City Council - 04/30/1974 - Special Meeting MIMUTES
EDEH PRAIRIE CITY COUM CIL
SPECIAL WEETIUG
V Tuesday, April 30, 1974
7 : 30 P .f4. City Hall
Council Members : i•iayor David 1.1 . Osterhol t , Joan Reyers , John
NcCul loch , Wofgang Penzel , Sidney Pauly
Council Staff: City Wanager Robert P . Heinrich , Clerk-Finance
Director John Frane , Planner Dick Putnam, Engineer
Carl Jullie , Director of Community Services Varty
Jessen
I - Consideration of Gelco ' s Land Dedication .
i•ir. Heinrich explained that Gelco ' s goal has been to preserve the
natural area along the shore of Anderson. Lake . After determining
the boundary lines it was found that approximately 1.3 .7 acres would
be dedicated . As an alternate Gelco requested that an acre on the
southwest corner of the property be excluded from the dedication .
The staff walked the site and are recommending approval of Gelco ' s
request.
E1r. WcCulloch asked if the City could be assured that future develop
ment mould not occur on that acre. Responding , F.ir . Heinrich stated
that Gelco intended to keep the area in its natural state plus plant
brush to prevent intrusion.
To Mrs . Pauly Mr . Heinrich stated that any subsequent owner would
have to approach the City with any development plans for the site.
Ors . ;ieyers asked if Gelco felt they would have enough land for
expansion without the acre and Gelco representatives stated that
they had no plans for expansion in that area .
A motion was made by furs. Pauly seconded by fir . Penzel to approve
Gelco ' s proposal of 12.57 acres for dedication . Motion carried
unanimously.
2 . Consideration of a request from Gelco for the Special Address of
One Gelco Drive .
Because the address mould be a deviation from the metropolitan num-
bering system, the possibility of the dedication of a reasonable
distance (perhaps 20 feet) of the drive was discussed . fair. Green-
berg expressed a willingness to cooperate with the staff to resolve
the matter.
A motion was made by Hr. idcCulloch seconded by Hr. Penzel referring
Gelco' s address request to the Staff. Motion carried unanimously.
Action by the Council will be taken at the May 14 meeting .
Special Council Neeting =2- April 30 , 1974 q
3 - Discussion of Land Division for Nr. James Perkins. 2 . 96 acres west
o ova Creek itlion , south of R. L .S . reviously consider-
ed April 23 , 1974 .
firs . MacKinnon , 7020 willow Creek Road , reported that the residents
of the neighborhood net and it was the general consensus of opinion
that not more than two homes should be located on the property.
Or. Perkins , in support of his vier that the land was neither part
of the Willow Creek addition nor subject to its covenants , cited the
history of the ownership of the property. Both fiessrs . Perkins and
Freeburg stated that considerable time. effort and money have been
expended in preparation of the erection of two homes .
Ors. i•iacKinnon suggested either designating Section C as an outlot
or resurveying the acreage as two lots .
i4r. Perkins conveyed the neighbors ' concern in regard to future
development of adjacent properties if a precedent c:ere set with his
proposal . He indicated a willingness to designate Section C as an
outlot with the possibility of future development after abutting
properties were developed.
fir. Putnam conceded that the Staff had erred in approving a land
division administratively and that abutting property owners should
have been notified . However , in reviewing the proposal submitted by
fir. Perkins it was his opinion that the homes to be built would
compliment the Il i l l ow Creek area .
4L
Mr. Penzel expressed an uncomfortableness with the multiple divi -
sion. After looking at the site he felt that the homes would be
situated abnormally close together and Consequently would not be in
favor of granting approval of division as proposed .
-iirs . Meyers stated she could agree with the division if restrictions
were placed on Section C . However, she would prefer to seek the
counsel of the City attorney with questions in this regard .
A motion was made by fir. WcCulloch seconded by Mr . Penzel that the :
1 . lot division be approved for two lots :
a . Lot 1 - designated as Lot A on the registered land survey
b . Lot 2 - designated as Lots B and C on the registered
land survey ; and
2. total acreage be limited to two homes--the present cottage
and a new home.
The motion carried unanimously.
4 . Review and Discussion of Organizational Plan and Departmental Activi-
ties and Staffing_.
iir. Heinrich reviewed the organizational plan which was approved
December 11 , 1973 . iiayor Osterholt asked how the plan was function-
ing. In reply , 'Ir. Heinrich stated that it was working well . The
staff is growing since they have been given the maximum opportunity
to be creative and independent. However , the opportunity does in-
crease the risk of embarrassment and there are some shortcomings in .
Special Council i.ieeting -3- April 30, 1974 n
4.organizational Plan and Departmental Activities (Continued )
x
the plan . If space would allow, i►r . Heinrich felt a better plan
would be to have inspection and assessing independent of engineering
and coupled with planning and finance respectively.
Or . iicCulloch restated his original concern--that of the Clerk
position being assumed by iir. Frane and the inclusion of assessing
and inspection in engineering . Hrs . Meyers also shared this latter i
concern and iir. Jullie commented that inspection has demanded con-
siderable time recently. However , in some situations the fusion of
the three areas has proved beneficial .
In answer to a question from firs . fleyers , fair. Heinrich stated that
the plan has been reviewed and appraised through discussions with
the staff at staff and mini-staff meetings .
ilhen i.ir. Penzel asked how effective the Department of Administration
was in establishing policies and directives for the other departments
Ar. Heinrich remarked that because of the heave load of detail work
with which he is faced , not enough time is available for managerial
or systems work. Decisions he felt should be made at the lower staff
levels and in all departments there is a good working relationship
between the manager and department head . In regard to interaction
between the Council and manager , fir. Heinrich saw the mayor as a li -
aison between the manager and Counnil and in order for the staff and
4LCouncil to function well priorities should be established jointly.
!!hen Mayor Osterholt asked if staff members were receiving compensa-
tory time for hours worked in excess of 40 hours , sir. Heinrich noted
that only iir. Ray Earls is receiving time and a half after 45 hours
since he is in a transition period .
Mayor Osterhoi t commented that there have been instances where the
staff have made decisions which either the manager or Council should
have made. He cited instances in inspection , planning and community
services . He felt citizens should be appraised of situations and
made aware of other avenues to explore . The mayor expressed the
opinion that there is inefficient use of time and perhaps the dele-.
gation of responsibility and decision making has gone too far.
The opportunity to meet with each department head was requested by
the Council .
S. Discussion of Additional Staffing Requirements .
Inspectors
Several indices were cited in support of the need for additional in-
spectors . The addition of the two personnel Mould be financed by
Permit fees . The budget when prepared inSeptemberdid not include
the additions in this area because of the economic situation at that
time.
' Special Council fleeting -4- April 30 , 1974
5 - Staffing Requirements ( Continued )
Mr . Bill Donner of Hustad Development and Hr . Don Hess of the
Preserve supported the need of good , efficient inspections as their
development requests -,-re expected to increase .
i-ir. Penzel stated that as a rapidly growing community we must de-
cide Che standards by which vie grow . He indicated he discussed this
With citizens who said they ranted a well developed community which
will result only if we have high standards , good inspections , and
sufficient personnel .
f-lrs. Meyers added that the City must protect new residents and in-
sure quality service . s
dayor Osterholt questioned the efficiency of the present employees
and was not in favor of the addition of new personnel .
i
s
Assistant Planner
K
c
The possibility of utilizing consultants was discussed as an alter-
native approach . firs . Neyers felt that a more efficient job would
be performed by a staff member who is familiar with the guide plan
and its concepts and the goals of the community. It was felt that
dollar for dollar the City would get its money ' s worth from a staff
person .
Recreational Program Supervisor
;ir . Penzel stated that the major Bleakness of the recreation program
has been the lack of providing direct service to the citizens and
program supervision . Mrs . Meyers added that someone is needed on .a
continuous basis to be responsible for working out the details of
the programs vie offer . It was thought that the school/City communi -
ty education director mould be a solution to this problem.
Mr. Jessen ' s duties and responsibilities were discussed .
Deputy Clerk
fir. Heinrich reported that a clerk t•tas needed to record Council
minutes and to handle voter registration , elections and information
desk responsibilities .
It was firs . Pauly ' s feeling that for the size of our City compared
to other communities , we are adequately staffed .
Rayor Osterholt echoed these sentiments and added that perhaps
growth can be checked by not adding personnel . He felt the present
staff should :fork more efficiently and this could be accomplished
through better administration .
sirs . Ileyers felt the size of the staff should be based on growth and
development of the community not its geographic size or population .
• Special Council fleeting -5- April 30 , 1974
5.Staffing Requirements ( Continued)
A motion was made by fir. Penzel seconded by Mrs . Pauly to authorize
the addition of one inspector and based on the demonstrated need
reconsideration of another inspector in three months . Motion car-
ried with mimes Pauly and 11•11eyers voting aye , Messrs . Penzel and
OcCuiloch voting aye; Mayor Osterholt voting nay.
Ors . Neyers and Or. Penzel requested that the consideration of a
recreational supervisor be placed on the May 14 Council and flay 6
Park and Recreation Commission agendas . This addition could then
be discussed after the school board/Council meeting i,,lay 1 .
Suzanne K. Lane, Deputy Clerk