Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/24/1981 Council Minutes04 November 24, 1981 The regular meeting of the Lino Lakes City Council was called to order at 8:00 P.M., November 24, 1981 by Mayor Gourley with all Council members present. Mr. Locher, Mr. Gotwald, Mr. Winner and Mr. Schumacher were also present. MINUTES - NOVEMBER 16, 1981 Mr. Kulaszewicz corrected a typo error on page three. At the beginning of page five insert "and candidate application ". Mr. McLean moved to approve as corrected. Seconded by Mr. Kulaszewicz. Motion carried with Mayor Gourley and Mr. Jaworski abstaining. On considering the minutes of November 17, o981, it was noted there was not a quorum at the meeting and these minutes are for informational pur- poses only, and cannot have an approval. DISBURSEMENTS Mr. Kulaszewicz moved to approve the disbursements as presented. Second- ed by Mr. McLean. Motion carried unanimously. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR LAKES ADD. #7 - STREETS, UTILITIES. Mr. Larry Winner, Engineer for the project, presented the plans and specifications for the installation of the utilities and streets. He noted that these specifications are not quite completed but will be finished by the end of next week. Mr. Schumacher said he had discussed this with Bond Counsel and they had advised to set a public hearing for the assessment hearing and then go to the sale of the bonds. RESOLUTION 81 -42 Mr. Jaworski moved to adopt Resolution 81 -42. Seconded by Mr. Kulaszewicz. Motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION 81 -42 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS ANS SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS. WHEREAS, pursuant to a Resolution passed by the Council on the 13th day of August, 1981, Milner Carley Engineering has prepared plans and specifications for the improvement of Reshanau Lane and Reshanau Court between the North line of Birch Street and the West line of Black Duck Drive by the installation of streets, curbs, sanitary and storm sewer, water hydrants and lines, and has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for approval: NOW THEREFORE BE IT REOSLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA: 1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby approved. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertise- November 24, 1981 r r ment for bids upon the making os such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published for 21 days, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids will be opened on the 8th day of January, 1982 at 10:00 A.M. and be considered by the Council at 8:00 P.M., on March 8, 1982, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, Lino Lakes, Minnesota, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit,cashier's check, bid bond or certified check payable to the Clerk for 5% of the amount of such bid. Passed by the Council this 24th day of November, 1981. F. Kenneth Gourley, Mayor r1 t C . QCG4� Edna L. Sarner, Clerk - Treasurer Mr. Jaworski moved to adopt Resolution 81 -44 setting the assessment hearing for January 11, 1982 at 9:00 P.M. (This Resolution will be supplied by bond counsel and inserted later.) Seconded by Mr. McLean. Motion carried unanimously. 49 CLUB SEWER PROJECT FINANCING IIIMr. Steve Mattson of Juran and Moody, Inc., presented his firms offer to purchase the bonds in the amount of $45,000.00 for a 10 year assessment period at the net effective interest rate of 10.97%. IMr. McLean stated his objections to this proposed rezoning, not as a Council member but as an adjacent property owner. Mr. McLean moved to accept the bid of Juran 6 Moody for the purchase of $45,000.00 in bonds for the financing of the 49 Club sewer project, subject to legal Counsel putting the Resolution in proper form. Seconded by Mr. Kulaszewicz. Motion carried unanimously. STREET FOR ACCEPTANCE Mr. Volk had prepared a list of new streets he recommends to be accepted for permanent maintenance. This list included Wood Duck Trail in Brian Dobie's Addition; the completed streets in West Oaks Addition; Lakes Add #2, Pheasant Run; Swenson's Addition; Shenandoah I, Arrowhead Drive; Bloom's Addition; 64th Street (LeRoux); and the compelled streets in Rohavic Oaks. Mr. McLean moved to accept the above listed streets. Seconded by Mr. Jaworski. Motion carried unanimously. PLANNING AND ZONING M. Hansen - rezone request for his home located at 6460 Otter Lake Road. Mr. Schumacher reported that this request had been considered by the Planning and Zoning Board and they had recommended denial of this request citing the spot zoning of this property. Mayor Gourley reminded Mr. Hansen that in order to rezone a public hearing W6 November 24, 1981 would need to be held and that his request could not be approved at this meeting in any case. After some discussion, Mr. Kulaszewicz moved to deny this rezone request by Mr. M. Hansen to rezone his home at 6460 Otter Lake Road from R1 to R2. Seconded by Mr. Jaworski. On a roll call vote; Mr. Kulaszewicz - Aye; Mr. Jaworski - Aye; Mr. McLean - Abstain; Mrs. Elsenpeter - Aye; Mayor Gourley Aye. Motion carried. HORORAUIUM CONSIDERATION This request was discussed briefly and the general consensus of the Council was that the method of payment and the amount of the,-, payment of other communities should be checked before a deciison on this matter. This will also include Park Board members and Cable TV Board members. AUCTION BARN REQUEST There had been an inquiry as to the requirements for the operation of an auction barn in the City and, at the present time, the City has no rules and regulations governing such an operation. Mr. McLean moved to refer this matter back to the Planning and Zoning for the writing os such a document. Seconded by Mr. Jaworski. Motion carried unanimously. A recess was called at this point in the meeting. The meeting reconvened. RESIGNATION Mr. McLean moved to accept the letter of resignation of Mr. Ben Benson as a member of the Cable Advisory Board and a letter of thanks be sent, Seconded by Mr. Kulaszewicz. Motion carried unanimously. CABLE TV STATUS REPORT Mrs. Elsenpeter reported that a consultant had been hired to assist the Voard in considering the number of companies available for supplying cable TV to the area. CLERK' s REPORT The Clerk reported that a statement for the work done in the month of October by the State Auditor had been received in the amount of $4,528.58. Mayor Gourley asked if this was the total costs and the Clerk said the statement said 'for the month of October' and since no report has been received, it can only be assumed that there will be additional costs from the month of November. Mayor Gourley asked if there had been any communications received from the State Suditor's office and the Clerk said, No. HOME RULE CHARTER A final copy d the Charter as prepared by the Charter Commission had been presented to the Clerk on this date. Copies had been made for all Council members. 107 November 24, 1981 Mayor Gourley asked if the suggested changes had been made by the Commission and Mrs. Elsenpeter said she had not seen any changes. Mr. Jaworski moved to publish the Charter in the official newspaper for two consecutive weeks as required by law. Seconded by Mrs. Elsenpeter. Motion carried unanimously. WORKING BUDGET MEETING A working budget meeting had been set for this date but due to the cancellation of the Council meeting on the 23rd and rescheduled for this date, a new date for the budget meeting should be set. After some consideration, the working budget meeting was set for December 8, 1981 at 8:00P.M. Mr. Jaworski so moved. Seconded by Mr. Kulaszewicz. Motion carried unanimously. ATTORNEY's REPORT Mr. Locher reported that he had checked the deeds for the ponding areas in Sunset Oaks and had found some problems with thb legal descriptions. Mr. McLean felt the only manner in which this can be cleared is to invite Mr. Roy Stanley to a Council meeting to discuss this matter. The Clerk was instructed to contact Mr. Stanley and asked him to attend at his convenience. EASEMENT - TOWNHOUSES 1 This matter deals with the septic systems of the twonhouses being on private property. This had been discovered when there had been a problem with one of the systems. Mr. Osheim is the property owner where the systems are located and he has agreed to sign an easement to allow the systems to remain on his property. The general consesus of the Council since this is not a transfer of land, just an easement, no Council action is needed. ASSESSOR's LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING This matter deals with the fact that thessessor's work for the year 1981 was completed in May at the end of the Board of Review hearings. She starts the 1982 work in June of 1981 but is still receiving 1981 salary through December. She plans no changes, but felt this matter should be brought before the Council at this time in order to avoid a problem in the future. After some consideration of this problem, the Council felt they needed more time to consider this matter. They asked the Clerk to supply more payroll information - to bring this matter up to date and start from scratch. This matter to be put on the December 14, 1981 agenda. RESOLUTION 81 -43 Mr. Jaworski asked to speak on this Resolution. He felt that this position of Sergeant on the Police force is necessary and it had been deleted for financial reasons several years ago. Mr. Jaworski moved to adopt Resolution 81 -43 re- establishing the position.- of Sergeant on the Police Department. November 24, 1981 Seconded by Mr. Kulaszewicz. Motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION 81 -43 RESOLUTION RE- ESTABLISHING THE POSITION OF SERGEANT FOR THE LINO LAKES POLICE DEPARTMENT. WHEREAS, in previous years the Lino Lakes Police Department functioned under the supervision of a Chief of Police and a Sergeant, and WHEREAS, in 1978 the City Council felt it necessary to abolish the Sergeant's position due to financial pressures during that time period, and WHEREAS, the 1982 City Budget has earmarked funds for the position of Sergeant and feels that such will create a more efficient and effective law enforcement department: MOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1. The Lino Lakes City Council hereby authorized the re-in- statement of the position of Sergeant and offers this opening to the officer who had previously held the position if he so desires it under the job description established by the Chief of Police. This position becomes effective January 1, 1982. 2. The Chief of Police is authorized to establish a job description for such position to include detailed job responsibilities. 3. Compensation for the position shall follow the schedule as outlined in the 1981 -82 existing labor contract. Passed by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 24th Day of November, 1981. &-)14.2LA AiVAL E na L. Sarner, Clerk - Treasurer FINAL APPROVAL OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN There was discussion on the need for a special meeting for this con- sideration. Mayor Gourley said he would like to get started on this and suggested a Special meeting be set for December 21, 1981. F. Kenneth Gourley, Mayor Mayor Gourley moved to set the meeting for December 21, 1981 at 8:00 P.M. Seconded by Mrs. Elsenpeter. Motion carried unanimously. The Clerk was instructed to publish the notice of the public hearing in all three local papers for two consecutive weeks at least 10 days before the hearing. November 24, 1981 109 OLD BUSINESS IMayor Gourley said he would like an opportumity to express his ipinion on the matter of the liquor license that had been approved at the last Council meeting for Rocky's North and to be issued to a Mr. Ernest Surman and Mrs. Linda Adams. Mayor Gourley requested that someone who voted on the approval of the license make a motion to reconsider this action. Mrs. Elsenpeter moved to reconsider the liquor license approval for Rocky's North. Seconded by Mr. Jaworski. Mayor Gourley said one of his concerns was a letter he received from Mr. Surman dated October 6, 1981. There are two paragraphs in the letter that concerned hin, the first which reads, "As you know, Rocky's had been closed since July 10, 1981. Unless I can relived Mr. Seccomber of this financial burden immediately, legal action against the City of Lino Lakes will begin by him," Mayor Gourley felt that other members of the Council had received a similar letter or perhaps a carbon copy of this letter. The nex paragraph that concerned Mayor Gourley reads; "To avoid further problems regarding the business, I would ask the Council to positively consider my application and let business continue /" Mayor Gourley said he viewed these remarks as a threat of legal action if the Council didn't take affirmative action on his liquor license application. Subsequent to that letter, Mayor Gourley received a phone call in much the same tone as the letter in that he felt that he was being harrased in that IIIhe hadn't been put on the agenda. Mayor Gourley expalined that the Police investigation reprot had not been presented to the Council and no action would be taken until that report had been received. Mr. Surman did not accept the explanation. Subsequent to the phone call from Mr. Sruman, he received a phone call from Mr. Surman's Attorney much along the sake lines of the letter and Mayor Gourley considered the phone call an intimidating phone call, threatening legal action. The Attorney demanded that Mayor Gourley call him the follow- ing day and let him know if he was to be placed on the agenda. Again, phone calls that he considered intimidating and harrasing and is not the manner in which he ( Mayor Gourley) is used to doing business. "I heard of alot of discussion in the minutes, read a lot of discussion in the minutes, some supreme court cases thrown around, and the discussion seemed to center around holding Mr. Surman responsible for the actions of the pre- vious owners of the MITRA, Inc. I guess it's not those actions that I'm mainly concerned about. I think the Council is familar, maybe not officially, but I intend to make it official now, that the Chief of Police and I attended a public hearing at the St. Paul City Council meeting. The PUblic hearing was an adversary hearing called in regards to Mr. Surman's track record of doing business in a bar called Rocky and Friends in St. Pau. While we were at that hearing, we heard testimony from the St. Paul Police Department Vice Squad of numerous arrests for public urination, public drinkness, public consumption, drugs, just generally a disorder house. Mr. Surman was the, I'm Inot sure if he was the license holder, or if he was called in in the capacity of the president of the corporation that owned Rocky's, but I think I think I just named and the complaints that the Chief and I heard while attending the public hearing are very similar to the problems we've had out at Rocky's North in Lino Lakes. It's that track record that Mr. Surman has that disturbs me along with what I consider threathening letters and phone calls from Mr. 110 November 24, 1981 Surman and his Attorney. Mr. Surman also indicates in his letter that he is acquiring 100% interest in Rocky's through an exchange of contract holdings in a resturant for full ownership of Rocky's North. I think if the Council has read the reports that they have received from the Police Department and have talked to some of the officers and if they recall some of the hearings that have been held in the past on Rocky's, this amounts to another paper chase, another shuffling of corporations to conceal the idenity of the owners of the operations. In the original report that was received, Mr. Surman and Mr. Seccombe and some other partners were involved in a corporation called 'the Sixteen Corporation', I'm not sure which corporation was involved with Rocky's in St. Paul, they shuffled some corporate paper, bought MITRA, Inc., shuffled some more corporate paper and put Mr. Seccombe in charge of that corporation - now we've shuffled some more corporate paper and put Mr. Surman in charge of the corporation. It seems to me that we're using the guise of corporate identity and shuffling of corporate identities to conceal the owners of the operation. We've known all along that Mr. Surman was involved in the previous operation and that he's been involved in at least two other operations with these people and their track record is not good. That's the purpose of the investigation that we performed under the law. Also, the Council had before it a report and a recommendation from our Chief of Police - that recommdedation was in the negative that the City should not issue the license. Now I assume that the Chief of Police was placed in that position with some measure of confidence and it's my opinion that the Council, in this instance, has placed too little confidence in Mr. Myhre's investagative efforts and his capabilities to make recommendations of this sort. It would be my opinion that the Council should accept the Chief Law Enforcement Officer's recommendation with a lot more credability than it was given when they took the action that they did at the last meeting. I realize that we cannot hold Mr. Surman responsible for the record of Rocky's North but I think there's a history that goes along with the pre- mises and if the Council members that are sitting here tonight will take a minute and reflect back on the history, we've seen that operation go from bad to worse over the past decade. In my opinion it's gonna take a lot more in the way of management that just dusting off the tables and turning on the lights to turn that operation around and make it an operation that operates in the best interest of the public. Which leads to my next point, which is the law merely requires that the Council members be convinced that the presence of the liquor establishment is not in the best interest of the public - that is all that is necessary to vote, No, on the issuance of the license. It's my belief that the issuance of this license to Mr. Surman and to the MITRA Corporation or any other corporation that Mr. Surman is connected with, is not in the best interest of the public, based on his track record that he has with previous bar operations. So when it comes right down to it, the only reason I would have to vote in favor of the issuance of this liquor license, would be the threat of a law suit. Now I guess, com- paratively, I haven't had too many large corporations come out and threaten- ing me with a law suit if I didn't do something for themi, in the City. I haven't seen too many people who are doing business within the City come to me and threaten me with legal action if I didn't give them an affir- mative vote on something. It would just seem to me that it's not a re- asonable way to do business. When you stop and consider everything I've talked about tonight and this Council knows has been going on down at 1 November 24, 1981 111 Rocky's North and this Council is well aware of what's been going on in this Surmanellsa's on the River corporation, the Sixteen Corporation and the Rocky's Bar in St. Paul, What is boils down to, the threat of a law suit is the only reason I've got to vote in favor of this liquor license. In my mind, the threat of a law suit is no in the public interest and allowing Mr. Surman to operate this bare is not in the public interest. Unless other Council members want to ake additional comments, I will call for the question on the vote again. Mr. Jaworski reminded the Council that when the license was revoked, the owners were told that the only way that place could be issued a license was that it be sold to someone who was not a member of that corporation and ti would seem that this Council is again dealing with the same corporation, with the exception of a different name on the license. Mr. Jaworski added that about a month ago Mr. Surman was turned down on his requiest for a liquor license in North St. Paul for xactly the same reasons stated by Mayor Gourley. Mr. McLean reviewed the action taken by the Council at the last meeting and assured Mayor Gourley that it felt that basically the members had no solid reason for denial. Mayor Gourley said he was aware of the fact that Mr. Locher is not com- fortable with what he is saying. I've talked to him a couple of times over the last couple of days. But for myself, I think the bottom line is that 1) the law does not require that we have any thing other than a belief that this is not in the best interest of the public to not issue the license; in my mind I'm not ready to vote in favor of this liquor license and bear the responsibility of someone's daughter being raped, or someone's child getting turned on to drugs, or someone getting knifed or shot, all of which we know has been going on at the premises - and all of which are very similar to the allegations that we heard in St. Paul and the City of St. Paul had no con- victions - they merely had a belief that the issuance of that license was not in the best interest of the public. Mr. Locher does not feel comfortable with my position, and I respect him for that, but the fact remains I will not have that operation on my conscience. So I guess what I'm saying in voting to deny, I've considered the legal opinion of our Attorney and in my mind it would be better to go to Court and have the Court issue the license than for me to sit here at this Council table and vote ti issue the license. Mr. Kulaszewicz said 'this is all well and good, and I have to concur with what you're saying as to the background of the former owneres. After listening to Mr. Surman, I had doubts in my mind about the issuance of the license and after listening to both Attorneys I did not feel the Council had documented proff for denial.' Mr. Kulaszewicz pointed out that accord - ing to Mr. Locher the Council had no legal reason to deny the license, and that if this matter goes to Court, the City could very easily loose the case. Mayor Gourley agreed and added that is what the Courts are there for. Mrs. Elsenpeter noted that since the last meeting she had discovered that the decision Mr. Rosenbower had presented had been on a very close split decision. But she felt that what the Council had ignored was that Mr. Surman himself was a part of the corporation that owned Rocky's and Friends in St. Paul and has a track record of his won and the Supreme. Court case 112 November 24, 1981 dealt with going back to the preyous owners of the bar. Mrs. Elsen- peter felt that this man was responsible for a bar in St. Paul that the Police Department didn't feel was fit to be kept open and this in itself should be reason enough for this City of have doubts. Mayor Gourley asked for a vote on the motion as presented at the last Council meeting. This would be for approval of the issuance of the license to Mr. Surman. On the roll call vote; Mr. Kulaszewicz - Aye; Mr. Jaworsk - No; Mr. McLean - Aye; Mrs. Elsenpeter - No; Mayor Gourley - No. Motion failed. Mayor Gourely moved to deny the liquor license for Mr. Surman. Seconded by Mr. Jaworski. On the roll call vote; Mr. Kulaszewicz - No; Mr. Jaworski - Yes; Mr. McLean - No; Mrs. Elsenpeter - Yes; Mayor Gourley - Yes. The motion carried and the license is denied. Mr. Jaworski moved to adjourn. Seconded by Mr. Kulaszewicz. Aye. 10:30 P.M. These minutes were considered and approved at a special meeting held on December 21, 1981. tdna L. Sarner,Clerk- Treasurer December 21, 1981 The Special Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M., December 21, 1981 by Mayor Gourley. Council members present; Elsenpeter, Kulaszewicz, McLean. Absent; None. Mr. Schumacher and Mr. Locher were also present. COUNCIL APPOINTMENT Mrs. Elsenpeter moved to appoint Mr. Donald Marier to fill the vacancy on the Council created by the resignation of Mr. Roanld Jaworski. This is to finish Mr. Jaworski's term of two years. Seconded by Mr. McLean. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTES - NOVEMBER 24, 1981 1 Mr. McLean moved to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Mr. Kulaszewicz. Motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -45 Mr. McLean moved to adopt Resolution 81 -45 authorizing the transfer of the Federal Revenue Sharing Funds. Seconded by Mr. Kulaszewicz. Mr. Schumacher requested that the figure of $43,000.00 be inserted in the space provided in the Resolution. Mr. McLean and Mr. Kulaszewicz accepted this amendment. Motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION No. 81 -45 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUNDS FOR 1981 1