Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000/01/18 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Regular IrjCITY OF OFFICIAL MINUTES ,rST LOUIS CITY COUNCIL MEETING PARK ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA January 18, 2000 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7 35 p m 2. Presentations - None 3. Roll Call The following Councilmembers were present at roll call Ron Latz, Chris Nelson, Sue Santa, Robert Young, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs Also present were the Deputy City Manager (Mr Pires), City Attorney (Mr Scott), Community Development Director (Mr Harmening), Planning Associate (Ms Peterson), Public Works Director (Mr Rardin), Police Chief(Mr Luse), Fire Chief(Mr Gill), and Recording Secretary (Ms Olson) 4. Approval of Minutes 4a. City Council Meeting of January 3, 2000 The minutes were approved as presented with the following changes Page 7, Item 6, Paragraph 4, change "briefly" to "extensively" Delete Item 11b since it is duplicative of Item 8c Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager asked that the suggested corrections by Council member Sanger be added to the minutes Page 9, Item 6b, paragraph 9, add "must take down the billboard if the billboard is not located on property being redeveloped She indicated that she did not believe that the City had the power to require a property owner to buy nearby property and to remedy this sort of problem on property that was not being redeveloped " 4b. City Council Study Session meeting of December 13, 1999 The minutes were approved as presented with the following changes Page 14, Item 1, Paragraph 9, change "Councilmember Nelson questioned whether the zoning would allow block 3 to share required parking with block 2 Ms Jeremiah responded that some percentage of shared parking is allowed She stated all that is publicly subsidized is not necessarily maintained in public ownership" 4c. City Council executive session minutes of December 13, 1999 The minutes were approved as presented Council Meeting Minutes -2- January 18, 2000 5. Approval of Agendas a. Consent Agenda. It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve the 111 consent agenda The motion passed 5-0 b. Agenda It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve the agenda The motion passed 7-0 c. Resolutions and Ordinances By consent, Council waived reading of resolutions and ordinances 6. Public Hearings 6a. Public Hearing to Consider St. Louis Park Police and Fire Pension Consolidation Accounts Mr Luse, Police Chief presented a staff report He noted that both Mr Gill, Police Chief and Mr Luse, Police Chief are currently active members of the PERA pension and both intend to retire under those benefits and that they have been previous members of and contributors to the former St Louis Park Police and St Louis Park Fire Departments' Pension Consolidation Accounts being considered under the MN Law 1999 Chapter 222, titled Omnibus Retirement Bill Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing Dave Smith, Police Department, elected Union Steward for Police Patrol Union, speaking on behalf of the three unions (fire fighters, police patrol, sergeants) He stated we are united in our position on this issue He presented some additional background information on MN Law 1999 Chapter, titled Omnibus Retirement Bill He stated that Chief Gill and Luse in their memo of January 10th submitted to the Study Session, agenda item 12 stated that the development of this bill was highly participative I would say that by nature omnibus bill is highly compartmentalized and has factional following only the parts to that pertain to those pertain to those interest groups and is actual not participative in nature In this case the police and fire unions lobbied and followed the portion of the bill pertaining to the reduction of contribution amounts by employees It was the League of Cities, acting on behalf of the cities of Bloomington and other similar cities with relief association surpluses that lobbied for the portion of the bill that is being addressed here In my contacts with retired and active members of the relief associations I know of no one who has told me that they were notified, contacted or informed of this part of the pending legislation The language of this portion of the law is therefore in favor of the City's interest and not the retirees Several former legislators have also informed me that they seldom have time to review omnibus bills in their entirety They are familiar with bills or portions there of that they sponsor or are lobbied directly for In this case specifically, representative Rhodes worked with us on the contribution reduction, but did not mention the relief association surplus to us at any time during our contacts Our first exposure was after the law was passed and members of the unions had a chance to read the bill on its entirety Retirement legislation is very complicated and it has taken this long for the unions to gain a base familiarity with the new law I believe that is why in part that the legislature has required public hearing on this matter Council Meeting Minutes -3- January 18, 2000 Mr Smith stated that secondly, in the,unofficial minutes of the study session from December 13, 1999 the City Manager is quoted as stating "the surplus is the tax payers money" Research on that topic shows that to be only partly true The relief association accounts were funded both from employee and City contributions as outlined in our memo that I presented previously, the employees voluntarily increased their contribution amount to meet the requirement of being fully funded by the year 2010 Again, this helped result in the St Louis Park accounts being two of the best funded in the State at the time of consolidation The City's contribution, however, was not 100% tax dollars from the citizens of St Louis Park The City has also received funds from insurance companies, the State and police auctions that has been allocated and dedicated to be used to pay its portion of the funding requirement for pension accounts A portion of that amount has been tax dollars, true, but the amount of tax dollars is closer to the amount that the employees contributed themselves Mr Smith stated that thirdly, I only received copies of the state attorney general's and state auditor's opinions as outlined in the memo that was requested by West St Paul which indicated that they support the use of the residual for retirement benefit as a legal use of the money per the statute and other state laws He stated that the unions believe that the intent of the law was to have the cities provide a detailed plan to the State Auditor as opposed to a general plan The unions would like to therefore see the plan include the initiatives that the staff presented in their study session memo, that the excess will be used to fund training, technology, employee development and capitol outlay not covered in the normal budget process, but the primary purpose we feel the plan should include is funding of a benefit for retirees, that being a benefit toward health insurance premiums which at a minimum should cover the period from age 55 to age 65 As outlined in our memo, there are State and Federal guidelines and laws that would appear to indicate that legally excess funds should be allocated toward employee benefits before employer uses Moreover, there is the ethical position that moneys allocated for retirement benefits at their initial contribution time should still be used for that purpose when that fund contains excess amounts We ask the Council to approve a plan that honors that commitment to the public safety employees of the City who sacrificed for the benefit for others as a matter of course I would propose that the Council table the motion to adopt the plan as currently drafted by the staff, allow the staff to rework the plan to include details for the expenditure of the surplus and specifically include a benefit for retirees Paul Steinholber, 16517 Elm Circle, Minnetonka, Union President for the local fire department was present and stated that he although he believed that the technology, training, capital outlay, employee benefit is a wonderful avenue to spend the money, but we also believe that a lot of the relief members paid in through their wages and deserve some credit for this Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing subject to right of the Council to reopen it at a future time Councilmember Nelson asked for clarification when the term retirees was used when you are talking about insurance benefits, are you talking about those currently retired or future retirees Mr Smith stated that because of the size of the excess fund, there is a sufficient fund to allow an equitable division of that interest money between the staff's proposed plan and a benefit for current retired members who are between the age 55 and age 65 to allow a health premium to be paid to them as a benefit out of that interest money Councilmember Nelson clarified that the Mr Smith was talking about creating a new obligation for the City for presently retired members He asked for clarification about the distinction between existing retirees and future retirees Council Meeting Minutes -4- January 18, 2000 Eric Willette, League of Minnesota Cities, stated that he believed an argument could be made that while the State Auditor's letter states that the use of these assets for retiree benefits would fit the purpose and the use of the State in terms of being a police or fire expenditure, that a case could be made that it may not fit the public purpose Statute for public funds under which we operate Councilmember Nelson reviewed the letters from Deno Howard, General Counsel and Erica Jacobson, Assistant Attorney General and asked the City Attorney if the City doesn't have a present obligation to a group (present retirees) for something that wasn't bargained for under the collective bargaining agreement was it lawful for the City to start paying present retirees a new benefit Mr Scott, City Attorney indicated that he has not examined this question and was not in a position to give a definitive answer, but believes there is clearly an issue as to whether or not payments to already retired employees would there be a public purpose and whether that would be a proper expenditure Mr Smith indicated that from the minutes from the last Council meeting minutes, in the City's expenditure list, there was an item of a payment to Roger Landgren, retired police member for insurance benefits Councilmember Nelson believes that the question is that if we didn't have these residual funds could the City start paying this lawfully to existing retirees and if we can, then it would be arguably lawful to use these residual funds, but if it's not then we can't Councilmember Latz asked the Police Chief to clarify the current payment to Roger Landgren Mr Luse, Police Chief indicated that this deal was a one time offer that was made on a very specific bracket of time for certain people who were allowed that benefit and were told it was only good for only a window of time Roger Arnson, retired police officer, stated that this package was offered twice to all City employees Mayor Jacobs asked where this surplus would have gone if there was not this legislation Eric Willette, League of Minnesota Cities, stated that had this legislation not been passed, what was in the Statute prior to this legislation was that at the time the funds cease to exist (at the time that the last beneficiary or there survivor died) all the remaining funds would revert to the City for police or fire purposes Mayor Jacobs questioned if this surplus was all tax payer money and where did it come from Eric Willette, League of Minnesota Cities, stated it was different for each of the consolidation accounts and it has a lot to do with investment performance over the years, but believed a variety of different sources went into the plan including significant employee contributions Councilmember Latz asked if St Louis Park was one of the cities that made extra amortization payments for years when the plans were under funded Mr Willette, League of Minnesota Cities indicated he didn't have this information Council Meeting Minutes -5- January 18, 2000 Mr Gill, Fire Chief stated that the fire fund was making lump sum amortization payments from tax revenues as recently as 1995 to bring it up to full funding. Councilmember Nelson asked if the members made additional payments as a contribution to the amortization to assist in fully funding or making just their normal payments Mr Gill, Fire Chief stated that the amortization payments came from the State of Minnesota When the funds were closed to new members approximately 1980 in order to fund these by the year 2010 part of the agreement was that the State would help the cities, so during the course over the Councilmember Nelson asked if the City assisted by making extra payments to fully fund these plans Mr Gill indicated that the City did, but not the employees Mr Smith stated that in order for the relief associations to consolidate with PERA it required a vote by the municipal governments to approve that and the City agreed to fully fund the former relief association fund Councilmember Young asked if the surplus could be returned to the general fund Mr Willette, League of Minnesota Cities stated the City could use these funds to cover current levy for police and fire purposes until the money runs out, but the City couldn't dust send a rebate check to taxpayers He commented that in the last couple of years there has been incredible investment performance Councilmember Young stated that the City employees have already receive a cost of living increase and investment enhancement has been favorable and there was no need to make it more lucrative by also having the tax payer pick up the cost of the health insurance Phil McNel, retired Fire Fighter, stated that fire fighters use to contribute more to the pension than they do now, and some of the reason the pension is doing so well is that we gave more than at the present time Councilmember Latz stated that while he had sympathy for the request that was being made, he felt constrained by the State Auditor's report and was in favor of adopting the resolution Councilmember Nelson believed that there were many opportunities to use these surplus funds, but couldn't vote to amend to add the fifth point dust for the reasons stated Mayor Jacobs stated that he shared the same concerns as expressed by the Council and believed the plan that was proposed was fiscally sound and supported the plan It was moved by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt a resolution authorizing the return to the City of excess funding amounts in the former St Louis Park Police and St Louis Park Fire Departments' Pension Consolidation Accounts and authorizing staff to submit that resolution to the Minnesota State Auditor The motion passed 5-0 Council Meeting Minutes -6- January 18, 2000 6b. Public Hearing to consider Sale of City Property Located South of Jewish Community Center 4326 Cedar Lake Road Mr Harmening, Community Development Director presented staff report and recommended approval of the first reading He explained that late in the process of negotiations with the JCC, staff became aware that there was a former dumpsite in the area in questions and that it may be at least partially on the City's property This dump apparently operated in the 1930's and 1940's and was closed before the City acquired its property in 1954 Staff proposes to undertake additional analysis in the coming days and will have a report and recommendation available to the City Council as part of the second reading/approval of purchase agreement scheduled for February 7th Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing Dave Carlson, 7006 W 23rd Street, stated that he has been a member of the Cedar Lake Park Association and was concerned about the destruction of a very beautiful wooded area that is heavily used by Cedar Lake park and trail users that serves as a beautiful buffer for the entire corridor He stated that he doesn't want the City to lose or have this open green space altered to the detriment to the citizens and even if this would be approved he would hope that that the Staff and Council would establish a buffer to the proposed JCC expansion Councilmember Young asked if it was included in the plan that the City retain a trail through the property Mr Harmening stated that the purchase agreement that has been drafted does retain an storm sewer easement that we are also retaining on this site for future trail purposes Paul Rosholt, 2925 Toledo Avenue South, asked if the JCC and the JCC users understand the potential heavy traffic and what affect it would have on its parking lot Mr Harmening indicated that the purchase agreement states that the JCC will agree to provide us with the general license to drive over their property to maintain the existing storm water facilities and to allow the City to construct a new stormwater pond and maintain the pond in the future, but it also states that the final specific terms of the license will be agreed to prior to closing Councilmember Santa asked if at a later date the JCC decided to sell the entire property to another owner, would that license be conveyed Mr Scott indicated that the license would exist regardless of who owned the property Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing subject to the right of the Council to reopen it at a future date Councilmember Nelson was concerned about the issue in finding that the land in question didn't have no future public need He raised the issue of a need for a future road and since the parcel was going to be used for parking, he suggested that the agreement be modified to designate a road and utility easement of the same size which would preserve the right for future public needs Councilmember Young asked if this would create an inability for the JCC to have adequate parking Council Meeting Minutes -7- January 18, 2000 Mr Harmening stated that although there is not a formal proposal, some of the conceptual planning does suggest using our property for parking that would encroach over some of the easements that we would obtain He stated that the reason that staff didn't include a street easement throughout the entire site is that through the years and various planning exercises, it has been decided that it didn't appear to be necessary to have a road pass through that site since on the Minneapolis side there really isn't anything that you could connect the road to pass into Mayor Jacobs stated that he didn't have a problem with the lack of public purpose for a road in that area Client Pires asked Staff to comment on what the Comprehensive Plan stated in terms of the Transportation Chapter for that area Mr Harmening stated that the Transportation Chapter does not indicate the extension of a road through this particular property and the Comprehensive Plan has guided this a civic use and does state specifically that the possible use of City property in the area could be for the accommodation of the JCC campus expansion Councilmember Latz asked that how much land was conceived to be parking lot and how wide a buffer would remain between the parking lot and the existing trail corridor Jeff Bail, JCC representative indicated that plans are still being considered, but emphasized that the JCC share all the concerns expressed and wants to make sure the property is as aesthetically pleasing as possible Councilmember Latz believed if it would have been convenient to put a road in this area it would have been done a long time ago and doesn't have a problem in meeting a lack of a public purpose test in this case Councilmember Nelson believed that the City wouldn't lose anything by asking for a road easement for the future public need Mr Harmemng stated that staff will take another look at the road issue with the Public Works Department and provide the Council with more information at the next meeting Councilmember Latz asked what the findings were from the park land and open space task force for that area Mr Harmening indicated that the findings of the task force were that all or least some of this property could be sold and used for something else besides a public purpose and would not be in conflict with the action being taken It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to adopt the first reading of an ordinance that authorizes the sale of a portion of City owned property located south of the Jewish Community Center at 4326 Cedar Lake Road and set second reading for February 7, 2000 The motion passed 5-0 7. Petitions, Requests, Communication- None Council Meeting Minutes -8- January 18, 2000 8. Resolutions and Ordinances 8a. Request by Vladimir Velikson to allow restaurants with liquor as permitted with conditions in the C-2, Commercial District Case No. 99-13-ZA Sacha Peterson, Planning Associate presented a staff report and recommended denial of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow restaurants with liquor as permitted with conditions in the C-2 District Cynthia Ahrens, 2944 Virginia Avenue South, stated she has been a resident of St Louis Park for 22 years and was concerned with the revision of the zoning ordinance that would place three liquor establishments within a 1 /2 block area, inadequate parking, and that the shopping center access to Minnetonka Boulevard and Texas Avenue is difficult and hazardous Ms Peterson stated that these were legitimate concerns and pertain to a Conditional Use Permit application for a restaurant with liquor so staff would address these issues if a CUP application was received Jim Yarosh, Attorney for Fine Management, believed that the existing text amendment would adequately address some of the City's concerns related to this type of use at the Texa-Tonka shopping center Councilmember Latz believed that when a particular proposal for a use comes before the Council it needs to be examined to see if it works for the entire City He believed the Council needed to make a choice between tools that would make the proposal work for the particular proposal and the entire City He supported the use of a CUP process for this proposal because the proposed text amendment would have a dramatic affect on other parcels throughout the City and would not give the Council the kind of control over how land would be used in other parts of the City that the Council wished to retain Councilmember Nelson was opposed to the proposed text amendment that would provide for uses permitted with conditions and supported of the text amendment that would provide for a CUP which doesn't require eliminating all of the nonconformities Councilmember Santa concurred with Councilmember Latz and was supported the text amendment that would provide for a CUP Mayor Jacobs agreed with Councilmember Latz that this was a choice of tools to make an exciting concept for a restaurant happen and supported the text amendment that would provide for a CUP It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to deny the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment The motion passed 5-0 8b. Request by staff to amend nonconformities section of Zoning Ordinance regarding Conditional Use Permits Case No. 99-36-ZA Sacha Peterson presented a staff report and recommended approval of the proposed text amendment that would address the CUP for multi-tenant buildings Council Meeting Minutes -9- January 18, 2000 Councilmember Latz stated that the question is after it has been decided what type of tools are preferable for how the Council proceeds, the Council needs to decide how to fashion that tool and its specifics so that hopefully that kind of use will work and it is in the best interests over all the developments in St Louis Park He believed that this tool was preferable and was adopting in whole the types of standards that are used in another part of the City ordinance which gives the City and potential developers a better idea of what we are looking for and how to meet the standard in the ordinance Jim Yarosh, Attorney for Fine Management, was concerned about the interpretation of the new language in the ordinance "to the extent reasonable and possible" He stated that the land owner suggested that this criteria be incorporated right into the ordinance so that the applicant knows what the staff and City will be looking at and the staff will be able to provide reasoned decision and analysis in interpreting that very difficult phrase He stated that the landowner in this case has already anticipated the cost of improving just the space and now depending on what is determined to be reasonable or possible, one of the factors will be cost He provided the Council with a letter from the property Jeff Fine He recommended that all the costs of the application fees for the CUP be waived to the applicant given the extensive process he has been through Mr Peterson, Planning Associate stated that staff continues to believe that it would be more constraining and possibly create problems down the road to include the specific criteria in the ordinance language Councilmember Nelson asked how the intent of the Council was addressed in the ordinance to allow a new tenant to come in and have a different use that might be subject to a CUP rather than having an entire multi-tenant building come in and apply for a CUP under this ordinance Mr Harmening reviewed Page 58, Paragraph F and the Exception of the ordinance Councilmember Nelson stated that he interpreted that the exception was for multi-tenant building and not just a particular tenant within a multi-tenant building Mr Scott, City Attorney stated that the exception would only apply if one of the multiple tenant was changing and agreed with Councilmember Nelson to clarify the language to state that the exception only applies when "part of' a multi-tenant building is changing over to a different tenant and should be changed before second reading Councilmember Santa asked if it was in the code for special permits as to what the criteria are when non-conformities have to be eliminated Ms Peterson indicated that there wasn't any specific criteria currently in the code for special permit amendments Councilmember Nelson was in support of this proposed project, but was concerned about possible public response as to why a particular project can't eliminate some non-conformities due to financial concerns He stated that the cost of the improvement to the tenant was not fair since the improvement to one portion of the building would influence the rest of the building Councilmember Nelson referred to Mr Fine's letter and agreed that the Texa Tonka shopping center was old and needed to be updated and believed higher rents could be charged for an updated and more usable structure Council Meeting Minutes -10- January 18, 2000 Vladimir Velikson, 1967 Waterford Court, Shorewood, commented on the human factor involved in this extensive process and was concerned about the lack of progress on him personally and the proposed project He stated that if the project collapses, the only winner will be Jeff Fine because he will divide the parcel and find other renters without bringing any non-conformities into compliance Councilmember Latz commended and thanked Mr Velikson for his patience and perseverance through this process and believed the outcome was a good policy for all of St Louis Park It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to adopt first reading of an ordinance amending nonconformities section of Zoning Ordinance and set second reading for February 7, 2000 The motion passed 5-0 9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees a. Pay Equity report By consent, Council accepted report for filing b. Human Rights Commission Minutes of November 17, 1999 By consent, Council accepted report for filing c. Housing Authority Minutes of December 8, 1999 By consent, Council accepted report for filing d. Planning Commission Minutes of December 15, 1999 By consent, Council accepted report for filing c. Vendor Claims By consent, Council accepted report for filing 10. Unfinished Business a. Board and Commission Appointment(s) - None 11. New Business 11a. School Security Contracts Mr Luse, Police Chief presented a staff report It was moved by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute contracts with School Districts 283 and 287 for police school liaison services Council Meeting Minutes -11- January 18, 2000 11b. Consultant Retention for Construction Surveying and Engineering Services for the Hutchinson Spur Regional Trail By consent, Council authorized the Mayor and City Manger to execute a Contract with SRF Consulting Group, Inc (SRF) for Construction Surveying and Engineering Services for the Hutchinson Spur Regional Trail 11c. Consultant Retention for Assistance in Design and Construction Inspection for Six (6) Flood Problem Areas By consent, Council authorized the Mayor and City Manager to execute a Contract with WSB & Associates, Inc (WSB) for design and construction inspection services for six (6) flood areas 11d. Approve lease extension with MnDot for Webster Park By consent, Council approved the lease extension 12. Miscellaneous - None 13. Claims, Appropriation, Contract Payments- None 14. Communications - None 15. Adjournment It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Young, to adjourn the meeting at 9 40 p m The motion passed 5-0 Cit Clerk i