Loading...
2000-07-11MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL - JULY 11, 2000 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, July 11, 2000, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Pat Meisel; Council Members: Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were City Attorney John Dean, City Manager Kandis Hanson, City Clerk Frank Clark, City Building Official Jon Sutherland, James Prosser of Ehlers & Associates, and Recording Secretary Diana Mestad. The following interested citizens were also present: Rhonda Wieh, 5585 Sherwood; Troy I-Iieks, 2255 Westedge Blvd, Minnetrista; Steve Coddon, 3615 Lyric Ave, Orono; Peter Meyer, Sunset Road; Phil Schroder, VFW; Bart Roesen, Michael Durell, Bill and Dorothy Netka, Ken Custer, Lorrie Ham, David Greenslit, and Wayne E. Ehlebracht. *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. OPEN MEETING - pLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Meisel opened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. and welcomed the people in attendance. The pledge of allegiance was recited. APPROVE AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Council Member Weycker requested that item A be removed from the consent agenda. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown, to approve the agenda and consent agenda with the removal of Item A. The roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. CONSENT AGENDA *1.0 PAYMENT OF BILLS. *1.1 AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SUBRECIP1ENT AGREEMENT AND THIRD PARTY AGREEMENT REGARDING CDBG FUNDS AND SENIQR FOUNDATION. MOTION -Hanus, Brown unanimously. · 1.2 SET PUBLIC HEARINGS; CASE ~10-22 & 00--23; LANGDON BY PUD AND STREET/EASEMENT VACATION: JULY 5, 2000. 488 Mound City_ Council Minutes. July 11. 2000 MOTION-Hanus, Brown unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: '1.3 APPROVE REVISION TO SECTION 320 OF CITY CODE: CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND. Hanus, Brown, unanimously. ORDINANCE #108-2000 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 320:00 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO PRIVATE STRUCTURES AND PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION ACTWITIES ON PUBLIC LANDS '1.4 APPROVE REVISION TO SECTION 330:85 OF CITY CODE: FINAL PLAT. RECORDING FORM. Hanus, Brown, unanimously. ORDINANCE #1092000 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 330:85 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO FINAL PLAT RECORDING FORM *1.5 CASE g00-~l: MINOR SUBDIVISION - $212 & $240 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD, ¢QDDQN MILLER PARTNERSHIP, Hanus, Brown, unanimously. RESOLUTION ~)-~7 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5212 LYNWOOD BLVD. & 5240 LYNWOOD BLVD., REARRANGEMENT OF BLOCK 10, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK, PID #13-117-24 34 0091 & 13-117-24 34 0019, P & Z CASE g00-13 1.6 APPROVE MINUTES: JUNE 27. 2000. SPECIAL MEETING: JUNE 27. 2000. REGULAR MEETING. Council Member Weycker stated that the references to the dock commission should be changed to read LMCD. MOTION by Weycker, seconded by Brown to approve the Minutes of the June 27, 2000 meeting as amended above. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. 489 Mound City_ Council Minutes. July 11. 2000 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ABOUT SURIECTS NOT ON THE AGENDA. (PLEASE LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER SUB.IECT.) Council Member Brown sated that the public present should be made aware that the items in the consent agenda had been approved. The City Manager stated that the closing for the True Value took place today and that the ground breolcing is set for Monday, July 17 at 10:00 a.m. 1.8 DISCUSSION ON OPEN SPACE STUDY. James Prosser, Ehlers & Associates, referred to the memo included in the meeting packet regarding the referendum questions. Mr. Prosser stated that there were issues needing closure before a final decision on the questions could be made. The referendum questions contained in the memo are a suggested course of action only. Mr. Prosser stated that there were four questions that needed to be addressed. First, is the issue of the size of the parcel. Secondly, the question of the cost to bring the parcel into compliance with code needs to be addressed. Third, the question as to what level of improvement is appropriate to make the parcel reasonable for public use. Finally, whether or not a second referendum question is necessary. In reference to the intended size of the parcel, Mr. Prosser stated that it appears that the original intent was to include the entire athletic field. The City Attorney stated that it is very important to respect the intent of the petitioners. In reference to the building and safety codes objectives, a civil engineer has inspected the site and this report is included in the meeting packet. The cost to meet code is $150,000. This includes some removal of items rather than repair. The cost of developing the parcel for public convenience is subjective. A cost of $300,000 to improve the park from a public convenience standpoint is given simply as information. These costs could be deferred. Mr. Prosser referred to page 3 of a memo he presented to Council at the meeting that lists the costs of each item in question. He stated that the cost of the land is not from an appraisal, but $1.4 million is the best number available at this time. An appraisal is underway and should be complete in two weeks. Mr. Prosser stated that items 4 and 5 are very dependent on Council judgment as to what they wanted to do. He further stated that the $1.45 million figure for development to community athletic field standards is a conservative figure and would be necessary for continuous use of the fields including lighting, grading fields, drainage, and parking. This amount is not added to the other costs, but would be inclusive of the other improvements. Council Member Ahrens asked what the additional items in Central Community Park standards would be. Mr. Prosser stated that better signage and better planting materials 49O Mound City_ Council Minutes. July 11. 2000 would be included with the idea of revitalizing the park to the level of the Mound Vision Plan. This would include a portion to be put aside for a park area/picnic and a higher upgrade of the children's play area, paths, and furniture. Council Member Brown asked how much use time could be expected from the minimal use upgrade of $800,000. Mr. Prosser stated that sustained use seasonally would be limited to about 50% of a full time use as there would be issues with turf degradation. Mr. Prosser stated that good weather could allow a 2/3 time use. The difference would basically be between a neighborhood occasional use type of park and an athletic field scheduled on a regular basis. Mayor Meisel inquired how firm the land value estimate exclusive of the commercial zone was. Mr. Prosser stated that he is reasonably comfortable with this number. Council Member Hanus asked whether the additional 1.8 acres was more valuable and whether it is accounted for in the estimate. Mr. Prosser stated that yes it is more valuable and that is included in the estimate. Mr. Prosser stated that he does not want to represent that there is currently a contract implied, but he is reasonably comfortable. He further stated that losing the commercial area would be about 40%. Mr. Prosser stated that the issue is of where to go next and he has identified some options for consideration. Mr. Prosser state that there is a need to represent to the public what land is included. Page 4 of his memo summarized the issue including the advantages and disadvantages. Mr. Prosser stated that Council would need to find a way to find the money for the improvements to the parcel. Council Member Brown stated that it will take $1.3 million to buy the property and that is what the referendum will cover. He asked whether an additional $1.5 million for improvements is required. Mr. Prosser stated that there is a range involved beginning with a minimum to acquire the full parcel and improve the land for safety and code improvements the cost of which is $1.65 total. This is $350,000 short of what the bond would support. The high end would be to ask for an additional $1.4 million to do all the improvements. Mr. Prosser stated that there is also a question as to whether the petitioners meant to say that the City would spend $1.3 only to acquire the property. The advantages and disadvantages of this are included on page 4 of the memo. Council Member Ahrens asked what would happen if the first question passed but not the second. Mr. Prosser stated that the issue needed to be addressed as to whether these two questions would be connected. The City Attorney stated the referendum could be worded so that if the f'u'st question were approved then the second question would be whether the funds should be spent. 491 Mound City Council Minutes. July 11. 2000 Council Member Brown stated that there was no sense in acquiring the park if it would not be useable. Council Member Hanus stated that rather then tying the two questions together; it could be a deliberation issue after the election as to whether or not to pursue this. Mr. Prosser stated it could also be a policy direction as part of the communication regarding this. The intent could be only to proceed with the acquisition if funds were available for the improvements. This could be included in the project communications. He felt it would be easier to get the issues on the table now. The City Attorney stated that there would be at least one ballot question but that there is a question as to whether there should be a second question. The point is that the money made available from the first question will only be enough to acquire the property and the question before the Council is whether to acquire the property on that basis or apply to get additional funds for the improvements. What is being asked of the Council is if first question passes, are they willing to consider spending additional taxpayer money to improve the parcel and what amount should be asked for the improvements. The City Attorney felt that the second question is best left as a betterment issue. Mr. Prosser feels the second question should be for betterment and additional money to purchase the land. The City Attorney feels that the petitioners have determined how much to spend on the land and that number should be should be the final number. The City Attorney is recommending that the first question be as presented by the petitioners and that the second question fall somewhere in the range of the improvement costs. Pages 3121 and 3122 of the meeting packet show the potential questions for the ballot. Council Member Hanus questioned the use of the word equipping. Council Member Weycker asked if the question could be changed. The City Attorney stated that it would be possible to nm changes by the bond specialist for the second question but the first question is out of Council control as it is as written on the petition. Council Member Brown suggested that the language on the second question read The C/ty Council to issue and sell bonds in an amount not to exceed $1.4 million to finance the costs for a full time recreational and park facility. He felt it was important to tell the public that the use would be full time recreational and let the public know what funds this use would require. The City Attorney stated that this wording was clearer than equipping and that he would nm this by the bond ~st. Council Member Hanus asked if this proposed language passed, would the Council still have the option to scale back the improvements. The City Attorney said no, the City would have to do the full-blown park as was stated in the question. Council Member Brown asked about restating the question to read include the ability to upgrade the park to a standard, which may include. The City Attorney felt the ballot 492 Mound City_ Council Minutes. 1uly 11.2000 question would become too complex at this point. He stated that the bond specialist liked "equipping" and more detail could be given in information prior to the bond voting. Council Member Ahrens stated that the lang,_age needed to be very specific. Council Member Brown asked if the $1.4 million figure should be part of the question. Council Member I4_anus felt that would give the City all the options. Mayor Meisel stated that people needed to know what was required to do the improvements and $1.4 million was the number. Council Member Hanus stated that if by using the suggested language, could the City then sell a bond of lesser value. The City Attorney stated yes. The City Attorney stated that it was standard policy that the amount of the increased tax would be put on the ballot but that putting the higher number on the ballot may mean less people would vote for the second question. Council Member Hanus stated that maintenance could not be included on this ballot and that would require a full time employee. Council Member Brown thought two employees would be necessary. Mr. Prosser stated that the estimated cost for maintenance is about $20,000 per year. The City Manager stated that this cost would be mentioned in the Q&A that is being prepared. Mr. Prosser stated that installation of an irrigation system would increase the maintenance cost. Council Member Hanus asked where the costs for the bonding process are loaded in. Mr. Prosser stated that the cost was roughly $100,000 and that this cost is not included in the questions. Council Member Ahrens confirmed that this $100,000 would come out of the money for the first question. The City Attorney stated that this could be spread between both questions. Council Member Brown stated that there was a possibility that the first question could pass allowing the purchase of the property, but that if the second question did not pass, the City would not be able to do anything with the parcel. Mr. Prosser stated that he felt there should be a policy determination that both questions have to pass before the purchase would proceed. Council Member Ahrens stated that without the safety and code improvements, the City would be liable and insurance costs would rise. Mayor Meisel asked if Mr. Prosser was looking for direction at this time. The City Attorney stated the issue was the second question and what number would be plugged in. Council Member Hanus stated that a second question would be necessary. 493 Mound City_ Council Minutes. July 11. 2000 MOTION, by Brown, seconded Weyeker for disc!ls_~ion, to approve the second question with a number of $1.45 million to include all of the proposed improvements to the park. Discussion: Council Member Weycker stated that the communication pieces for the public should emphasize that the $1.45 million was a high-end range. The City Manager stated that the cost would be described in the varying degrees of improvement in the communication pieces. Council Member Hanus stated that the number sounded high, but the City does not know exactly where the downtown will be and this will help to keep all the options open to make this park fit in the Mound Vision Plan. Council Member Weycker asked the park board what the intent of the commercial piece was. Peter Meyer, Chair of the Open Space Task Force, referred to recommendation made to Council on June 7 for the improvements. He stated that the task force had always intended the petition to include all the green space including the commercial portion. Mr. Meyer questioned some of the numbers included in the $1.4 million for improvements. He stated that the task force recommended that there would not have to be any upgrades that would significantly increase the cost of the property and that $150,000 was the number for the basic improvements. Mr. Meyer questioned the cost for improvements to the bleachers. Mayor Meisel stated that it was the new code that would require the improvements. Mr. Meyer felt the concrete bleachers did meet code at this time. Mr. Meyer stated that there was no need for the water, grading, and utilities at this time and that a sixty-car parking lot was not necessary. The task force has recommended contacting the adjoining business for a joint parking lot. He stated that parking has been allowed on one side of Bellalre in the past for the skating rink, which would add 15 to 20 spaces. Mr. Meyer stated that the hockey rink already has lighting and boards and the Hockey Association will put up new boards. The baseball dugouts are only one year old and could be kept and the baseball fields need no improvements. Mr. Meyer felt that the softball field improvements of $45,000 were not necessary. The site already has a batting cage. Mr. Meyer stated that the soccer field has goals and the Soccer Association will put new goals in if necessary. Mr. Meyer felt that the proposed site trails are not necessary and are not in any of the other parks. The site fencing already exists. In reference to the cost of site irrigation at $60,000, Mr. Meyer stated that the baseball field is fine as is and there is water at the soccer field. Mr. Meyer felt that security lighting at a cost of $25,000 is not necessary and that the task force felt that $40,000 for landscaping was also unnecessary. In reference to the proposed 494 Mound City_ Council Minutes. July 11. 2000 concession buildings with restrooms, Mr. Meyer stated that two Mound parks have buildings with restrooms that the public is not allowed to use and that satellites are brought in instead. Mr. Meyer stated that the warming house already exists. Mr. Meyer stated that he does not feel that this is at all the recommendation that the task force gave and he feels this will turn the public off. He feels the numbers are unrealistic and that the public should know exactly what the proposed improvements are. He disagrees that the park could only be used half the time without the full improvements as it is used heavily now. Council Member Hanus asked how many hours per day the park is currently used. Council Member Brown stated the parcel was in use from 4:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday for baseball. Council Member Hanus stated that is what Mr. Prosser said the park could be used for without improvements. Council Member Brown addressed some of the issues Mr. Meyer brought up and stated that those improvements are part of the American Disabilities Act. He felt that if this was the center of town, it should be really nice. Council Member Brown pointed out that not all of the $1.4 million would need to be spent, but the option would be there. Council Member Brown asked whether the current warming house was nice. Mr. Meyer stated that it was nice and was not lacking anything. Mr. Meyer stated that he does not see why this park has to be at a different level than the other parks. Council Member Hanus stated that Mr. Meyer and others had argued for a community park over the last year that specifically would be a different park from the others. Mr. Meyer stated he was taking about ball fields or playfields. Council Member Hanus stated the language used was different, but that people were asking for a higher-level park. Council Member Weycker asked what dollar amount for improvements Mr. Meyer was looking at. Mr. Meyer felt a group discussion should be held to decide this and that the task force recommendation was made June 7. Mr. Meyer has been trying to contact Staff about this. Council Member Weycker stated that she understands Mr. Meyer's concerns and does agree that the number is really high. Mr. Meyer wants to come up with a more realistic number. Council Member Hanus asked Mr. Prosser if in the analysis of the line items, did he look at the property and the items and only add in to bring it to a new condition because of dilapidation or why were these on the list. Mr. Prosser stated the $1.5 was an estimate of cost for this size parcel to convert it to a community park standard as opposed to neighborhood park standards. Mr. Prosser stated that the code issues were the results of actual inspections and those numbers were valid. Ken Custer, 5310 Bartlett, asked whether this space could be added in for more hardcover in downtown and then use TIF money for drainage and some of the other things TIF money is 495 Mound Ci_ty Council Minutes. luly 11. 2000 approved for. The City Attorney stated that if this is green space it is calculated as open space for hardcover and will be claimed. Mr. Custer stated that some of the items appeared to conform to the TIF requirements. City Attorney stated that after the first of this year, TIF could no longer be used for recreational activities and that the park does not generate TIF. The Mr. Custer asked if the parking was part of downtown, could TIF money be used. The City Attorney stated that would be difficult to convince the state auditor of this. Council Member Weycker stated that the booster groups for the various sports would supply things. Mayor Meisel stated that the City could not depend on this. Council Member Weycker suggested that the City pay the cost and the booster clubs be charged a user fee. Mr. Meyer stated this has been passed, but was never implemented. Mr. Meyer stated that in regard to the parking area, he feels the parking needs are fine now and more asphalt is not necessary. Council Member Brown stated this was a safety and liability issue. Mr. Meyer stated this has worked fine for 50 years. Council Member Hanus stated that Mr. Meyer was looking at things as they had been in the past and wanting things to continue that way. Mr. Meyer said yes, the task force has recommended the same usage. Council Member Hanus stated that the problem was that then the potential to grow this into a community park would not be there. Council Member Brown stated that the $1.4 would allow the City to move forward. David Greenslit, 5046 Bayport Road, feels that the park is being made too big. He feels it can remain as is for a year or two and the improvements can be phased in. Mr. Greenslit feels that the City could come up with $150,000 per year to work toward this and that parks take a long time to develop. The City could get the use of these fields in the meantime. Council Member Hanus stated that the $150,000 would not be there. Mr. Greenslit stated that he liked the idea of the people deciding what the tax would be, but felt it would be the same as raising taxes for a general fund. Mayor Meisel pointed out that people would know these funds were to be dedicated for this. Council Member Brown stated that people are angry when the costs continue to grow on a project. Council Member I-Ianus stated that the point is that this cannot be more without cutting into the general fund. Mr. Greenslit is concerned that this will influence the first question. Mayor Meisel stated that information would be sent out to inform the public of the exact numbers. Mr. Meyer stated that the $20,000 figure for the maintenance of the facility for a season was higher than the task force estimates of $12,000. Council Member Hanus pointed out that this would depend on what was being maintained. Council Member Ahrens stated the lower 4~6 Mound City_ Council Minutes. July 11, 2000 number would be to maintain what was there and not the community park. Mr. Meyer felt that the task force had considered all the maintenance considerations. Mr. Prosscr stated that thc number may also have included some utilities and the intent was to use the numbers from the green space committee. Council Member Weycker stated she felt the number could be tightened up but she was concerned about the time crunch. She felt it was possible to do a good job in the communication pieces to let people know. Mayor Meisel stated it is always her intent to send out the clearest information possible in the Q&As. Council Member Weycker suggested inviting the booster clubs for input. Mayor Meisel called the question. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried 5-0. Meisel moved and Wecyker seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #00-68 RESOLUTION DETERMINING THE NECESSITY FOR THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS AND CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION THEREON The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried 5-0. Direction was given to the City consultants to complete the fiscal impact component of the question. Council Member Hanus stated there should be discussion of the term. Mayor Meisel stated there was a need to set dates for open houses and Q&As. The City Manager stated the deadlines are pending for the Q&As. Mr. Prosser stated that there is a draft pending that could be ready by the end of the week. Council Member Weycker confirmed that the breakdown of dollars needed to be added in. Mr. Prosser asked whether a community participation discussion would be before or after the referendum. Mr. Prosser also stated that the maintenance cost estimate came from the task force and also includes the additional amount for a skating rink for $5,000 to $10,000 also from the task force information. The City Attorney stated that regarding Council Member Hanus' question about filling in blanks, Elders would take a typical issue of the same type to use. Council could decide on a different term. Hanus stated that he thought the information passed out to the public should be more accurate. The City Attorney agreed with this. 497 Mound City_ Council Minutes. July 11.2000 Council Member Hanus asked whether Mr. Prosser would be getting the numbers set shortly. Mr. Prosser stated that it would typically be a twenty-year tenn. Council Member Hanus asked whether the language on page 3122 of the meeting packet would be part of the question. The City Attorney said yes it would be on the ballot. Council Member Hanus felt this was misleading and that the term should be predetermined. The City Attorney said no, it would not be known until it was time to ,sell the bonds. The City Attorney stated the language was a legal requirement. Council Member Ahrens pointed out that all the lines were stated as estimates. The City Attorney stated it was basically for people to understand that taxes would go up. Mr. Prosser states it is anticipated to sell these bonds prior to the end of the year and that interest rates are currently fluctuating. Thc City Manger talked about establishing a policy after the referendum to approach the decision as to whether one question is tied to the other. Mayor Meisel and Council Member Ahrens agreed that approval of both questions were important to move forward. Council Member Weycker felt that it would be possible to buy the land and close it down until it could be brought to code. Council Member Brown felt both questions should pass. Council Member Hanus felt that it would take a long time to find the code money out of the general fund. He stated that a 5 % increase in the levy represents a few thousand dollars. He felt the public would feel it was a mistake to buy property the City cannot take care of or Use. Mayor Meisel asked if the City Manager needed a directive. The City Manager stated that a consensus was fine. Council Member Weycker stated that creative financing could be found by approaching the user groups. Mayor Meisel pointed out that every year the City would be out begging. Council Member Weycker felt by m~ldng the two question contingent, the City would lose the green space. Council Member Hanus stated that according to the petition and the people in front of the Council for the last year, the people want to use the fields. Council Member Weycker stated that those would be the minimal improvements and there were other options that could be considered. Council Member Hanus stated that if the City was spending this much money for property it was necessary to have a plan in place to improve the property. Council Member Weycker agreed with this, but felt that making the questions contingent did not allow the people to vote for simply the green space. 4~8 Mound City_ Council Minutes. July 11. 2000 Council Member Hanus stated if the Council were in the situation of not being able to do anything with the property, the City would not want the property. Council Member Weycker stated it was not doing nothing, but gaining the land and waiting to do something. 1.9 ADDITIONAL ITEMS RELATING TO RAy MAR PROPERTIF_~ DEVELOPMENT, This issue was covered by the City Manger earlier in the meeting when she announced the closing on the True Value property. 1.10 ACTION ON VFW SUGGESTION FOR NAME CHANGE FOR AUDITOR'S ROAD. Council Member Hanus stated that he agrees with the City Manager's recommendation to wait on renaming this road. Mayor Meisel, and Council Members Brown, Ahrens, and Weycker all agreed. Mayor Meisel explained to the public information officer from the VFW that prior discussions involved waiting to see what ends up being developed before the road is named. The VFW officer stated that the money being offered is not contingent on the naming issue. MOTION, by Brown, seconded by Hanus, to accept the VFW donation for benches and signage. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. Council Member Brown asked the VFW officer about the status of the discussion for a lighted monument. The VFW officer stated that was not being considered for this portion and that two plaques were being purchased for another location. Mayor Meisel stated that in other towns, the green spa_ce and parks had walk'ways with trees, benches and ~in memory of" plaques. Council Member Hanus stated the City has a program for this. Mayor Meisel called a break at 9:20 p.m. Mayor Meisel called the meeting to order at 9:37 p.m. Mayor Meisel stated that during the break, a request to move item number 9 ahead of number 8 was made and would be granted. A citizen requested to speak out of order and was allowed by the Mayor to do so. Michael Durell, 2208 Fern Lane, spoke regarding the redevelopment program. He stated that he had emphasized on April 11 the need to feel the pulse of the residents to get full cooperation. He felt it was important to the Council to take into consideration that the Council should work together and for the people. He stated there is currently a rough draft of a proposed petition going through to collect signatures in order for the City Council to understand that people are concerned. He does not want the final downtown redevelopment agreement with the developer to be signed before the issue goes on referendum. Mr. Durell 499 Mound City_ Council Minutes. July 11. 2000 feels the election will be based on the downtown redevelopment. He does not feel the plan being offered is a great plan and be has concerns about conflict of interest issues. Mr. Durell feels that not considering the peoples' wishes is a blow to democracy and that this is a public issue and not one for individuals. Oy Moy stated that regarding the redevelopment issue; she does not feel that the current plans for Auditors or the Langdon area reflect a benefit for the business owners and the community. She is formally requesting a public referendum on the issue or a postponement of a final agreement with the Beard group until after the November election. Dorothy Netka, 2360 Commerce, stated that she agreed with the speakers before her and has written letters to the City stating that they wish to build to conform and has received no response. David Greenslit, 2567 Commerce, stated there has been a lot of work put into this to date and he appreciates and recognizes this. He pointed out that a brochure regarding the redevelopment states that the reason for the development is due to the problems with the current layout and orientation of the downtown. He stated that possibly the problem has been solved with the improvements made to the roads downtown. Mr. Greenslit wants a minimal impact on the current business owners along Shoreline. Mr. Greenslit wondered if the real problem was that the current owners do not fit into the Vision Plan. The City Attorney stated that this has been going on for fourteen years and that he felt Mr. Greenslit's questions were important and complex and encouraged him to call City Hall for the names of consultants who could answer his questions. Mayor Meisel stated that she would offer the same solution and also that the City Manager could help with these questions. 1.11 WORKSHOP: CONDUCTING MORE EFFICIENT MEETINGS. Mayor Meisel stated that page 3136 of the meeting packet is an agenda she made up for conversation and a starting point. She stated that this agenda discussed defining the roles of each Council member and changes on how public hearings are held. There would be no discussion by Council between staff presentation and the public hearing. The Council would discuss the issue after the hearing only. Enforcement of a rule to have a bell that sounds after three minutes is also suggested. The City Attorney asked whether the Council felt the meetings were too long. Ail members of the Council agreed that they are. The City Attorney asked each Council member to pick one thing that they thought would shorten the meeting. Council Member Ahrens thought it was a good exercise for each member to come up with one or two things that could be done to shorten the meeting. The City Clerk suggested that several mayors over the years have stated that there could not be repetitions of statements during a public hearing or the hearing would be closed. The Mound City_ Council Minutes. July 11. 2000 City Attorney felt this was too harsh and that some people who wanted to speak might not be able to. The City Attorney felt the Council should work as a team on how to approach this. The City Attorney asked if it was appropriate for people to speak more than once during a heating. Council Member Brown felt it was not appropriate. Council Member Ahrens felt that t~sk force members should not come in and argue with the Council once a report is presented. The City Attorney questioned how this would look to the public. Council Member Hanus stated that he has sat on other commissions that have tried to deal with this issue. He felt that in terms of repetition, it should be stopped if possible, but unfortunately this could come across as being short. Council Member Hanus did not like idea of limiting the mount of time for discussion on an item. Council Member Brown suggested that there is a tendency to argue with the public that comes forward to speak and he does not feel that Council should do that. He suggested having the City Planner speak, open the floor to the property owner, open the public hearing, close the hearing, and then having the Council discuss the issue with no additional public discussion allowed at that point. Council Member Hanus stated that in most cases there is no need for the applicant to speak. Council Member Brown felt it was a nice gesture. Council Member Ahrens felt it cost too much time to allow this. The City Attorney suggested that when speaking with the applicant ahead of time, Staff could let them know that there is no obligation to speak. Council Member Hanus stated that the applicants paid money for the process and should be heard up to the point of the vote even on a public hearing. The City Manager stated that once a public hearing is closed, it is Council's prerogative to ask questions of the applicant. Council Member Hanus mentioned that arguing with the people does not go anywhere. He does feel that applicants should get answers. The City Attorney stated it was important to make sure the applicant does not restate their points during the Council's debate. The City Manager stated that some councils limit speaking to two times and the second time must be additional information, not repetition. She pointed out the public hearing process outlined in a brochure from Minnetonka. The City Manager stated that at the school board meetings, individuals are allowed three minutes and groups are allowed five minutes. Her prior position set amounts of time that were allowed depending on the issues involved. 5ol Mound City_ Council Minutes. July 11. 2000 Council Member Weycker stated that she felt the three minute limit has made it worse. does feel that it is the people's time to address the Council and this needs to be ~lcen seriously and they need to be referred to the appropriate place for an answer. She The City Attorney stated that some groups require a written request and supporting information. The City Manager stated that this makes sure that real issues are brought forward. Council Member Hanus was concerned about how the public would perceive this. Council Member Weycker felt that 90 percent of the talking was coming from the Council itself. She further stated that she appreciates the City Manager's summary memo. Mayor Meisel stated that Staff recommendations should include the reasons why the recommendations were made. Council Member Weycker stated that the difference from the applications opinion should be stated. Council Member Ahrens stated that during the senate and house hearings, there are red, green, and yellow lights to limit speaker time. Council Member Weycker stated that this could be tried, but she felt the restrictions should be on the Council and not the public. Council Member Ahrens stated that she found it interesting that people come in to ask questions and do not think to call the City Manager during business hours. Mayor Meisel asked for a consensus to try to change the public hearings as stated above for four meetings. Council Member Hanus stated this could be tried, but some issues involve a dialogue with the applicant. There was a general consensus to try the new rules for public hearings. Mayor Meisel stated that she liked a five minute limit for each Council member to speak. The City Manager asked if changes should be made to the public forum. Mayor Meisel stated that she liked the idea of resisting a dialogue with the speaker and instead directing them to the person who can answer the question. Council Member Ahrens suggested stating at beginning of the public forum that without adequate time to research, Council will refer the speaker to Staff or the next meeting. The City Attorney stated that the agenda should be clear that there might not be a response from the Council at that point. He also stated that most people are not addressing the Council, but rather a larger audience. Council Member Brown liked the suggestion of not having the television camera going during the public's comments. Council felt this could be done prior to calling the meeting to order. Council Member Ahrens stated that a time limit would need to be set for this. The City Attorney stated this usually caused the number of people talking to drop. Council Member Hanus did not feel this was a big deal and that this is not the largest section of the meeting. 5O2 Mound City_ Council Minutes. July 11.2000 Council Member Ahrens stated that if an item was not on the agenda in advance and people spoke on these items, the consultants were being paid to sit through this. Mayor Mciscl stated this could bc moved to thc end, but she did not feel this would shorten thc meeting. Council Member Brown suggested postponing this discussion until a special meeting could be held. Council Member Ahrens suggested everyone write some items down that they felt could shorten the meeting and give them anonymously to the City Planner for future discussion. The City Attorney stated that some city councils do not consider variances. Mayor Meisel stated that she had attached a public hearing procedures list that should be kept for future use. A workshop meeting on this issue on July 18 was suggested. Council Member Weycker could not attend on this date. The City Manager suggested that she incorporating some of the changes in the next meeting and to try these out to see how they work before holding the next meeting. Council Member Hanus stated that the HRA meeting has to be addressed. Council Member Brown spoke about terms limits being an issue. Mayor Meisel stated this would be part of the workshop discussion. The City Manager stated she would bring the workshop back for ten to twenty minutes at each meeting to work on. 1.12 EXECUTIVE SESSION: MATTER OF LmGATIQN, At 10:40 p.m., Council moved into executive session. Council Member Weycker left the meeting at this time. The Council returned from Executive Session at 11:50 P.M. The Mayor staed that the Council had given direction to the Attorney regarding the Woodland Point litigation. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS 1. AMM FAX NEWS. 2. 2001 LMCD BUDGET. 3. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT MINUTES - MAY 24, 2000. 4. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT FOR JUNE, 2000. 5O3 Mound City_ Council Minutes. July 11. 2000 ADJO~: MOTION by Hanus, seconded by P, hre~ls to adjourn the meeting at 11:55 p.m. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 4-0. Attest: City Clerk Kandis Hanson, City Manager PAYMENT BILLS DATE: JULY 11, 2000 BILLS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE BATCH # AMOUNT #0062 $138,062.32 #0063 $146,110.82 TOTAL BILLS $284,173.14 ,