Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCMin_80May28MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 28, 1980 A regular meeting of the Falcon Heights City Council was called to order by Mayor Warkentien at 7:30 p.m. Mayor Warkentien, Councilmembers Steele, Brown, Eggert and Larson. Also PRESENT present were Clerk Administrator Barnes, Attorney Galvin and Engineer Lemberg. None. Councilmember Larson moved, seconded by Councilmember Brown that the Consent Agenda be approved. Motion carried unanimously. 1. Liquor Store Payroll 5/1/80-5/15/80 $ 1,940.13 2. General Payroll 5/1/80-5/15/80 $ 5,027.75 3. Liquor Disbursements 5/13/80-5/27/80 $18,034.19 4. General Disbursements 5/15/80-5/28/80 $24,903.23 Sinking Fund $ 7,298.00 5. Citizens Advisory Committee on Cable TV Minutes of May 8, 1980 6. Citizens Advisory Committee on Cable TV Minutes of May 22, 1980 7. Rescue Reports R-02180 - R-02480 8. Fire Reports F-01880 and F-01980 9. Human Rights Commission Minutes of March 20, 1980 10. Liquor Store Financial Report, April 1980 11. Licenses: Master Gas Installer's License ~~373 Willard Krinkie The Snelling Company 1400 Concordia St. Paul, MN 55104 Master Gas Installer's License ~~374 Fred Vogt ~ Company 3260 Gorham Ave. S. St. Louis Park, MN 55426 Master Gas Installer's License 4375 Suburban Heating & Air Conditioning 2050 White Bear Ave. St. Paul, MN 55109 ABSENT CONSENT AGENDA APPROVED MINUTES REGULAR CITY MAY 28, 1980 PAGE 2 COUNCIL MEETING Master Gas Installer's License ~t376 George Sedgwick Heating S Air Conditioning 1001 Xenia Ave. S. Minneapolis, MN 55416 Master Gas Installer's License 4377 Ray N. Welter Heating Co. 4637 Chicago Ave. Minneapolis, MN 55407 General Corporate License ~f~626 - Tree_Trimming & Removal Green Leaf Tree Service, Inc. 40 Pleasant Ave. St. Paul Park, MN 55071 General Corporate X641 - Tree Trimming ~ Removal Northland Tree Service 6074 Hodgson Rd. Circle Pines, MN General Corporate X642 - Refuse Hauling Poor Richard's Inc. 400 Whitall St. Paul, MN 55101 General Corporate #636 - Fi11inQ Station Hamline-Hoyt Service 1565 N. Hamline Falcon Heights, MN 55108 General Corporate ~~644 - Restaurant Mando Photo 1790 W. Larpenteur Falcon Heights, MN 55113 General Corporate X643 Mando Photo 1790 W. Larpenteur Falcon Heights, MN 55113 General Corporate #640 - Restaurant Flameburger 1533 W. Larpenteur Falcon Heights, MN 55113 ~~ MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 28, 1980 PAGE 3 General Corporate #639 Malone Graphics, Inc. 1545 W. Larpenteur Falcon Heights, MN 55113 General Corporate 4638 Champion Auto Store ~~238 1532 W. Larpenteur Falcon Heights, MN 55113 General Corporate ~1~637 Bucks Unpainted Furniture, Inc. 1639 W. Larpenteur Falcon Heights, MN 55113 General Corporate ~~635 - Restaurant Chin's Kitchen 1644 N. Snelling Falcon Heights, MN 55108 General Corporate ~~623 Thatcher Chiropractic Clinic 1347 W. Larpenteur Falcon Heights, MN 55113 General Corporate ~~634 Warners' Stellian Co., Inc. 1711 N. Snelling Falcon Heights, MN 55113 General Corporate 4633 Keither, Inc. dba/K & K Hardware 1535 W. Larpenteur Falcon Heights, MN 55113 General Corporate 4632 Ann's Tailoring Shop 1548 W. Larpenteur Falcon Heights, MN 55113 General Corporate X6631 Karla's Hair Fashions 1547 W. Larpenteur Falcon Heights, MN 55113 :;- !.~i ~~ e:i MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING ~ MAY 28, 1980 PAGE 4 General Corporate 44630 Suburban Credit Plan, Inc. 1701 N. Snelling Falcon Heights, MN 55113 General Corporate #628 One Hour Martinizing 1407 W. Larpenteur Falcon Heights, MN 55113 General Corporate 44627 DeLange Dancers Studio 1550 W. Larpenteur Falcon Heights, MN 55113 General Corporate 41625 Wondra's Piano ~ Organ Co. 1526 W. Larpenteur Falcon Heights, MN 55113 General Corporate 41624 - Restaurant Northstar Pizza Corp./Shakey's Pizza 1552 W. Larpenteur Falcon Heights, MN Councilmember Brown moved, seconded by Councilmember Larson, that the MINUTES OF Minutes of May 14, 1980 be approved as corrected. Upon a vote being taken MAY 14, the following voted "aye": Mayor Warkentien, Councilmembers Brown and 1980 Eggert and the following voted "nay": None. Councilmembers Steele and APPROVED Larson abstained. Motion carried. Mayor Warkentien presented for Council's consideration Resolution 80-14 establishing the rate of assistance for shade tree removal on private property. Councilmember Steele moved, seconded by Councilmember Brown that the resolution be adopted. Motiion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION 80-14 RESOLUTION 80-14 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE RATE OF ASSISTANCE FOR SHADE TREE SANITATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTE 18.023 Mayor Warkentien read a letter from Vernon Kassekert, Borgstrom Pharmacy, 1 HOUR 1583 N. Hamline, and Gerald Patrick, Hamline Foods, 1579 N. Hamline re- PARKING questing that "1 hour parking" signs be installed in front of those busi- AT 1579 messes. After a short discussion Councilmember Larson moved, seconded AND 1583 by Councilmember Steele that "1 hour parking" signs be installed at N. HAMLINE MINUTES ~ ,(~ REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING `# MAY 28, 1980 PAGE 5 at 1579 N. Hamline and 1583 N. Hamline. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Warkentien read a letter from G. J. Mannering, 1865 Fairview, regarding his objections to the newspaper tubes and mail boxes on the boulevard. Clerk Administrator Barnes informed that Mr. Mannering had already been contactea regarding the newspaper tubes. Mayor Warkentien and the Clerk Administrator will contact the Post Office to inquire as to whether or not the residents on Fairview, Tatum and Lindig could have "to the door mail delivery" rather than the mail boxes at the curb. Mayor Warkentien presented to Council a request from the Falcon Heights Elementary School PTA for a donation of $500.00 for play- ground equipment. Councilmember Eggert felt that more playground equipment is needed at the school since it is used extensively by children living in that area. Councilmember Steele felt that more equipment is not necessary and since no money was budgeted for that purpose the request should be denied. Councilmember Steele moved seconded by Councilmember Larson that the request be denied. Upon a vote being taken the following voted "aye": Mayor Warkentien, Councilmembers Steele, Brown and Larson, and the following voted "nay": Councilmember Eggert. Motion carried. Councilmember Eggert presented a request from the Human Rights Commission for permission to expend $60.00 for some members of that group to attend the State Human Rights Convention. Councilmember Eggert moved, seconded by Councilmember Brown that the expenditure be authorized. Motion carried unanimously. Councilmember Eggert provided an update on the Cable TV situation. The meetings with other communities irvolved in the proposed service territory are often held on the same evening as the Falcon Heights Council, thus making it impossible for Councilpersonsfrom Falcon Heights to attend. Councilmember Eggert has suggested that the group involved discuss the possibility ~f having future Cable TV Meetings be held on a rotating basis if no onP night is convenient for all communities. If the meeting date cant. t be changed Councilmember Eggert thought perhaps one of the knowledgeable ~,ersons on the Cable TV Citizen's Advisory Committee might act as intermediary. 1 HOUR PARKING (cont.) POST OFFICE TO BE CONTACTED REGARDING MAIL BOXES ON TATUM, LINDIG, AND FARIVIEW PTA REQUEST rOR $500.00 DENIED $60.00 EXPENDI- TURE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS APPROVID CABLE TV UPDATE Mayor Warkentien informed Council that the City has received a response UNIVERSITY from the University of Minnesota regarding the placement of anew park APPROVES PROPOSE shelter in the Community Park at Roselawn and Cleveland. The University PARR SHELTER did grant permission with the following stipulations: (1) the shelter must be 100 feet from the nearest edge of the southernmost pond,(2) posts and footings must be installed in accordance with the drawing enclosed in the letter, (3) contractor must remove all debris created by construction, (4) no dumping of debris in pond area, (5) a permanent fixed trash receptacle be placed at the shelter and (6) that the University incurs no costs of any kind. No problem was found with any of the stipulations except for the plans for the footings and Council requested that Park Development Chair- person Janet Brawn present the plans to the contractor in order that he might determine whether or not the footing requirements would increase the cost above the allocated amount ($4,450.00). MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 28, 1980 PAGE 6 ~~ Councilmember Eggert moved, seconded by Councilmember Brown that Item ITEM 5g of Sg of the May 14, 1980 Agenda (authorizing Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik MAY 14 AGENDA and Associates to proceed with preliminary plans for construction of RESCINDED a new City Hall) be rescinded in order that the matter could be discussed further. Motion carried unanimously. Councilmember Eggert informed that he felt there had aot been enough discussion before expending money for preliminary plans and he thought the following three items were necessary: (a) a public statement of intent from GTA, (b) preliminary assurance from the University of Minnesota that they were willing to discuss the possibility that some land might be available, and (c) a financial feasibility study before committing funds for a project. He also stated he felt the fact that 3 Councilmembers, Clerk Administrator and Engineer toured new city halls recently designed by the City~s Engineering Firm, constituted a closedmeeting and such meetings are illegal. In response to these questions Attorney Galvin offered Council a legal opinion as follows: ''the role of the City Attorney is to answer those legal questions which are presented by the Council, occasionally there are questions which are presented by individual Council Members, but the City Attorney attempts to apply the law, as he understands it, to a particular set of facts as presented by the Council. NEW CITY HALL DISCUSSION ATTORNEY GALVIr After a brief conversation with Attorney Kenefick (who was unable to attend this meeting) I discussed the agenda with Mr. Barnes and I dis- cussed the matter briefly with Mayor Warkentien, as generally is the custom of the City Attorney before a meeting. I had no discussion with anyone else. We have referred to the two statutes that are applicable. One is the General City Statute which is contained in Chapter 412, and says that all meetings of public bodies shall be public and the second one is the statute that we have all reference to called "The Open Meeting Law". The "Open Meeting Law" was first adopted in 1957 and substantially amended in 1973. Since 1973 there have been two Supreme Court cases construiAg the Statute. Several opinions of the Attorney General deal ~~ith speci~ic factual settings _ which are presented by a body such as a school district or a city for an advisory opinion. Those are, of course, advisory only and are directed only to a specific set of facts and a specific municipality. There are also two or three, what we call unreported decisions of various District Court cases which we assemble on a repository of back ground in- formation resource material as they occur, so that we are aware of the current decisions of the courts as they apply to issues arising over public meetings. With that background I have to say that this is a developing area of law and you have to apply the provisions of the statute to each particular set of facts. There are two issues that you look at when the issue of whether or not a meeting is public or not public arises. The first is a quorum. (' U MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 28, 1980 PAGE 7 ', ~'V We have here a City Council of five and obviously 3 is a quorum. However, ATTORNEY GALVI the Attorney General, in what is described as a controversial opinion, (cont.) has said that when even two members of a City Council of five get to- gether and discuss a matter relating to City business of any substance, that constitutes a so called meeting. With that issue most municipal attorneys .(end we represent a number of agencies and cities) disagree. The second issue is deliberation. What deliberations occur when two, three, four or five councilmembers get together at a time and circum- stance which are not generally announced? Keep in mind that regularly scheduled meetings do not require any public notice. A rule of reason is applied by the courts and they look at each set of facts and each recollection of each participant and they apply a rule of reason. Basically, the issue is "are there discussions, did they deal with matters within the council's powers". If council discusses who is going to win the ball game tonight that has nothing to do with what is within the council's powers. A third test that is applied is "are they substantive matters, do they normally lead to the kinds of discussions and conclusions that result in decision making and do those discussions result in a decision that was made in a meeting which was not a public meeting which infers some re- quirement that the public have notice first. The decision making of a city council in meetings is both a subjective and objective test. Viewing the discussion we have had this evening there is a difference of opinion: (a) what occurred at the viewing of the buildings, and (b) whether there were deliberative discussions which led to a conclusion. Basically, I think, there is a difference of opinion as to what kind of information a mature city council needs in order to make a decision of this nature, and secondly what order does the decision come in. Must there be a concept of what the cost of the building would be versus what kind of information do you need as to the market for the building visavis the availability of the University to grant other properties to the Municipality, And there are points at which reasonable people's minds will differ and there will be no unity of concept. Having in mind that the purpose of the "Open Meeting Act" is to prohibit deliberative bodies - legislative bodies from making decisions without the public being privy to those discussions, not necessarily having the right to particpate in those disucussions, because each municipality handles this decision making in a different manner. There is no requirement that there be public participation or that surveys be made, but in general, each municipality approaches those decisions as they determine,based on their gollect_9f experience and judgement. Given the limited knowledge of the facts, and in the limited time available, we do not see a violation of the Minnesota Open Meeting Act. We draw on our own experience in other municipalities, our experience of advice given to other legislative and deliberative bodies. I might call to the attention of the Council, a body such as the St. Paul City Council has consistently been sending two, three and four members of its Council on fact finding missions. Committies will go, for example, MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 28, 1980 PAGE 8 i on Cable TV matters, they have visited upwards of eight or nine muni- cipalities in which they are basically fact finding missions where presumably there is not deliberative discussions or decisions made. They are merely exercising the opportunity to acquire the information necessary to make a decision. That, I think, Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council, is our judgement on the matter before you". Councilmember Larson moved, seconded by Mayor Warkentien that Council again approve the expenditure of up to $1,000.00 for the purpose of having the City Engineer prepare plans of sufficient detail so that they may be used to approach the University of Minnesota to see whether they would be able and willing to supply the City with a plot of land on a lease basis, which could be used for a City Hall. +1~ CITY HALL ATTORNEY GALVI (cont.) Councilmember Steele inquired of Engineer Lemberg if in his dealing with COUNCILMEMBER communities, this is standard practice or if there is first a financial STEELE AND feasibility study. Engineer Lemberg informed that his firm works in ENGINEER approximately 45 communities and it is now a practice that the council LEMBERG so order a preliminary lay-out of what is necessary. For example, in this case, before we can talk to anyone whether it be the University or a private property owner, you must know approximately how much land is need- ed and to determine the amount of land it is necessary to know what kind of a facility is being considered. He informed that this is a very normal procedure. From experience he has found it to be very difficult to approach a planning commission or a zoning committee, etc. unless you can show some sort of a plan. He explained that he had met with the Fire Chief, the Staff, and Public Works Staff in order to find out what the needs are. He also informed that from experience dealing with the University of Minnesota, they will not ..even. talk to you unless you have something on paper to show them. After some further discussion a vote was called. The following members voted "aye": Mayor Warkentien, Councilmembers Steele, Brown and Larson, and the following voted "nay": Councilmember Eggert. Motion carried. Mayor Warkentien stated that over the years Councilsnembers have often met in his home or homes of other Councilmembers,following meetings, to visit. He asked the Attorney if that is a private meeting. Attorney Galvin replied as follows: "The Attorney General says "yes" but we say "no" and I think the reason for that is that those are not deliberative discussions which normally lead to conclusions leading to final decisions. In other words it is our observation that there is generally an ongoing discourse between responsible members of a city council, that they are exchanging ideas on a "one to one" basis. The Attorney General suggests in his advisory opinion that two members of a city council of five discussing city business together constitutes a public meeting. No court has agreed with that judgement. That judge- ment is described as controversial and contradicted in the village hand- books and I think that is a conclusion we reached over a number of years since that particular opinion has been in circulation. I would make this suggestion, however. In the absence of any clear cut definition by statute or court decision that a rule of reason and a cautionary approach to those matters should probably be adopted. I said APPROVAL OF ABOVE MOTION MAYOR AND ATTORNEY PRIVATE MEET- ING INFORMAT- ION MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 28, 1980 PAGE 9 C earlier that I started attending these meetin s g dust about 20 years ago ATTORNEY and one or two of you were already sitting here. I think it would be GALVIN (cont.; fair to say that any legislative body should keep itself above criticism and when the rules are not clearly stated and when the courts themselves disagree, you probably should not have informal discussions at which a full quorum of three out of the five would discuss, in an orderly fashion, any municipal business. Not that it is going to be a deliberative, serious discussion leading to a conclusion, or a decision that would be outside the scope of the normal public meeting, but it is the kind of discussion over which controversy would arise at some point in the future. But there is an information gathering process where two or more members of city councils constantly attend conferences, meetings, League of Municipalities, you sit at a committee meeting, you discuss matters with other city councilmen and if there are two or three members of the City of Falcon Heights Council there or three or four of the City of Minneapolis and St. Paul, which have larger quorums, frankly that is not a public meeting. There are decisions we have received where the courts have tried to create exceptions to the "Open Meeting" Statute and the Supreme Court does not always agree. The Supreme Court held in the case of Credit River, that there was no penalty for aot giving notice of a public meeting and the action taken at the meeting, which was held not to be a public meeting, was valid because there was no penalty declaring the action taken to be invalid. I think as I said at the beginning of the meeting, that this ( is an area of developing law and we can chart general rules, we can apply the two Supreme Court cases and we can apply the Attorney General's opinion where we agree with them, to specific factual decisions and say that is "O.K."or that is a "no no". I think what you have done here, you have a basic disagreement on the process by which you gather information, and controversy is usually good because you do air those issues and you get them on the table. There might be a few ruffled feelings but that has historically been part of the democratic process. If there were not a few ruffled feelings at a Falcon Heights Meeting I'd feel I was at the wrong meeting. It is an area in which reasonable people disagree but, Willis, I don't know of any reason why you should stop your general ex- change of information and opinions but, I think that probably until the legislation is amended or clarified or the Supreme Court finally decides what really constitutes a public meeting or defines deliberative discussion it is likeCaesar's wife, one should avoid all opportunities where one could be criticized. You still have the information gathering process and if you have an energy crisis you shouldn't be sending five people out in five cars with Brad, but there should be some orderly approach. Willis, as you know it is hard to be definitive in these matters but this is one of those instances where it appears to be within the parameters of permissible conduct. Not every body will agree, obviously I disagree with the Attorney General and I have been around long enought to be able to tell him two or three times that he was wrong." Councilmember Larson, who is Planning Commission Liaison, informed COMPREHENSIVE Council that the Comprehensive Plan should be completed by July 1, as PLAN UPDATE planned. Also, a letter from Carl Dale, City Planner, outlining the need for upgrading the business district, was noted. .~ l' MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 28, 1980 PAGE 10 Councilmember Larson also reported on the Businessmens' Meeting which was held in order to get their input for the Comprehensive Plan. Clerk Administrator Barnes reported that the City of Roseville's request that Ramsey County place more traffic control at Roselawn and Cleveland, Fairview and Lydia, and Roselawn and Hamline, has been denied. Falcon Heights had also requested that Ramsey County consider 4 way stops or traffic signals at Roselawn and Hamline and the County will check into the grade on Hamline to determine if it should be changed in order to alleviate the danger to Roselawn traffic attempting to enter Hamline. , ROSELAWN- HAMLINE INTERSECTION UPDATE Clerk Administrator Barnes informed Council that Maurice Cedarholm, CEDARHOLM who was a part time liquor store employee until his termination on DISCRIMINATIOT March 27, 1980, has filed a discrimination complaint with the Minnesota CHARGE Department of Human Rights. Attorney Kenefick will prepare a letter of denial based on facts presented to him by the Clerk Administrator. Engineer Lemberg presented for viewing by all in attendance, the pre- liminary plans for the proposed new City Hall. He explained that the entire City had been canvassed for prospective building sites in order to determine which areas would be suitable. In order to determine how much area would be needed it was necessary to prepare a site plan show- ing building lay-out. Engineer Lemberg explained the plan and indicated that approximately 4 acres would be needed for such a plan. Councilmember Steele inquire~t as to an estimated cost of construction. Engineer Lemberg informed that the estimated cost of the building only, based on current prices and prices of buildings,which been recently completed, would be approximately $478,000.00. In addition to that there would be the cost of some landscaping, furnishings, and parking lot surfacing bringing the cost of $500,000.00 to $750,000.00 for the total package. Engineer Lemberg estimated that present City property might be worth $427,000.00 plus an additional $75,000.00, which G.T.A. possibly would be willing to pay for the convenience of being able to expand on the present site. PROPOSED CITY HALL PLANS VIEWED ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTIC Clerk Administrator Barnes informed Council that due to absences there JUNE 11, 1980 would not be a quorum at the next regularly scheduled meeting of June MEETING 11, 1980. After some discussion Councilmember Larson moved, seconded CANCELLID by Mayor Warkentien that the June 11, 1980 meeting be cancelled and notice of that cancellation be posted. Motion carried unanimously. Councilmember Larson moved, seconded by Councilmember Brown that the ADJOURNMENT meeting be adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. f - _. ~~~ Willis C. A. Warkentien, Mayor Attes ewan B. Barnes, Clerk Administrator Regular City Council Meeting of May 28, 1980