City Councils, it is not a benefit. Mr. Prosser recommends starting a plan that includes the key financial strategies, but this will entail a lot of work for the Councilmembers and Staff. The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) can change from year to year with Councilmembers changing, but if there is a strategy in place, there will not be too much turmoil. Mr. Prosser stated the key financial strategies involve about four, one hour workshops. There is a lot of study time by the Councilmembers between each workshop, but this will educate everyone. Mr. Prosser stated the capital improvement plan will benefit the City of Mound when it xomes to budgeting. Councilmember Ahrens stated she would like to have a new City Manager on board before the capital improvement plan is initiated directly. Mayor Meisel asked that Staff go over infrastructures that would pertain a Capital Improvement Plan. Mr. Prosser stated the storm sewer rate study can be accomplished by itself. Mr. Prosser suggested initiating the first phase of the key financial strategies, but to not include that first session with the Councilmembers until a new City Manager has been hired. Mr. Prosser recommendeds no decisions until a new City Manager has been hired. Mr. Prosser stated the storm sewer rate study could be implemented separately and included in the first phase of the key financial strategies. The Councilmembers agreed with Mr. Prosser's suggestion above. The consensus of the Council was that the storm sewer rate study and the capital improvement plan are separate documents and can be accomplished as such. Mr. Prosser agreed with this. Mr. Prosser asked to have Staff, City Engineer and City Planner meet with him and identify all storm sewer operating costs and capital improvements that will need to be made. The format will probably include a menu for the Councilmembers to chose from which would include a prioritized list of infrastructure items and the approximate dollar amount for the improvements. Mr. Prosser asked the Councilmembers what their expectation of a timeframe is for accomplishing a capital improvement plan. Mr. Prosser suggested the first report to be presented to the Councilmembers within 30 days of today's date and then the 801 MOUND COMMrlTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1999 Councilmembers could review it. After the review there would be another meeting within two weeks and this process would continue through the months. As a confirmation, the Acting City Manager requested that Mr. Prosser forward a letter of understanding to the City regarding tonight's discussions concerning the sewer storm rate study and the capital improvement plan. 1.3 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Councilmember Brown stated the Planning Commission will be going through the Comprehensive Plan on November 8, 1999, so he would like to table this matter until the Planning Commission has reviewed the Plan. The City Planner stated essentially the Planning Commission has gone through the whole document in sections over the past nine months so this review the Planning Commission will be doing on the 8~ of November should be done within a reasonable timeframe. The City Planner stated everything in the document has been looked at once, except for some updates to the public facilities and implementation sections. The City Planner stated the Surface Water Management Plan could be approved with the Comprehensive Plan. If the Surface Water Management Plan does not get approved at the same time, it can be reviewed and approved at a later time and date. The deadline for the Comprehensive Plan is December 31, 1999. Councilmember Hanus wanted to be assured that if the Plans got adopted and there needed to be some more revisions, that this was totally acceptable to the Metropolitan Council. The City Planner stated there should not be a problem with minor revisions that are made to the Plans. The City Council would like to see a redlining copy done by the Staff which could be presented to them after the November 8, 1999, Planning Commission Meeting. The City Planner stated there was a new section added entitled Public Communication and Public Access. He stated this will emphasize greater and more thorough communications with the public through the internet, mailers, etc. The City Planner also stated the Natural Cultural Resources section has been updated to include all of Mound's indian mounds and their locations. This is public information and the public should be made aware that these mounds are protected by Federal Law. The City Planner stated the Demographics section stated the population of Mound was going to stay about the same for the upcoming years. He stated there are comparison graphs created by the Metropolitan Council and him for the Councilmembers to review when they see the Plan. Councilmember Hanus stated the maps showing rezoning, specifically at Maple Manors, that needs to be corrected before the Comprehensive Plan is finalized. There was a suggestion to have a key code to reflect the zoning changes. 8O2 MOUND COMMrI'rEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES - NOVI~VIBER 1, 1999 The City Planner stated in the Housing sectiOn there is a notation that the City of Mound is trying to promote multiple family units. There were no changes to the Transportation Section of the Comprehensive Plan, except notations of the transit hub. The City Planner stated the Parks Section has a few changes that the Councilmembers should take note of. The City Planner stated there is a section entitled Capital Improvement Plan which does need to be implemented by December 31, 1999, into the Comprehensive Plan. The City Planner did state the Capital Improvement Plan could be very general identifying the water tower, road improvements,etc, and this would probably be enough for the Metropolitan Council. Councilmember Hanus asked if there is a penalty for not approving the Comprehensive Plan by the due date? The City Planner stated there are no penalties, although they may withhold funding. The City Planner stated he does not see any problems with the City of Mound's Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Meisel wanted to make sure when the Capital Improvement Plan is changed, there will not be a problem implementing it into the Comprehensive Plan. The City Planner stated he thought the Metropolitan Council would think highly of Mound for accomplishing a Plan in more detail. 1.4 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A LOTTERY SYSTEM FOR THE COMMONS DOCK PROGRAM AND RESOLUTION FOR THE LOTTERY SYSTEM, Mr. Fackler stated the demand for docks has increased over the years. Mr. Fackler stated the proposed lottery system would be more organized and would only affect first-time nonabutting people who wish to rent a dock. Mr. Fackler stated the City Attorney has proposed the following amendment to Section 437:05 of the Dock Ordidnance: Section 437:05 Applications for and Issuance of Dock Lic. Subd. 5. First Time Application for a Non-Abutting Docking Site. Application must be filed with the City on or before the last day of February of each year. Applicants will be notified of whether they have been awarded a license by the first day of May. Selection shall be by lottery in accordance with such process as the City Council shall from time to time determine by resolution. 8O3 MOUND COMMrrTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1999 The following is the proposed resolution as recommended by the Dock Commission: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 99- & Commons RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING LOTTERY SYSTENI FOR THE MOUND COMMONS DOCK APPLICATION FOR NEW APPLICANTS FOR NONABUTTING USE WHEREAS, the City of Mound has, by ordinance, established a lottery for new applicants for non abutting docking; and WHEREAS, the ordinance provides that the lottery will be in accordance with the process established from time to time by City Council resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council has now received the report and recommendation of Staff and the Dock and Coommons Advisory Commission regarding such process. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound that the following rules of procedure are adopted: The application must include the required fees, and must have the following information: complete name, boat size (length and beam), boat license and first and second docking area preference. The application must be received by the City of Mound on or before the last day of February of each year. The lottery will be conducted by drawing at the regularly scheduled Dock and Commons Advisory Commission Meeting in March of the current year. The drawing will determine the Applicants' position on the docking wait list. o All applicants will be notified of their position on the docking wait list by the first day of May. Applicants will be separated into groups based on ntunbcr of consecutive years they have applied as follows. Group 1, four years of more, Group 2, two or three years and Group 3, one year. The lottery drawing will begin with group I until all openings are filled or there are no more applicants remaining in the group. Once all names have been drawn from Group 1, then the drawing will move to Group 2 and finally to Group 3. All attempts will be made to provide the applicant with his/her choice, however, if one is not available, the closest available site will be assigned. The applicant may decline the available docking locations however if it is not an exceptable location for the applicant, they may reapply for the next boating season and will gain credit towards the applicable Group. 804 MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1999 Mr. Fackler stated the proposed Resolution will still require the applicants to fill out the application, pay the fee in advance, list boat size, and license number. No applications would be accepted after the last day of February of each year. There would be no exceptions for late applications. Mr. Fackler stated the lottery system as proposed would have three groups to pick names from. The first group would be Group 1 which would consist of names that have applied for a dock four or more years; the second group would be Group 2 which would consist of names that have applied for a dock two or three years; and Group 3 would consist of names that have applied for a dock their first year. Mr. Fackler stated names would get picked in a seniority type way from Group 1 first, and then Group 2 and finally Group 31. The applicants would not know until April if their name got picked. Mr, Fackler stated the City would keep accepting applications with the appropriate fee after the lottery, and those names would be listed first in the Groups the upcoming years. Mayor Meisel was concerned that a lot of people would fall into Group 1, but according to previous minutes of the Dock and Commons Advisory Commissioin, the Group 1 has decreased over the years. Councilmember Hanus asked Mr. Fackler approximately how many new docks open up each year and Mr. Fackler stated about three to five docks may become available. This number seemed lower than what Councilmember Hanus expected to hear. Councilmember Brown proposed a lottery system that he felt would be appropriate. He stated the City should have a lottery starting the year 2000 and have all persons interested apply in January or February. When the individuals have all applied and paid the appropriate fee, they would be assigned a number according to the lottery system. This number that is assigned to the applicant is their number until they receive their dock or leave and a list will be made to reflect the applicant's number. As the docks are given to first numbers, the numbers after them get moved up on the list. Then, in the year 2001, there would be a new lottery again for new people and they would be assigned a number, but their numbers would be put at the back of the first list of the year 2000. This would then continue throughout the years. Councilmember Ahrens stated the City of Mound has never had a list and could really use such a tool. She agreed with the lottery system Councilmember Brown is proposing. Councilmember Hanus restated there does need to be a new lottery for newcomers each year and the new applicants have to pay at the same time they apply or they cannot be put on the list. Councilmember Weycker stated the applicants should be made to reapply each year. Mr. Fackler agreed that this lottery system presented by Councilmember Brown would be functional as long as each applicant reapplies each year. 805 MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1999 Mayor Meisel suggested if the applicant is presented with a dock and does not want it because of its location, he or she should go to the end of the line and be reassigned a new number. Councilmember Ahrens stated, and Councilmember Hanus agreed, the people that do not want a dock because of its location should turn down the dock and allow another individual to receive it, but they should keep their number until another dock opens up that would be more suitable. The reason behind this theory is why have someone be forced to take a dock where thy do not like the location and have it not being used by themselves, or anyone else. Couneilmember Hanus had a concern about how the lottery would affect individuals sharing docks. Mr. Fackler stated there could be a shared dock language put into the ordinance for individuals that share docks. Councilmember Ahrens asked why a person who is sharing a dock gets precedence over those who have not and have been waiting. There was a consensus that the City of Mound wants to encourage sharing of docks, but for the right reasons and not to "beat the system". Councilmember Brown stated the individuals that are sharing docks should also be put on the lottery list, but they can continue sharing a dock. He stated that if a dock opens up and the person who is sharing the dock does not have his/her name of the lottery list, then they would not be offered the dock. Mr. Fackler suggested that an individual that would be sharing a dock would have his/her name in the lottery system, and if the dock they are sharing becomes available, they would be offered first choice for that dock. The consensus agreed with Mr. Fackler's statement. The consensus of the Councilmembers was agreement with Councilmember Brown's lottery system. Mayor Meisel directed Mr. Fackler to organizes the lottery that Councilmember Brown suggested above. It was also suggested to have the City Attorney review the city ordinance and the proposed resolution so that they have the appropriate legal language for the lottery system. There was discussion that the ordinance does have to include the keeping of a "list" which can also be reviewed by the City Attorney. There was discussion of having in the resolution and/or ordinance language which discussed shared docks. The consensus stated there should be a clause that states the individual who is sharing a dock has to have been sharing a dock for one complete year before he/she is eligible for that shared dock. It was also agreed that no late applications or fees would be accepted. If individuals who are applying for a dock miss the deadline, their name would go on the next year's lottery list. Also, if the applicant is offered a dock and does not pay for the dock at the time he is offered, he will lose that dock as well. There was also discussion what completes the application. The consensus tonight would appreciate having the applicants fill the application out in its entirety, including boat size, license number, with the appropriate fee attached; otherwise, the applicant would be charged a fee for not disclosing this information at the time of applying. This item was presented 806 MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1999 because the City has to pay fees according to boat sizes and, if an applicant does not have ownership of a boat but does have a dock, the City will be charged a fee as if there is a boat there. Consequently, this fee gets paid by the City and in actuality, this fee should be passed on to the applicant as his/her expense. It was agreed the above notations should be incorporated into the ordinance and/or resolution according to what the City Attorney deems appropriate. Mayor Meisel stated this ordinance will be put on the agenda at the next City Council meeting. 1.5 IJOCK FEES FOR MUNICIPAL DOCKS, Mr. Fackler discussed a comparison of rates in other Lake Minnetonka communities. He stated there is no one else with a system like the City of Mound. He stated there are various charges for various cities. Mr. Fackler stated there are currently 383 dock sites for renters, which does include the Woodland Point area. He stated there are 59 city installed dock slips and 4 personal watercraft sites on city installed docks. Mr. Fackler then presented the rates of fees for each type of dock. Mr. Fackler stated the DCAC has recommended no increases for the year 2000. Mayor Meisel stated she would like to discuss having an increase in the docks for the upcoming year. Councilmember Brown stated the City of Mound is undercharging on their docks program. He suggested a rate of $300 per year for each dock renter. Councilmember Brown also stated the docks should be set up to accommodate 24-foot slips, and if there are any 30-foot slips than those should be left. Councilmember Brown would like to see consistency in rates and lengths of docks. Mr. Fackler agreed the docks should be standardized. Councilmember Ahrens stated the multiples docks should be identified appropriately and boat owners should be charged the rate of the dock according to its size even though there may be a smaller boat using a much longer dock slip. There was discussions amongst the Councilmembers about how the size of a boat is identified by the manufacturers. This labeling makes it hard for owners to know "exactly" the length of their boat and what size dock they will need for their boat. Councilmember Weycker was concerned the dock program was turning into a moneymaking business. Mayor Meisel stated she did not see any concern of having the dock program turned into a moneymaking business as long as the monies that get collected are spent on the docks and commons program. 807 MOUND COMMrlTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1999 Mayor Meisel suggested having a fee structure for three types of individuals that are renting docks. They include abutters, nonabutters, and others. There was discussion regarding this type of structure, but nothing was resolved. Councilmember Ahrens stated the multiple dock owners should pay more because of the services they are getting, the nonabutters should pay more because they are getting a dock even though they are not on the lake and the abutters should pay less because they are already paying more because of their taxes with living on the lake. Councilmember Brown restated putting the docks in one category, showing no partiality to anybody, and having a straight-across-the-board fee of $300. The consensus of the Committee agreed the L, T, U and A system of the docks should be eliminated. Mr. Fackler agreed that if everyone would pay the same, it would even out over the years because of some areas having to have riprapping, some needing tree work, etc. He also stated that an increase of the docks could include a rate for the multiples only, and deal with the abutters and nonabutters at a later date and time. This increase would include a step increase for the multiples. Mayor Meisel stated she would like to enforce a regular maintenance plan for the docks program and have it maintained much better. She also stated an increase would allow the City of Mound's rate to be more competitive with other cities that are currently much higher and still have a great dock program. Mayor Meisel suggested a second plan of having the dock rates stay the same for abutters, but the multiples and the nonabutters rates would increase because of their conveniences being received by the owner of having this type of dock. Councilmember Brown stated instead of a $300 rate, have a $100 increase across the floor. He restated the rates should be increased. Councilmember Hanus stated he is against any increase in dock rates because, in his eyes, there is no documentation to support the increase of docks at this time. Mayor Meisel stated with no decision having been agreed upon by Councilmembers, this matter would be tabled for the year 2000. She stated the dock rates will not increase for the year 2000. She stated there will be another meeting in February, 2000, and at that time a decision will be made regarding a dock fee increase for 2001. 1.6 POSC MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1999. Councilmember Hanus stated the Alwin property is priced at over $2.5 million dollars which does not seem appropriate at this time. Councilmember Brown stated he feels the Park Commission over-stepped its bounds by inferring that the City of Mound is interested in buying this property. 808 MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1999 Councilmember Hanus stated he does not like any type of land trust agreements. There was the consensus tonight that the resolution put together by the Park Commission amending the Comprehensive Plan is bypassing the City Council and this is looked upon as procedurally incorrect. 1.7 LETTER FROM COUNCILMEMBER WEYCKER TO THE POSC AND PARK DIRECTOR REGARDING THE REX ALWIN PROPERTY. The consensus was that the above letter was prematurely disclosed before there was a group decision by the Council regarding the above-mentioned property. 1.8 RESOLUTION FROM THE PO$C REGARDING THE DOWNTOWN BALLFIELD$ AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, Councilmember Brown stated this Resolution was looked at by the Planning Commission and was unanimously rejected. Councilmember Brown stated there were incorrect statements within the Resolution, i.e., the first, third, and fourth Whereas paragraphs on page 3675. The information about eminent domain was not appreciated either by the Planning Commission. It was agreed that this type of resolution does not belong in the Comprehensive Plan. 1.9 RESOLUTION FROM THE POSC REGARDING THE REX ALWIN PROPERTY AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Councilmember Weycker was concerned why the first draft of the resolution concerning the Rex Alwin property got rejected by the Planning Commission. See above comments in Items 1.5 and 1.6. 1.10 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. There was no discussion from the City Engineer regarding the Surface Water Management Plan or the Councilmembers. See also Item 1.2 above. 1.11 ENCROACHMENT POLICY. The Building Official stated the Encroachment Policy is appropriate and has minimal additions and he would recommend it be presented at the next City Council meeting for adoption. Councilmember Weycker wanted to be assured all of Mr. Casey's questions were addressed in the Policy and the Building Official stated they had been addressed. Mayor Meisel stressed any new items that will come regarding land alterations will have to come before the City Council for approval. There was discussion regarding the subd. 1 section and instances where that would apply. The Building Official stated instances of retaining walls, right-of-ways and public ways. 809 MOUND COMMrlTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1999 The Building Official stated he will present a report of all encroachments in June, and if there is something that is not agreed upon, then the City Council can address it then. The Building Official stressed this encroachment policy is an improvement from the past and it does not give up anything in the code. Councilmember Hanus stated this is trying to recognize encroachments in areas that will do no harm to any citizen of the City of Mound. Staff was directed to reword page 3862, subd. 7B to include an inspection of properties on a rotating basis of every four years. This would havw Staff inspecting a quarter of the city each year. INFORMATION ITEMS Information from Mercer was distributed to Councilmembers tonight. ADJOURN. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus, to adjourn at 12:10 A.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Francene C. Clark, Acting City Manager Attest: Council Secretary 810