Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council May 22, 2006 <br />Regular Meeting Page 28 <br />. Councilmember Stigney stated the purpose of the sprinkling system is to protect the building and <br />it is a small enough building with four exits points so people can leave the building. <br />City Administrator Ulrich stated the Random Park building occupancy is at about 120 people, <br />based on the square footage available for assembly. <br />MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GUNN. To authorize staff to proceed with the installation of a <br />fire suppression system in the Random Park building and to return with costs to monitor the fire <br />suppression system. <br />Ayes - 4 Nays - 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. <br />Councilmember Gunn suggested staff be asked to look into the cost to get a gate for the park <br />entrance so it can be closed at 10 p.m. and restrict car access. <br />Councilmember Thomas asked who would be responsible for closing and locking the gate. <br />Public Works Director Lee suggested this matter be placed on the Park and Recreation <br />Commission agenda for discussion and recommendation. <br />Mayor Marty asked about the possibility of wooden entry signs. Public Works Director Lee <br />stated staff has not done additional research on that matter but if the Council so directs, it can be <br />• looked into. He advised that Clear Channel has contacted the City about coordinating with their <br />billboard sign and staff can look into that option as well. <br />Councilmember Thomas pointed out that wood was not specified and she would like staff to <br />research all options and costs. <br />C. Reports of City Attorney <br />City Attorney Alsop stated he was asked to address the issue of former Police Chief Tim <br />Ramacher's request for the City to recharacterize the payments he has received for health <br />benefits. He referenced his memorandum and stated that based on the documents, video tape, <br />and witnesses he has concluded Mr. Ramacher did not have an option. He stated the key issue is <br />whether Mr. Ramacher had an option of a lump sum payment in 1989. Based on the evidence, he <br />came to the conclusion that Mr. Ramacher did not. City Attorney Alsop stated they have talked <br />to the people involved in the process who indicated Mr. Ramacher had no option for a payout. <br />He requested Council authorization to meet with Mr. Ramacher and staff to determine how to <br />correct this issue. <br />Councilmember Stigney stated he had no knowledge of options offered and the video he viewed <br />shed nothing on this issue. He pointed out it would be administrative staff, not the former Mayor <br />who had no authority to deal with it. Councilmember Stigney asked whether he talked to the <br />former City Administrator and Assistant City Administrator. He stated the Council did not direct <br />