Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 1983/11/14CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW November 14, 1983 WORKSESSION 6:30 p.m. 1. Minnesota Tax Commission Public Hearing CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:30 p.m. A G E N D A 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call Blanchard, Doty, Linke, Hankner, McCarty 3. Approval of Minutes: October 24, 1983 (Regular Meeting) 4. Residents Requests and Comments from the Floor CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 5. Approval of Consent Agenda ITEM A. Approve Resolution No. 1676 Amending Development Agreement No. 82 -52 with M E Realty ITEM B. Approve Resolution No. 1677 Approval of the Comple- tion of Development Agreement No. 78 -35 with Mounds View Development Company, Inc. ITEM C. Approve Resolution No. 1678 Authorizing Contribu- tions to the North Suburban Cable Communications Commission ITEM D. Approve Resolution No. 1679 Endorsing the Reappoint- ment of Lloyd H. Scott, Sr. to the Rice Creek Water- shed District Board of Managers ITEM E. Approve Resolution No. 1682 Authorizing Interim Wetland Alteration Permit for Roger Morgan at 7395 Knollwood Drive ITEM F. Authorize Staff to Proceed with Resolution of Long Lake Road Ditch Project Pursuant to Recommendations Contained in Staff Memorandum Dated November 3, 1983 ITEM G. Approve the Retention of Springsted, Inc. to Conduct a Cash Defeasance of the City's Improvement Bond Redemption Fund Per the Proposal Dated October 17, 1983 continued- AGENDA November 14, 1983 Page Two 5. Approval of Consent Agenda (cont.) ITEM H. Authorize the Hiring of Six 1983 -84 MEED Program Positions Pursuant to Recommendations Contained in Staff Memorandum Dated November 3, 1983 ITEM I. Approve Final Acceptance and Payment for 1983 Seal Coat Project in the Amount of $34,031.06 to Allied Blacktop Company ITEM J. Approve Final Acceptance and Payment for 1983 Water Treatment Plants 2 and 3 Modifications in the Amount of $14,828.00 to A K Construction Company ITEM K. Licenses for Approval ITEM L. Approve Resolution No. 1681 Approving Just and Correct Claims Against City Funds 6. Approval of Resolution No. 1680 Commending the Irondale Knights Girls Soccer Team as State Girls Soccer Champions 7. Consideration of Police Chief Candidates Certified by the Civil Service Commission 8. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Advertising for the Director of Public Works /Community Development Position (Material will be handed out Monday.) 9. First Reading of Ordinance No. 350 Amending Chapter 48 of the Mounds View Municipal Code Entitled, "Wetland Zoning Ordinance" 10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 351 Amending Chapter 48 of the Mounds View Municipal Code Entitled, "Wetland Zoning Ordinance" 11. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding 1984 City News- letter Rid Proposals 12. Report of Director of Public Works /Community Development 13. Report of Attorney 14. Report of Councilmernbers Blanchard, Doty, Linke, Hankner, Mayor McCarty 15. Report of Administrator 16. Adjournment CONSENT AGENDA November 14, 1983 The Consent Agenda is a technique designed to expedite handling of routine and miscellaneous official business of the City Council. The entire Agenda may be adopted by the Council in one motion. The motion for adoption is non debatable and must receive unani- mous approval. By request of any individual Councilmember, any item can be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed upon the Regular Agenda for debate. ITEM A. Adopt Resolution No. 1676 Amending Development Agree- ment No. 82 -52 with M E Realty ITEM B. Adopt Resolution No. 1677 Approval of the Completion of Development Agreement No. 78 -35 with Mounds View Develop- ment Company, Inc. ITEM C. Adopt Resolution No. 1678 Authorizing Contributions to the North Suburban Cable Communications Commission ITEM D. Adopt Resolution No. 1679 Endorsing the Reappointment of Lloyd H. Scott, Sr_. to the Rice Creek Watershed District Board of Managers ITEM E./ Adopt Resolution No. 1682 Authorizing interim Wetland Alteration Permit for Roger Morgan at 7395 Knollwood Drive ITEM F. Authorize Staff to Proceed with Resolution of Long Lake Road Ditch Project Pursuant to Recommendations Contained in Staff Memorandum Dated November 3, 1983 ITEM G. Approve the Retention of Springsted, Inc. to Conduct a Cash Defeasance of the City's Improvement Bond Redemption Fund Per. the Proposal Dated October 17, 1983 ITEM H. Authorize the Hiring of Six 1983 -84 MEED Program Posi- tions Pursuant to Recommendations Contained in Staff Memorandum Dated November 3, 1983 ITEM I. Approve Final Acceptance and Payment for 1983 Seal Coat Project in the Amount of 534,031.06 to Allied Blacktop Company ITEM J. Approve Final Acceptance and Payment for 1983 Water Treatment Plants 2 and 3 Modifications in the Amount of S14,828.00 to A K Construction Company ITEM K. Licenses for Approval General Expire 6/30/84 Dailey Homes Renewal Northern Lights Remodeling New Wayne Roger Homes Renewal -continued- CONSENT AGENDA November. 14, 1983 Page Two ITEM K. Licenses for Approval (cont.) Heating Air Conditioning Expire 6/30/84 Preferred Sheet Metal New Asphalt Expire 6/30/84 Lino Lakes Blacktop Renewal Masonry Expire 6/30/84 Buzzell Masonry, Inc. Renewal Gambling Device November 30, 1983 Mounds View Lions Club Bel -Rae Ballroom ITEM L. Adopt Resolution No. 1681 Approving Just and Correct Claims Against City Funds PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilmembers Blanchard, Doty, Linke, Hankner and Mayor McCarty. ALSO PRESENT: City Attorney Meyers, Clerk /Admini- strator Pauley and Public Works /Community Development Director Johnson. Motion /Second: Doty /Linke to approve the October 24, 1983 minutes as corrected. 5 ayes 0 nays Don Hodges, 5086 Eastwood Road, asked why the roads were not graveled and resurfaced down Long Lake Road, and particularly on the street in front of his home. He pointed out that if the cracks are not filled before winter, it will cost a lot more to repair the roads in the spring. He also pointed out that the cracks could be patched. Director Johnson explained that the City had taken the available funds and seal coated as far as the money allowed, and that the areas that weren't covered this year will hopefully be covered next year. He added that they could patch this year, but do not have the necessary equipment. He explained that the money was budgeted in the revenue sharing account for 1983 but he has been having trouble getting bids on the equipment. Clerk /Administrator Pauley stated he could place the item on the agenda for the next agenda session. Councilmember Doty asked that Items I and L be removed for discussion. DATE APPROVED: 12/12/83 Regular Meeting November 14, 1983 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Hwy. 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 The Mounds View City Council was called to order by 1. Call to Order Mayor McCarty at 7:30 PM on November 14, 1983. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: October 24, 1983. Motion Carried 4. Residents Requests and Comments from the Floor Mayor McCarty asked that Items C and E be removed 5. Approval of for discussion. Consent Agenda Mounds View City Council November 14, .1,2.3 Regular Regular Meeting Page Two Motion /Second: McCarty /Linke to approve the consent agenda, minus Items C, E, I and L, and waive the reading of the resolutions. 5 ayes 0 nays Mayor McCarty pointed out that on Item C, the fees are proposed to be taken out of the contingency fund, and he reviewed the assessment to the City, with the assessed share of the cost being due in the fall, but the City would not know what the franchise fee return would be until spring, and the fees may not be suffi- cient to cover the cost in the spring. Motion /Second: McCarty /Blanchard to table Resolution No. 1678 until such time as Staff may rework it to account for the franchise fee being payable in the spring. 5 ayes 0 nays Mayor McCarty questioned Item E, reviewing the request for a wetland alteration permit, whether the City was telling Mr. Morgan to restore the area, as specified in the proposed resolution, and then having Staff work with him to follow the guidelines of the ordinance, and then allow him to go back and do the same thing later within the confinds of the ordinance. Director Johnson explained that Mr. Morgan will clean up what has been started, but he is not being directed to return it to its original condition. Motion /Second: McCarty /Blanchard to approve Resolution No. 1682, authorizing interim wetland alteration permit for Roger Morgan at 7395 Knollwood Drive, and waive the reading of the resolution. 5 ayes 0 rays Councilmember Doty asked for a clarification of Item I. Motion /Second: Doty /Hankner to approve Item I of the consent agenda, for the final ayment to Allied Blacktop Company in the amount of $34,031.06, with the final acceptance date set as October 14, 1983. 5 ayes 0 nays Councilmember Doty questioned Check No. 012411, in the amount of $1,696.00 to Bolger Publications for the Charter Commission. Clerk /Administrator Pauley explained that the pay- ment is actually for the City Newsletter and that the incorrect reference had been listed on the print -out. Potion Carried Motion Carried Motion Carried Motion Carried Mounds View City Council November 14, 1983 Regular Meeting Page Three Motion /Second: Doty /Linke to approve Item L of the consent agenda, Resolution No. 1681, approving just and correct claims against the City funds, and correcting Check No. 012411 to read for the City Newsletter, and waive the reading of the resolution. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion /Second: Linke /Blanchard to approve Reso- Iution No. 1680, commending the Irondale Knights girls soccer team as State girls soccer champions. 5 ayes 0 nays Mayor McCarty read Resolution No. 1680, and presented it to Coach Anderson. Motion /Second: Doty /Blanchard to appoint to the position of Police Chief, Timothy Ramacher, who is an investigator for the City Police Department in Mounds View. Councilmember Blanchard aye Councilmember Doty aye Councilmember Linke aye Councilmember Hankner aye Mayor McCarty aye Discussion occurred before the vote was taken, with Councilmember Hankner reading a prepared statement, saying that she would like to state that prior to certification of the candidates to the Council, the only screening procedure was a 20 minute interview of each applicant. Because of the very limited screening process, only two members of the Council requested further interviews, tests and psychological evaluations for the purpose of selecting from among the three final candidates. Neither the Council nor the Commission as a group set any criteria for selection, and the Councilmembers have been left with setting their own individual criteria. She stated that in her opinion, none of the three candidates fully meets her criteria, and therefore, it is very difficult for her to vote for any candidate, but in considering Attorney Meyer's opinion regarding Chapter 419, she has no choice but to vote for a candidate, against her better judgement. She added that during the past week, a number of residents had spoken with her of their concerns about the process Motion Carried 6. Approval of Rslt. No. 1680 Commending the Irondale Knights Soccer Team as State Girls Soccer Champions Motion Carried 7. Consideration of Police Chief s Candidates Certified by the. Civil Service Commission Motion Carried Mounds View City Council November 14, 1983 Regular Meeting Page Four or lack thereof, and have expressed a desire to pursue legal action, and that she feels that in the future the process used should be more open and fully analyzed. She added that although she has reservations in voting in favor of a candi- date, she will support the newly appointed chief. Motion /Second: Linke /Hankner to amend the previous motion and set guidelines for the appointment of the Police Chief and have a probationary term of 12 months, with reviews given at the beginning of the fourth, seventh, and twelth months, based on a list of goals and policies set forth by the Council, to be determined at the next agenda session, on November 21, 1983. 5 ayes 0 nays Councilmember Linke suggested four policies that be included, and stated he feels there should be some type of criteria for the Police Chief, to base his accomplishments on. Mayor McCarty reviewed Chapter 419.05, which concerns the duties of the Civil Service Commission. Attorney Meyers stated that the rules of the Civil Service Commission provide for a probationary period, and read applicable sections of the code. He added that the Council may, with the approval of the Civil Service Commission, reject an appointee. He added the Council should be making evaluations during the probationary period, and if a candidate is not meeting with approval, they can certify it to the Civil Service Commission. Mayor McCarty stated he agreed to a point with Councilmember Linke's concept of the previous motion, that goals and policies should be set, in cooperation with the Civil Service Commission, but he could not vote for a list of goals and policies that the Council had not seen. Councilmember Blanchard stated she agreed, to a point, with Councilmember Linke's motion, but that specific guidelines should not be set out in a motion at this time, as the Council needs time to review them. Councilmember Hankner stated she was in favor of having goals and policies included, as they need to set forth what the Council expects of the new Police Chief, and it would be appropriate at this time, prior to taking the position, so the new Chief would know what is expected of him. Motion Carried Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting John Blackstone, 8333 Knollwood Drive stated he was not speaking for or against any candidate but rather against the process, and that to an uninformed observer, the selection process that has been used appears to be political, biased and discriminatory, and that he feels it allowed unqualified candidates and eliminated qualified candidates. He requested that the Council defer making an appoint- ment and that the Civil Service Commission review the rules and guidelines and have the entire process reopened. He added that if the Council does not defer, there is a group of Mounds View citizens who have con- sulted an attorney and are ready to take legal action. Upon questioning, Mr. Blackstone identified the group as Citizens for a Fair Selection Process for a Police Chief of Mounds View. Mayor McCarty replied that the process has taken the direction, as set forth by State law, and the Council was advised by him at the very beginning to convey their thoughts and ideas to the Civil Service Commission, for their use in the selection process. Dick Paradise, 5091 Eastwood Road, identified him- self as the chairman of the Civil Service Commission, and stated they conducted many open meetings in the Council chambers and spent many months in the selection process. He added it was a tough job, and the meetings they held were open to the public and they would have accepted their input at any time. He stated he did not feel it was very kind to have a statement such as Mr. Blackstone's made at this time. He stated he had only received one phone call from a citizen during the whole selection process, and he and the other Civil Service Commission members were available for anyone to address. Howard Nisson, 5150 Irondale Road, stated he had followed the selection process and he is very happy with the selection of Timothy Ramacher, and he stated he felt the Civil Service Commission had made the best choice possible. Don Hodges stated that during his past service to the City, he had observed the beginning of the Police Civil Service Commission, and he feels the City's Police Department is one of the best in the State. He added he felt the Civil Service Commission had done a very good job, and he also reminded people that the past Police Chief had come to the City as a machinist, and what a good job he had done as a Police Chief. Councilmember Doty stated he had voted in favor of the motion, as Mr. Ramacher had lived in the area most of his life and he has served commendably for November 14, 1983 Page Five Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting the City as his testing individual, the Council a member of the Police Department, and proved him to be a highly recommended capable of being trained in areas that feels he might need more training in. Mayor McCarty pointed out that from the very beginning, the process, as set forth by State law, was followed, and that opportunity was provided for public input, as well as that of elected officials, and that he is concerned with a negative response that does not con- sider the positive side. He stated he believes in the democratic process, where everyone has their day in court, and that he feels the City has a very good new Chief of Police. He added the Council will be getting together with the Civil Service Commission and make it work well for the City. Councilmember Linke called for the vote on the main motion, of appointing the Police Chief. Motion /Second: Linke /Hankner to call for the vote, and have a rollcall vote. 5 ayes 0 nays Clerk /Administrator Pauley reviewed the suggested advertisement for the position of Director of Public Works /Community Development. Motion /Second: Blanchard /Linke to authorize Staff to advertise for the position of Director of Public Works /Community Development. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion /Second: Linke /Hankner to have the first reading of Ordinance No. 350, amending Chapter 43 of the Municipal Code of Mounds View, entitled "Wetland Zoning Ordinance and waive the reading. Mayor McCarty expressed concern with protecting the integrity of the ordinance, as in the case of other type 2 wetlands in the City. He stated that on October 23, Staff requested Barr, Braun and the Ramsey County Soil and Water Conservation November 14, 1983 Page Six Motion Carried 8. Consideration of Staff Memo Regarding Ad- vertising for the Director of Public Works/ Community Development Pst. Carried 9. 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 350, Amending Chapter 48 of the Mounds View Municipal Code Entitled, "Wet- land Zoning Ordinance" Mounds View City Council November 14, 1983 Regular Meeting Page Seven District (RCS &WCD) to address specifically the state- ment that 1 -22 does not fully function as a wetland, and that while the City has received responses from them, none of them directly prove that 1 -22 is not a wetland. He reviewed the Barr Engineering letter of November 7, 1983, the terminology used in the response from Braun Engineering, and the .'Tact that RCS &WCD states that the area does exhibit approximately 1.1 acres of type 2 wetland habitat. He stated he does not feel the City has sufficient proof to show that 1 -22 is not a wetland. Councilmember Linke reviewed statements made in the Braun report, that to be considered a wetland would be stretching the point. Councilmember Doty stated there is no statement from the experts, stating that it is no longer a wetland, and they must determine what type of wetland it is, not its function. Councilmember Hankner stated that in the ordinance, it refers to a functioning wetland and protection of that functioning wetland and the value of the wetland, and they must decide if it is best to protect that wetland or if a proposed development would provide a better quality of life for wildlife habitat. She pointed out that the Miller proposal calls for the creation of another wetland, and they must discuss the value and function of the wetland. Mayor McCarty pointed out the intent of the ordinance is to protect the wetland, and they still do not have proof from the consultants that this is not a wetland. Councilmember Blanchard questioned if the new boundries are set whether it would reduce the size to a point where it would no longer be effected, or below the criteria for being on the wetlands map. Director Johnson replied that if it is left on the map, the boundries would be adjusted according to expert opinion, but that the size would remain the same, the area would just be redeliniated. Mayor McCarty stated he was concerned that anyone who owns a type 2 wetland could come in, based on action the Council might take on this item, so they must be careful in setting a precedent. He added they need proof positive whether or not 1 -22 is a wetland. Attorney Meyers advised that whatever criteria is used in this case must be used in future cases, and the question seems to De the word "functioning and the liberal versus strict interpretation. He advised the Council they must require definite evidence if a wet- land is no longer a wetland. Mounds View City Council November 14, 1983 Regular Meeting Page Eight Motion /Second: McCarty /Doty to amend the previous motion to table Ordinance No. 350 for an indefinite period of time, and give the developer time to bring in the necessary documentation that this is not a wetland. 3 ayes 2 nays Councilmembers Linke and Hankner voted against the motion. Councilmember Hankner reminded the Council they are under a time restriction on this development. John Miller also reminded the Council of the time line, and he reviewed Chapter 48.01, Sub. 3 A, re- garding the criteria of a functioning wetland. Mayor McCarty replied that the experts have not said it is not a functioning wetland. Mr. Miller stated he would contact his consultant. Jim Miller stated that under the same section, 48.01, Sub. 3 A, it states the City is to adopt a map designating the existing functional wetlands that are to be protected. He pointed out it does not mention anything about the type of wetland, and he read from the letter of November 2 from RCS &WCD, which clearly states there is little, if any, functioning wetland. He also pointed out the ordinance asks a question of value, referring to those that are to be protected. Mr. Miller pointed out the October 31 letter from Braun Engineering states very clearly that the area does not function as a typical wetland, and does not perform the functions of a wetland. Councilmember Hankner questioned how far the protection of a wetland goes, and pointed out there is so much garbage on the land in question, that it could not possibly function as a wetland. Jim Miller also referred to the Barr letter, stating that 1 -22 does not function as a wetland. He added that in their proposal for the entire parcel of land, they have two complete wetlands identified on the property, with one wetland alteration permit applied for. He stated they would like to replace the 1 -22 designated area and establish an area on the eastern portion of the property as a functioning wetland habitat of a larger size, with all wetland functions, and that the new wetland would be functioning on a 460 acre upland drainage area. He added they are trying to provide some type of vehicle to provide a wetland area, and they have been advised by Staff of the steps needed to be taken. Councilmember Linke suggested that instead of tabling the ordinance, have the first reading, in order to keep Motion Carried Mounds View City Coun..il Regular Meeting the process going, and then require the proof needed before the second reading. Councilmember Doty replied they would be moving on an ordinance change, and then possibly changing their minds later, which could result in legal reprocussions. Councilmember Linke pointed out the Council has done that several times in the past on other ordinances. Councilmember Blanchard stated she had voted in favor of tabling action but reminded the Council they are set to time limits. Final vote on main motion as amended: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion /Second: McCarty /Doty to table this action, 10. to coincide with Item 9 on the agenda. 2 ayes 3 nays Councilmembers Linke, Blanchard and Hankner voted against the motion. John Miller asked that the Council please move on this item. Councilmember Hankner stated it was clear in her mind what boundaries should be set, and she did not feel action should be delayed. Mayor McCarty stated he felt the two ordinances go hand in hand. Councilmember Linke pointed out the Council had originally requested that the two area, 1 -22 and 1 -23 be treated separately, and stated he concurs with the Braun delineation. Councilmember Doty stated there is nothing stating specifically where the boundries should be, just where they could be. Director Johnson reviewed a map of the proposed changes. He stated that it would supercede any previous documents in accuracy. Councilmember Doty stated that Barr Engineering gave the City a map of the wetland boundries that differs somewhat from the Braun report, and the Council November 14, 1983 Page Nine Motion Carried 1st Reading of Ord. No. 351 Amending Chapter 48 of the Mounds View Municipal Code Entitled "Wetland Zoning Ordinance" Motion Failed Mounds View City Council November 14, 1983 Regulax Meeting Page Ten could come to some type of compromise and not take the most liberal position. Councilmember Hankner questioned what criteria could be used to determine where the boundries are. Councilmember Doty replied they could take half the difference. Mayor McCarty stated the ordinance does not contemplate readjusting the boundries without certain proof, and the stated the Council should require it. Councilmember Linke stated that in 1 -23, Braun has come back with delineations, stating there was an error in the original map. He pointed out that the City hired Braun, so they should go with their recommendation. Councilmember Hankner reminded the Council that e few months ago, when they were trying to determine boundries, they decided they needed a firm other than the developers firm, so they paid $5,000 for the Braun report, and they now have information from three reports, and questioned why the Council cannot determine where the boundries are. Mayor McCarty replied that the Council's action on 'tiring a consultant was well thought out, and the money came from the SWM fund, which is paid by developers, but that the consultants have not provided the City with the information needed. Councilmember Linke pointed out that on 1 -23, the Council asked them to redelineate, according to the information they gathered in their work. He added that it is time the City accepts their redelineation, as the old one has been proven wrong three times by three different engineering firms. Councilmember Hankner stated she felt the Braun report was the most accurate, with the most facts and information. Councilmember Blanchard stated she agreed, and that the City had paid for the Braun report and they should accept it. Councilmember Doty stated they should take the different recommendations and then compromise, and suggested Mr. Miller draw the lines. Mr. Miller replied that he did not consider himself qualified. Neil Loeding stated the Council has three different expert opinions, and there is latitude. He warned the Council they might well be advised to take a more conservative interpretation, in the best interest of the City, or they would be turning the ordinance Mounds View City Council November 14, 1983 Regular Meeting Page Eleven into a scrap of paper, and cutting it to shreds. He added it has been suggested whether the Council consider if the development is in the best interest of the City, and asked what evidence there is that this would be in the best interest of the City. He added that he does not feel that what has been pro- posed is in the best interest of the ordinance. He added it should remain the way it is until the ordinance is changed. He stated that at one time it was possible for naive Council members to take the position that development was in the best interest of the City, but that only fools on the Council could automatically assume every development was in the best interest of the City. He added they should learn more about what a developer is proposing before putting a stamp of approval on wholesale gutting out of the ordinance. Councilmember Hankner replied the Council cannot take the opinion of naive residents who portray themselves as experts. She stated she has spoken to all who are involved in the reports, and the most tangible evidence is what is presented in the Braun report, and that while it might be a bit more liberal than the others, it would not compromise the ordinance. Mayor McCarty stated he would not allow emotions to get carried away and would use his gavel as necessary. Councilmember Blanchard expressed her displeasure at the character assasination from the audience. Jim Miller pointed out the Barr Engineering wetland alteration permit application clearly stated in a detailed manner what the developer plans to do, and most of the people involved understand the development they are attempting to set forth. He added that the Planning Commission and City Council had asked that a conceptual development plan on Phase II of the rest of the property be provided, which has been extensively detailed for them. Mr. Miller stated that as where the experts draw the is in concurrence with the Barr identification of the development proposal, and totally committed to ident boundries. far as the difference in lines, Barr Engineering Braun report, and the wetlands was part of the the Braun report was ifying the wetland Mr. Miller stated that there are a number of places where the ordinance is open minded enough to set the criteria with the wording "as determined by the City Council", and the ordinance gives the Council the credit they are due in understanding the concepts that are put in front of them. Mounds View City Council November 14, 1983 Regular Meeting Page Twelve Councilmember Linke stated that several times during the preceeding discussion, the development has been brought up, and pointed out that the ordinance does not contemplate a development, but rather contemplates an amendment of the wetlands zoning ordinance and map which has been shown in error. He added that the City hired a consultant to give site specific boundaries, and that because of that information, the ordinance was brought forth. He added he would prefer to have the report of the engineer hired by the City used, and he does not want to make it a practice of contradicting engineers. Mayor McCarty stated he is concerned with the preser- vation of the integrity of the ordinance, and that for 1 -22, they asked for specific statements from the consultant, which they did not receive. He added that 1 -22 and 1 -23 go hand in hand. Councilmember Doty stated that if a motion is made this evening, there is a possibility the ordinance would fail tonight also. John Miller stated again that he would like to get on with the process. Attorney Meyers advised that the first reading of the ordinance should have a 4/5 vote. John Miller replied that that was a procedural question, and he felt a majority was required for the first reading. Motion /Second: Linke /Hankner to have the first reading of Ordinance No. 351, amending Chapter 48 of the Mounds View Municipal Code entitled "Wetland Zoning Ordinance anu waive the reading of the ordinance. Councilmember Linke pointed out that all the motion was doing is accepting the delineation of Wetlands 1 -23, the delineation as given by the engineer the City hired to determine it. Councilmember Doty stated the engineer came up with the most liberal delineation, and there is some question in'taking the most liberal position on the boundaries, and they could come up with some type of compromise. Councilmember Hankner suggested looking at the Braun Mounds View City Council November 14, 1983 Regular Meeting Page Thirteen report as being the most accurate, with the most evidence supporting it. Mayor McCarty stated the City is asking for proof, which the letter from Braun did not provide, and the Council must protect the integrity of the ordinance, and should take the time to get the proof. John Miller reminded the Council he has already spent four and a half years to get to this point. He pointed out that Barr has accepted the Braun report, with Braun making the in -depth study. He stated they were told to find out exactly where the wetlands are, and that is what they did, and reminded the Council that he would like to get on with the process, and he feels very up in the air as to where he is at. He added the City has more than enough documentation to back up the change in the boundaries. He also stated that he has spent a great deal of time and money in trying to develop his property, while paying taxes on it, and stated he feels the City owes him some consideration in proceeding with the development of his property. He stated he can do nothing with the property at this rate and pointed out the City was regulating his property without compensation. Mayor McCarty replied he is well aware there were lengthy periods of time in which Mr. Miller did not come before the City, as well as the two year moritorium. He added the City has legally been regulating the property, according to State law. Motion /Second: Linke /Blanchard to call for the question on the previous motion. 5 ayes Final Vote on Main Motion: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried 1 nay Motion Carried Councilmember Doty voted against the motion. Councilmember Doty explained he voted against the motion to have the first reading of Ordinance No. 351 because with all the expert data, there is no reason to take the most liberal boundary delineation, even though it was from the consultant the City hired. Mayor McCarty stated the second reading of Ordinance No. 351 is scheduled for November 28, and he would Mounds View City Council November 14, 1983 Regular Meeting Page Fourteen like to once again look at the proof offered by the consultants, that the boundaries should be changed on the basis that certain areas were not wetlands. He stated the developer and the consultants should come forward and meet with the Council, and show that the area that has been subtracted is not wetlands, and prolide proof, along with 1 -22. Councilmember Linke asked what extent of proof would be required. Mayor McCarty replied it would be discussed with the developer and consultants. Director Johnson stated that since the second reading is schedule for November 28, they could, in the interim, schedule a meeting with Braun, Barr and RCS &WCD. Jim Miller stated that the evidence has been given by all the experts already for exactly what the ordinance asks. Councilmember Hankner stated that in looking at all the information received, the wetlands map is based on the RCS &WCD survey, and it has been pointed out over and over that it is very general in nature, and if site specifications are required, they must be obtained from specialists. She replied that the Braun report is simply taking site specific information and applying it to the property. John Miller reminded the Council that they must con- sider that when the City made the wetland map, it was done by biology students, not professionals, and a professional engineering firm is redefining it now, He stated the City should go back to Braun and ask for substantiation, which would be the proper procedure. Mayor McCarty stated they are just asking for proof. Clerk /Administrator Pauley stated that authorization would be required if any additional money is expended in asking for clarification or proof from Braun. Mayor McCarty replied that he is not willing to invest any more of the City's money, from the SWM fund, and that it is the developer's responsibility. Councilmember Linke stated he was against spending any further funds as the engineering report has come back with the delineation of 1 -23, which is exactly what the City asked for. Councilmember Hankner stated she was against spending any further money as she does not fee] the City or anyone else needs to incur the expense, as they already have enough information from the experts. Mounds View City Council November 14, 1983 Regular Meeting Page Fifteen It was agreed that the item would be placed on the agenda for the November 21 agenda session, for discussion, and that Staff should contact the consultant to find out any additional fees, and that Mr. Miller should advise if he would like a representative from Barr present. Park Director Anderson presented the Council with 11. Consideration a memo concerning the bids received for the 1984 of Staff Memo City Newsletter, and reviewed them. He explained Regarding 1984 that the low proposal was submitted by Mounds View City Newsletter Printing, 2282 County Road I, but that it is a Bid Proposals very small operation and the owner does not feel should could come up with the required 5% bid bond, as they do not have that type of capital. He explained that the City has worked with them before, and they do an excellent quality of work, and suggested that they be awarded the January /February newsletter, and if it works out well, they then be awarded the entire year, but that Sexton, which was the second low bid, be kept as a back -up in case Mounds View Printing does not work out. Mayor McCarty stated he was concerned about keeping the bid bond of Sexton. Attorney Meyers explained that once the contract is awarded, the City must release Sexton's bond. Motion /Second: McCarty /Blanchard to direct Staff to negotiate with Mounds View Printing to print the January /February City Newsletter as per the bid specs, and to retain the bid bond of Sexton until a formal contract is generated, and waive the requirement for a bid bond from Mounds View Printing. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Park Director Anderson informed the Council that this was the third year in a row the price has decreased for the printing of the City Newsletter. Clerk /Administrator Pauley added that it was due to the increased quality of readiness the City Staff has the material in, as it is photo ready. Director Johnson reviewed the memo of November 14 from Building Inspector Rose, regarding the request of Norb Yenish for a grading permit. Mayor McCarty stated he was concerned with granting a partial permit rather than the complete permits. Director Johnson explained that the building permit would approve the grading. Clerk /Administrator Pauley stated that to address the concerns, it 12. Report of Director of Public Works/ Community Dvlp. Mounds View City Council November 14, 1983 Regular Meeting Page Sixteen would be appropriate for Staff to issue a grading permit only, with the appropriate escrow, with no other permits being granted until application for a full permit was received. He added they could put the requirement in that the final permit must be applied for within a certain amount of time or the City could go in and seed and return the property to its natural state. The Council agreed that Staff could issue the grading permit and require the appropriate fees. Director Johnson stated he would be attending a water resources seminary on November 17 and 18. He reported he will be giving the Council a complete update on all projects underway, at the next agenda session. Attorney Meyers had no report. 13. Report of Attorney Councilmember Blanchard had no report. 14. Reports of Councilmembers Councilmember Doty reported he would be attending the Personnel Pension Labor Relations committee meeting on November 17. Councilmember Linke reported the Festivities Commission has voted to have the parade on the Saturday before the Festival in the Park, and tie it in with the various tournaments being held. Councilmember Linke reported the Ramsey County League meeting will be held November 16, at Robert Lee's, and the December meeting will be a banquet on December 14 at the Maplewood Holiday Inn. Councilmember Hankner had no report. Mayor McCarty reviewed the schedule of meetings for the Anoka County Airport issue, and updated the Council on what occurred at the meeting that was held at Westwood Jr. High. He explained he had made several requests for informaticn to the Met Council, and had received a letter from their Counsel, refusing to answer the questions as the City is in litigation with teem. Clerk /Administrator Pauley reported he had re- ceived a phone call from the Staff representative of the Governor's select committee on the MWCC, and he has been asked to testify before them on 15. Report of Administrator Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting Wednesday evening, November 16. Clerk /Administrator Pauley advised the Council he will be presenting them with proposals for draperies for his office at the next agenda session. Motion /Second: Linke /Doty to adjourn the meeting at 16. Adjournment 10:40 PM. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Respectfully submi ,bon d F. Paul &y Clerk dministrat November 14, 1983 Page Seventeen