Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 1999/10/25 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNCIL AGENDA MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1999 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Quick, Marty, Stigney, Thomason 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council October 11, 1999 Minutes 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: A. Presentation of Resolution of Commendation to Retired Firefighter Dan Yaekel. 6. REPORTS 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Just and Correct Claims. B. Set Date for Informational Meeting on the Year 2000 Budget for Monday,November 22, 1999 at 6 p.m. C. Set Date for Council/Staff Quarterly Meeting for Thursday,November 4, 1999 at 5 p.m. D. Contractor Licenses for Approval. E. Consideration and First Reading of Ordinance No. 636 Amending Title 900,Municipal Water System, of the Mounds View Municipal Code by Amending Section 906.01, Subd. 2(B)Testing Required; Water Quality. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR A. Citizens: Before speaking must give their full name and address for the minutes. Please limit your comments to three minutes. 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS 7:15 A. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 5377, a Resolution Contemplating the Issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for an Over-sized Shed to be Located at 8270 Eastwood Road. B. Consideration of Resolution 5380, a Resolution Approving a Wetland Buffer Permit at 7638 Silver Lake Road. C. Review of Charter Commission Response to City Council Request for Consideration of Charter Amendments. D. Consideration of an Interfund Advance to the Golf Course Fund. C:\JOANB\AGENDAS\CC\10-25-99.CC Page Two City Council Agenda October 25, 1999 E. Anoka County-Blaine Airport Advisory Commission Appointees. F. Consideration of Electronic Sign Bids. G. Snowplowing Equipment. H. Pavement Survey. I. Consideration of Resolution 5381, a Resolution Authorizing the Execution of a Limited Use Agreement to Permit a Driveway to be Installed over and across Unimproved City Right of Way. 11. Next Council Work Session: Monday,November 1, 1999—6:00 P.M. Next Council Meeting: Monday,November 15, 1999--7:00 P.M. 12. ADJOURNMENT C:\JOANB\AGENDAS\CC\10-25-99.CC ID D 2200 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING 332 MINNESOTA STREET SAINT PAUL,MINNESOTA 55101 TELEPHONE(651)223-6600 BRIGGS AND MORGAN FACSIMILE(651)223-6450 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL (651) 223-6420 • WRITER'S E-MAIL September 22, 1999 Bruce Kessel Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, Minnesota 55112-1429 Dear Bruce: At the recent meeting at City Hall we discussed the 1997 definition of"tax increment" which was added to the tax increment law,particularly as it pertains to investment earnings on tax increment and on whether or not proceeds from the sale or lease of property need to be classified as tax increment. I'm enclosing a portion of a memorandum I prepared, dated July 24, 1997, summarizing tax increment changes in that year. In this regard,I'm also enclosing page 12 of materials which were prepared by the Office ofthe State Auditor addressing some of these same issues. These materials are from the manual which was passed out at the State Auditor's seminar on tax increment financing last fall. Please call if you have any follow up questions in these regards. Y s very truly, • ames P. O'Meara JPO jvs. Enclosures 1088695.1 MINNEAPOLIS OFFICE•IDS CENTER■WWW.BRIGGS.COM MEMBER-LEX MUNDI,A GLOBAL ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT LAW FIRMS Os4 AAA4-eis IX. Attempts to Avoid Violations In 1997, the TIF Act was amended by adding a definition of"tax increment." Tax increment, for example,includes interest and other earnings from investing tax increment. Minn. Stat. §469.174, subd.25. This portion of the definition,however,is effective only for TIF dis .:th certification request dates after July 31, 1979 and investment earnings received afte' my 1, 199 Laws 1997, ch. 231, art. 10, sec. 2 and 25. TIF authorities have argued that the Legis ature s decision to make the definition of tax increment apply only to interest on tax increment received after the effective date means interest received before the effective date is not tax increment. The OSA has accepted this argument. Some municipalities have attempted to avoid violations of the TIF Act by arguing that the money their TIF authorities spent allegedly in violation of the TIF Act was interest on tax increment received before the effective date of the definition. Therefore,according to the TIF authorities,they did not violate the TIF Act by spending the interest,because the interest was not tax increment,and the requirements and prohibitions in the TIF Act apply only to tax increment or kinds of money treated like tax increment,such as proceeds of tax increment bonds. The OSA will accept this argument if the municipality can demonstrate that the money its TIF authority spent in a manner not authorized or prohibited by the TIF Act was non-tax increment rather than tax increment. It may be impossible,however,for a municipality to demonstrate that its TIF authority used non-tax increment for such expenditures,because frequently TIF authorities do not have systems of accounts that will allow them to determine which kind of money was spent on which expenditures.' In addition,when a TIF authority discovers that it has violated the TIF Act because it has spent tax increment in a manner not provided in the TIF plan,it frequently will respond by amending the TIF plan to authorize the previously unauthorized expenditures.' It is the OSA's position that a TIF-plan modification cannot be effective retroactively. Example 1 Facts: In late 1984, the New Dublin HRA creates Development District 3. According to the TIF plan for TIF District 3-1,certain redevelopment activities in Development District 3 are to be funded 2 It appears that many TIF authorities have failed to set up adequate systems of accounts for their TIF districts, even though the TIF Act requires TIF authorities to segregate tax increment from each TIF district in a special account separate from all other kinds of money. Minn. Stat. § 469.177, subd. 5 (1996) (originally enacted as Minn. Stat. § 273.76, subd. 5 (1979)). ' Tax increment from a TIF district may be spent or transferred only as provided in the district's TIF plan. Minn. Stat. § 469.176, subd. 4. Legal Compliance Issues 12 2200 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING 332 MINNESOTA STREET SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 TELEPHONE (612) 223-6600 BRIGGS AND MORGAN FACSIMILE (612) 223-6450 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL • (612) 223-6420 WRITER'S E-MAIL July 24, 1997 MEMORANDUM FROM: Jim O'Meara DATE: .my 24, 1997 RE: 1997 Tax Increment Changes Governor Carlson signed the 1997 "Tax Bill" on Juni 2, 1997. It is Laws of Minnesota for 1997, Chapter 231, and its Article 10 co .t;ir,s the following tax increment changes. A. New Definition of "Tax Increment". The terms increment, tag inciwmele, t..,�;x increment revenues, revenues derived from tax increment and "other similai toms" (?) are now defined to include: (1) "Raw" tax increments, meaning the taxes generated by the captured net tax capacity which are payable to the TIF authority; (2) The proceeds from the sale or lease of any property, real or otherwise, which was purchased by the authority with tax increments; (3) The repayments of any loans or other advances made from tax increments; and (4) Interest or other investment earnings on tax increments. Thele are two effective dates for this change, and they are important. Items (1) and (4) above, dealing with "raw" increment and the investment earnings on increment, 357509.4 • • MINNEAPOLIS OFFICE. IDS CENTER•WWW.BRIGGS.COM BRIGGS AND MORGAN • are effective only for post-July 31, 1979 TIF districts and for earnings received after July 1, 1997. Where does that leave increment (arid earnings thereon) from pre-1979 districts and earnings on increments (from post-1979 districts) received before July 2, 1997? There is a difference of opinion on that question. I have generally thought that earnings on increment should be accounted as such, which means that those dollars too are subject to all the rules applicable to the expenditure of tax increment. I have not necessarily changed that view, and strictly speaking I'm not sure an inference either way should be taken from this legislative action. The key element may be whether or not the State Auditor will cite violations in cases where authorities have accounted for such investment earnings as something other than tax increments. The effective date for items (2) and (3) above, dealing with money derived from the sale or lease of property purchased with increment and repayments of loans or other advances made out of increment, is also important. My view has always been that as a general rule such monies would not be reclassified as tax increments. " This change now means that some of them will be, specifically,the proceeds from the sale or lease of property which was purchased after June 30, 1997, and repayments of loans that were made after June 30, 1997, but this applies only to increment from districts requested for certification after June 30, 1982. Note that if the property were purchased or the loan were made on or before June 30, 1997, the revenues from the sale or lease thereof, or the loan repayments, would not be classified as . increment even if the actual receipt of those monies occurred after June 30, 1997. B. "Small Cities"Get A "Commercial"Break: Economic Development Districts. Small cities can now establish economic development tax increment districts to provide assistance to up to 15,000 square feet of commercial facilities, which is a use that otherwise would not generally qualify for economic development district treatment. "Small city" means a city having a population of 5,000 or fewer residents that is not located within 10 miles of a Minnesota city with a population of 10,000.or more. The distance between the two cities must be measured by drawing a straight line from the nearest municipal boundaries. Population is to be determined by the most recent federal census,a special census conducted by the United State Bureau of the Census, a population estimate made by the Metropolitan Council, or a population estimate made by the State demographer. A second exception which may benefit a few small cities is the establishment of economic development districts for "qualified border retail facilities,"w;.,ch means a shopping center or one or more retail stores located in the small city which is within one mile or less of the State line. The development must contain new buildings or substantially rehabilitate existing buildings that together contain at least 25,000 square feet of retail space. This sounds like special legislation in the garb of general law and will most likely have relatively rare applicability. These changes are effective for tax increment areas requested for certification after June 30, 1997. 357509.1 2 A PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY,MINNESOTA Regular Meeting October 11, 1999 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 7:03 P.M. 1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Marty, Quick, Stigney and Thomason. NOT PRESENT: None. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Monday, October 11, 1999, City Council Agenda Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to add items to the agenda. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomason. To Accept the October 11, 1999, City Council Agenda as Presented. Ayes—5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Monday, September 27, 1999, City Council Minutes Council Member Stigney requested a correction to Page 10 to indicate the discussion of the motion to precede the vote tally. Mayor Coughlin asked if it was the consensus of the Council that the minutes indicate the discussion of all motions precede the vote. The Council agreed. Council Member Marty requested a correction to Page 4, fifth paragraph, first sentence, to omit the word he following"Mayor Coughlin..." Council Member Marty requested a correction to Page 7, fourth paragraph, last sentence, to indicate the correct spelling of the word forwarded. Mayor Coughlin requested corrections to Page 10 of the minutes, in indicate the correct times of recess and adjournment of the City Council and Economic Development Authority meetings. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To accept the September 27, 1999 City Council minutes as corrected. Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 2 Ayes—5 Nays—0 Motion carried. 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS A. Council and Staff Rules of Conduct. Mayor Coughlin stated the Rules of Conduct had been agreed upon during the Council and Staff Retreat, earlier in the year. Pursuant to discussion at the previous Council Work Session, staff has prepared a poster board, which indicates the Council and Staff Rules of Conduct as follows. 1. Respect and do not abuse each other. 2. Practice the Golden Rule in all of your interactions. 3. Appreciate the value of each team member. 4. Communicate the"whys" or the reasons behind comments and decisions. 5. Accept people's limitations, and be willing to learn from failure and mistakes. 6. Have realistic expectations and demonstrate patience. 7. Follow the chain of command at all levels, with the Mayor being seen as the leader of the Council, and the Administrator as the leader of the staff. This does not pertain to information for information sake only interactions. 8. Identify and prioritize issues and clearly state direction and goals desired relative to these issues. 9. Tell the"painful"truth in all interactions, and be candid. 10. Keep a sense of humor and find enjoyment in what we do in our interactions with each other,in as much as we possibly can. Mayor Coughlin executed the document, and presented it to the Council and staff for their signatures. Council Member Marty commented that Council and staff had discussed quarterly meetings in regard to the Rules of Conduct, and suggested the first of these meetings be scheduled in November. Mayor Coughlin asked the City Administrator if he had spoken with staff to determine agreeable dates for this meeting. City Administrator Whiting stated he would speak to staff the following day, however, staff would make themselves available at the convenience of the Council. Mayor Coughlin noted it was the consensus of Council and staff to hold quarterly meetings, in an attempt to divert any potential miscommunications. 6. REPORTS Council Member Quick had no report. Council Member Thomason had no report. Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 3 Council Member Marty commented regarding a recent article in the Focus Newspaper, which indicated that young people from the City of Mounds View had received third place in a national competition for a youth television program. He commented he had asked Video Producer, Patrick Toth, when this video would be broadcast, and he indicated the schedule is already being broadcast on Channel 16, and provides the time and date this program will air. He thanked Mr. Toth for his assistance in this effort, and congratulated the participants, adding that he was looking forward to watching their video. Mayor Coughlin added he also plans to watch this program. He commented that Mr. Toth was a great asset, not only to the City of Mounds View, but also to the Cable Television Network as a whole. He commended him for a job well done. Mayor Coughlin reported he had attended an Executive Board meeting of the I-35W Corridor Coalition, which was held for the preparation of their presentation of the I-35W Corridor Plan to the Metropolitan Council. He stated he had also attended the joint meeting of the I-35W Corridor Coalition and the Metropolitan Council, and extended his appreciation to Council Member Thomason, who had taken time out of her busy schedule to join him at this meeting to represent the City. Mayor Coughlin noted that eight of the nine Planning Commission members attended this meeting, as well as two of the Parks and Recreation Commissioners, and members of the Economic Development Commission. He commented that Mounds View was represented more fully than the majority of the other cities in attendance. He pointed out this was a good thing, as many times, the City has been underrepresented at these functions, and he believed they had gained some ground in this respect. He explained there was a very good presentation of the I- 35W Corridor Coalition software, which is available to Council Members and Commissioners, adding that anyone interested in obtaining this software may contact City Administrator Whiting in this regard. Mayor Coughlin stated he was a member of the Pinewood Elementary School Facilities Committee, and had been asked to assist them in their determination of how to properly spend their portion of the new school bond that was recently passed. He explained this was a group comprised of concerned parents, teachers and the school principal. He remarked this was a great group to work with, and he particularly enjoyed working with Principal, Paul Good, who invited him to speak to the teachers at their staff meeting, and he had an opportunity to address them and take their questions. He noted he would continue to work very closely with the school, as they have indicated some specific needs, and have requested his assistance in this regard. Mayor Coughlin reported Economic Development Coordinator Kevin Carroll has accepted a position as Administrator of the city of Carver. He commented he has enjoyed talking with Mr. Carroll, particularly during some of their most recent conversations. He stated Mr. Carroll is a very intelligent man, well versed on a number of topics. He pointed out he will be sorry to lose an Irishman, as their numbers are dwindling, and the City needs its Irish representation. He wished Mr. Carroll well, and extended his appreciation for his time and service with the City, adding that he will be missed. Mayor Coughlin stated he was invited to attend North Heights Lutheran Church, for the retirement of Pastor Carl Vaagenes. He remarked even in light of the fact that some of the elected officials in the State have chosen to paraphrase Karl Marx, in terms of organized religion, Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 4 it requires and deserves some note that this humble, fairly quiet man has served his church and community for 40 years, and has led his congregation unwaveringly over time. Mayor Coughlin commented he had the opportunity to attend this Church for a few years, when he was in college, and had benefited directly from Pastor Vaagenes. He stated it was good to note, as Pastor Vaagenes had indicated in his final sermon, that "we don't know everything, we can't do everything, but God can do everything, so we ask Him to do everything." Mayor Coughlin stated this was very similar to the prayer he prayed before every meeting. Council Member Stigney reported he had attended the Planning Commission meeting on October 6, where there was consideration of a variance request to allow for a garage with a one-foot setback at the property located at 2075 and 2081 Hillview Road. There was also consideration of a resolution for a Conditional Use Permit for an oversized shed at 8270 Eastwood Road, which was approved by the Commission, and will be coming forward at the October 25 City Council Meeting. He noted there was discussion and the review of options for amending the City Code to allow for driveways wider than 35 feet. Mayor Coughlin inquired if action had been taken in regard to amending the City Code. Council Member Stigney stated no action had been taken at that time. City Administrator Whiting reported he had also attended the joint meeting of the Metropolitan Council and the I-35W Corridor Coalition. He stated the software the Mayor had referred to be very worthwhile, in terms of the amount of information accessible to the community, which included pictures of City blocks and property lines. He commented the three Metropolitan Council members who were seated at his table were very impressed with this software. City Administrator Whiting extended his appreciation to Economic Development Coordinator Kevin Carroll. He stated he was very sorry to see like people leave the City, however, he was very proud to see them not only improve themselves, but enter into a profession which he personally chose a long time ago. He explained one of the advantages he has always felt in being a lead staff person was the opportunity this provided to work on issues with Councils and staff. He added Cari Schmidt, who left the City a few months prior, and Kevin Carroll will learn much in terms of this type of work, and he wished them well. City Administrator Whiting expressed his thanks to Video Producer Patrick Toth for his work on the youth video Mayor Coughlin referenced, which was one of the City's recreation programs, and explained he had noted this effort in Mr. Toth's personnel file. He commented that when awards are received, especially on a national scale, it is a source of pride for the City. City Administrator Whiting reported he had attended a meeting with the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities who met with Red McCombs that morning, adding that he felt compelled to go down, and find out what was really going on. He noted Mr. McCombs had simply wanted to discuss the new stadium proposal, however, he was personally more concerned with what would happen in the next season. City Administrator Whiting reported that residents on-line, with access to the City's Website are now able to obtain upcoming Council Meeting agendas. He explained that City was making progress in this endeavor, and approaching the day when the residents may sign up to have the agendas faxed or E-mailed to them directly. Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 5 City Attorney Riggs had no report. Council Member Thomason stated she had also attended the I-35W Corridor Coalition meeting, and extended her thanks to all the commissioners from the various commissions who had attended. She remarked there was a massive turnout at this meeting, with more representation of the City of Mounds View than any other city present. Council Member Thomason stated she had attended North Heights Lutheran Church for Pastor Carl Vaagenes' passing of the baton, after 38 years of service. She commented she could not pass up this opportunity, as Pastor Vaagenes has been her pastor for the past 20 years. She extended her appreciation to Mayor Coughlin for his attendance, and added that many members of different communities had attended this event, including Mayors and State representatives. She noted that 38 years ago, Pastor Vaagenes began with a congregation of 500 people, which now extends to over 6,800 people, and as he is a shy, introverted Norwegian, this certainly speaks to the testament of God. She expressed her deep appreciation to Pastor Vaagenes for his many years of faithful service. No further reports were considered. 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Just and Correct Claims. B. Action Moving November 8, 1999 City Council Meeting to November 15, 1999. C. Approval for Residential Dog Kennel License Renewal. D. Approval of Resolution 5378, a Resolution Authorizing Application for Livable Communities Demonstration Program. Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to remove Items for discussion. Council Member Stigney requested Item A of the Consent Agenda be removed for further discussion. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Approve the Consent Agenda for Items B, C, and D as presented. Ayes—5 Nays—0 Motion carried. Council Member Stigney noted two items listed on Page 1 of the Just and Correct Claims, which indicated two checks made payable to Michael Ulrich in the amounts of$147.87, and 131.40. He inquired regarding the nature of these expenses. City Administrator Whiting explained one of these amounts was the reimbursement of mileage to the Director of Public Works, who had utilized his personal vehicle for City business, and the other amount was the reimbursement of costs incurred during a Water Conference in Denver, Colorado. Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 6 Council Member Stigney questioned the reimbursement of mileage for City business. He noted staff vehicles were available for these purposes, and it was City policy these vehicles be utilized for City business where appropriate or applicable. He inquired why a staff vehicle had not been utilized. City Administrator Whiting explained that the number of staff vehicles have been reduced, and the Department of Public Works pickup truck is being utilized by Assistant Pittman. He stated it was his decision to allow Mr. Ulrich to utilize his personal vehicle. Council Member Stigney suggested the use of staff vehicles be revisited by the Council. Council Member Stigney noted an item listed on Page 3 of the Just and Correct Claims, which indicated a check made payable to Elegant Times Catering, Youth Chairs, and inquired regarding the nature of this expense. City Administrator Whiting stated Elegant Times Catering was the caterer for the Community Center. He was not certain what the youth chairs were utilized for, however, he would look into this matter. Council Member Stigney noted an item listed on Page 6 of the Just and Correct Claims, which indicated a check made payable to Superior Ford in the amount of $21,099.00, and inquired regarding the nature of this expense. City Administrator Whiting explained this amount was for the replacement of a water truck, which had been driven or pushed into the golf course pond by vandals. Council Member Stigney inquired regarding the disposition of the vandalized truck. City Administrator Whiting explained the damaged truck had been removed from the pond, cleaned up, and made operable. He stated this was an older City vehicle, and would be removed from inventory. Council Member Marty inquired if this vehicle was insured. City Administrator Whiting stated it was, however, the deductible was $10,000. Council Member Stigney stated it was his understanding that the vandalized truck was a golf course vehicle, and not a Public Works truck. City Administrator Whiting stated the new truck was a replacement for the damaged truck, which was orange, and most likely a Public Works Department water truck. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To approve the Consent Agenda for Item A as presented. Ayes— 5 Nays—0 Motion carried. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 7 9. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road inquired if there would be time available for the public to comment upon the proposed franchise fee increase. Mayor Coughlin explained there would be a public hearing in regard to this matter, at which time, the public could provide their input. Mr. Jahnke stated he was very pleased with the lively discussion between Mayor Coughlin and Council Member Stigney at the previous Work Session, which presented both points of view, and was handled very well. He stated he was disappointed in the comment that this was an argument. He stated everyone's opinions were very good, and he hoped the Rules of Conduct would be observed. He noted a comment during the discussion, which indicated "If you don't stop arguing, I'm out of here." He remarked he did not appreciate this comment. He reiterated, in his opinion, this was a lively discussion,presenting two good points of view. Mr. Jahnke prefaced the following comment by asking the City Administrator if he could use him as an example, adding he did not intend to criticize. He noted Mayor Coughlin has stated "If you buy good tools you will not have to buy two," and commented "If they had a good Administrator maybe they would not need a second one." Mayor Coughlin stated this comment was summarily unfair. Mr. Jahnke remarked that he had asked the City Administrator's permission, and this was just an example, however, as he sees the spending and the issues raised, there appears to be a "rubber stamp" for everything, and he did not believe the thoughts of the people were being followed. He commented that the hiring of more people, the spending, and the golf course issues, indicate to him that"there do not seem to be any `noes' any more." He stated he could understand Mayor Coughlin's point of view, and Council Member Stigney's, but would like the Council to take a look at the other sides. Mayor Coughlin stated there are many sides to every issue. Julie Olson, 2663 Lake Court Circle, stated the residents of Mounds View voted to have their City run under the processes and procedures of a "home ruled" Charter City, which indicates citizens' input and rights. She asked Council Member Thomason to provide one reason she believed the residents wanted and voted for this form of local government. Mayor Coughlin interjected that Ms. Olson was free to ask this, however, he would request she clarify her point. Mr. Olson stated as long as her three minutes prevail, she would direct her question to each Council Member. She clarified she was not requesting a response from only one individual. Council Member Thomason stated she would address this, however, she also would appreciate clarification of the question. Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 8 Ms. Olson explained she would like Council Member Thomason to state her understanding of why she believed the citizens wanted and voted for this form of local government. Council Member Thomason stated she was not around when the citizens voted for the Charter, therefore, she was unable to answer that specific portion of Ms. Olson's question. She stated, however, she was aware that a home-ruled Charter was very popular in the State of Minnesota, and that it allows for citizens to have voice. Council Member Stigney stated the reason he was a member of the Charter Commission and originally voted for the Charter was because the charter empowers the people with an alternative to the Council. He explained the charter provides that the Council does not control all the actions, and there is some recourse for the residents. Council Member Quick stated he would decline to answer, as this was not in keeping with Council rules, which indicate that all questions should be directed to the Mayor, and not put forward in the form of a"drill session"to the Council Members. Council Member Marty stated he was also a member of the Charter Commission, and he believes this indicates another form of checks and balances for the City and the citizens with the Council. He added he viewed this as a positive and necessary thing for the citizens, as long as the Charter is adhered to. Mayor Coughlin stated he would echo Council Member Thomason's comment in that he would not attempt to place himself in the minds of others and theorize on why he believed they did something. He explained this was not something he could answer. There were no further requests or comments from the floor. 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Consideration of Ordinance 641 and 643, Implementing a Franchise Fee Increase from 2.5% on Electric and Natural Gas Companies for the Operation of the Utility within the City. 1. Public Hearing on Said Ordinance. Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 7:25 p.m. City Administrator Whiting stated the discussion of these two ordinances pertains to setting a franchise fee on gas and electric utilities for the year 2000, and perhaps beyond, if the Council so desires. He explained that during the past two years, the Council has set a 2.5 fee charge on gas and electric uses, and anyone paying for gas and electric service, primarily through NSP and now, also Minnegasco, would see what amounts to a 2 percent charge on their usage. He added that five years prior to this, the franchise fee was set at 3 percent. He explained that the revenues generated from the fee have been directed to the City's General Fund. City Administrator Whiting stated that earlier in the year, as the budget discussion commenced, it was determined the City Council would review this matter in the fall, in order to facilitate the utility providers enough time to adjust their software for the billing cycle at the first of the year. Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 9 He commented that the amount of the fee had been discussed by the Council, and the determination came in response to another question which had come forward, regarding how to fund street improvements in the future. He explained the Council's reason for increasing the fee from 2.5 to 4 percent was to provide that the increase could be dedicated to a fund that would go toward future street improvements, an idea which originated from a report generated by the Streets Policies Committee. City Administrator Whiting stated the ordinance pertaining to the franchise fees sunsets each calendar year, and therefore, requires to be revisited annually. He noted this matter generally comes forward as part of the budget, and the intention of the prior City Council, by doing this in one year increments, was to eventually eliminate the charge, by reducing it one half a percent every other year. He stated each one-half percent represents $40,000 to $45,000 in revenue for the City, and the difference proposed, between 2.5 to 4 percent, amounts to approximately $125,000. He noted the next item on the agenda is a resolution, which authorizes staff to proceed with the drafting of language that would insure the additional funds would be put toward a dedicated fund for street improvements. Mayor Coughlin stated, in keeping with the City Charter, the Council has the right to set reasonable limits on input. He requested, in light of the number of people present, the audience honor the time of other audience members who wish to speak, and keep their comments brief, and further, once having spoken before the Council, allow any and all other people to speak prior to coming forward to counterpoint. He explained he would allow additional input prior to closing the public hearing, however, he would like everyone to have the opportunity to speak so that their voice can be heard. He added it was not easy for some people to speak before the Council, and requested they be extended respect, as he would like their voices to be heard as well. David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated when the franchise fees were instituted, the residents were promised this was only a temporary measure, and the fees would eventually be removed from their utility bills, however, the fee has not only continued, but is now proposed to be increased. He stated he had a problem in this regard, and inquired how the fee could be increased from 2.5 at the first reading, to 4 percent. He stated it was his understanding the first reading was a public hearing, however, he had not seen anything regarding this in the newspaper. He inquired if there was a requirement to publish notification, prior to holding the public hearing. City Administrator Whiting stated the City Code does not require a public hearing for the passage of an ordinance. He speculated the reason for this is that once an ordinance is adopted, the community has the opportunity to petition to overturn the decision. He noted that to do so would involve much work,however, this is how the rules are written. Mr. Jahnke requested clarification. Mayor Coughlin explained any ordinance passed by the Council could be challenged through the process set forth in the City Charter. Mr. Jahnke asked if it was not proper to inform the residents that the fee was proposed to increase. Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 10 Mayor Coughlin advised that the first reading of in ordinance is to provide an introduction of the ordinance to the Council and the viewing audience. He explained the reason there are two readings, is to provide the Council the opportunity to "tweak", or amend the ordinance, prior to the second reading. He added that almost every ordinance that has come before him has been finalized in a different from than its introduction. He stated this process allows the Council the opportunity to discuss the issues, and change their mind, if necessary. Julie Olson, 2663 Lake Court Circle directed her first question to the City Attorney, and inquired if there has been a substantial change to an ordinance from the first reading to the second reading, would this not constitute an amendment that would require the ordinance revert to the first reading. City Attorney Riggs requested clarification regarding which ordinance Ms. Olson was referring to. Ms. Olson stated Ordinance 641. City Attorney Riggs explained that the majority of ordinances are changed after the first reading. He stated the Charter provides for the first introduction, and 14 days thereafter, adoption of the ordinance. He added it was acceptable for the Council to draft an ordinance during its consideration. Ms. Olson inquired if there is a substantial change from the first reading to the second, would this not be considered an amendment to the ordinance, which therefore, would require a first reading. City Attorney Riggs advised that this would not be the case. He explained the Council has it within their authority to change an ordinance at their discretion. Ms. Olson inquired from what statute or code it was derived, that a substantial change from the first reading to the second does not constitute an amendment. City Attorney Riggs stated he was not aware of a"substantial change" standard that would provide for this. Ms. Olson stated there was no formal written document at the First Reading of the ordinance in September, therefore, the minutes of the meeting would substantiate as the First Reading, and this presents a substantial difference from the present Second Reading and Adoption of this ordinance. She inquired if State Statutes do not provide that this constitutes an amendment to the ordinance. Mr. Riggs stated he was not aware of any State Statute that would require this, adding that if this were the case,the charter would control the matter, not State Statutes. Ms. Olson inquired if the charter supercedes State Statutes. City Attorney Riggs stated the City of Mounds View is a Chapter 410 City, which is a charter City. He explained if there are inconsistent provisions in Chapter 412, that the City has seen fit through its electorate to change and modify in regard to the adoption of ordinances, the answer would be yes. He advised there could be no general answer, however, if this was Ms. Olson's point of reference, the answer is yes. Ms. Olson stated, under Chapter 10, Section 10.3, Franchises, the Charter indicates a public hearing is required prior to the adoption of a franchise ordinance, or any rate, fares, or prices charged by a public utility are fixed by the Council. She stated notice of such hearing should be Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 11 published at least once, in the newsletter, and in the official newspaper, not less than 10 days prior to the date of the hearing. City Attorney Riggs explained, with the understanding that the Public Utilities Commission defines what rates, fares, and prices are, this is correct. He advised, however, a franchise fee is not a rate, fare, or price under the Public Utilities Commission rules. Ms. Olson stated Section 10.5 indicates an application to renewals or extensions, and the present consideration was a renewal of the franchise fee. City Attorney Riggs stated this was correct, it was the renewal of the fee, however, this is a distinct ordinance, and not related to the existing ordinance. Ms. Olson noted this Section also references modification. City Attorney Riggs stated this was also correct, however, this relates to the franchise itself, not the franchise fee, which is a separately enacted ordinance, called for within the franchise ordinance, from which the authority for this is derived. Ms. Olson stated it was not logical to hold a public hearing on the second reading of an ordinance that is substantially changed from the first reading, which was not even in document form, and not to provide any notification to the citizens. She stated the citizens could not attend the public hearing if they are not aware of it. City Attorney Riggs stated City Administrator Whiting had answered this, in that there is no requirement for a public hearing for the general adoption of an ordinance. Ms. Olson stated she was referring to common courtesy to the citizens, in regard to an assessment being addressed to them in the form of an additional tax, and an increase rather than a decrease, for which no notification of the public hearing was provided. She stated this was the consideration of 2.5 percent as the renewal of the franchise fee, however, there was also a resolution dedicating the additional 1.5 percent to a public improvement. She questioned the separation of these two issues, and inquired under what rules or regulations this falls into place. Ms. Olson requested, prior to the adoption of this ordinance, the citizens be provided the right to review and examine the matter, and to hire an attorney to determine with absolute clarity what is considered a substantial change, rather than having to go to a formal ballot-type petition. She stated she did not believe this matter was in the best welfare of the citizens. William Warner, Sr., 2765 Sherwood Road asked Mayor Coughlin if he considered the proposed change from 2.5 to 4 percent to be a "tweaking," a word which generally connotes a minor adjustment. Mayor Coughlin stated this amount would affect his household approximately $18.00 per year, and in this context, he would say it was. Ms. Warner stated this provided him with insight into Mayor Coughlin's philosophy regarding finances. Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 12 Brian Schipe, representing Sysco Corporation, 2400 County Road J, stated their company was very pleased two years prior, when the franchise fee was decreased from 3 percent to 2.5 percent. He explained that being a very competitive marketplace, keeping costs low to their customers, and keeping on the competitive edge was very important to their company, and they were looking forward to and hoping for a 2.5 to 2 percent franchise fee. Mr. Schipe stated his company's utility bills are over one half a million dollars per year. He explained that any increase only hurts their company by increasing their operating expense, which must be adjusted by cutting back employee salaries or raising prices to their competitor, neither of which are favorable for their company, and they view this as a significant issue. Mr. Schipe stated the proposed 4 percent franchise fee represents an approximate 70 percent increase in taxes. He thought this to be absurd adding that any government agency that would increase someone's taxes 70 percent was ridiculous. He explained this might represent $18.00 to some, however, 70 percent of over a half a million dollars is a very significant amount of money. He commented that from the perspective of a company that had moved into Mounds View to conduct their business, they were very disappointed in this. Mayor Coughlin pointed out that the documents posted on the wall of Council Chambers reflected the debate of this issue, which commenced at the beginning of the budget process several months prior. He explained the Council has discussed for some time, how the City can preserve, not add on to, the existing intra-structure. He stated Mounds View is an older town, with roads and sidewalks, and some of the even the most conservative residents of the City have indicated they desired to have trails as well. He advised all of these things come with a cost. He explained that various people have commented the City streets were in a state of disrepair. He noted the Public Works Director would agree with this, as he is often spending more in staff time and money, attempting to use "spit and bail twine" to hold the intra-structure together, than if they would just begin to address some of these issues. Mayor Coughlin commented what constitutes good intra-structure could be debated, and this is a separate issue, however, the City has intra-structure that is falling apart. He explained that part of his job as a good steward of the community is to preserve that which was invested in years ago. He noted the residents have paid taxes over many years, before he was even born, to create and maintain the City roads. He stated he would not turn his back on his duty, and would look beyond his term in office, to find a way to set up a mechanism by which, through the years, they can pay for their intra-structure. He advised it was of the utmost importance, even in regard to business, that they provide a community that is nice to look at, and nice to live in. He stated both business and residents use the City roads, and they cause wear and tear, and break them down. He commented he would like to wave a wand and simply say "all roads be nice," however, there are very large areas of town, developed 30 and 40 years ago, which are in desperate need of repair. Mayor Coughlin pointed out if there was a lesson to be learned, it is that when you set out to do something new, without planning for how to pay for it, the Council is obligated to find means to cover the debts. He added this is the case with the golf course, as the previous Council did not foresee the problems that could occur. Mayor Coughlin stated, if he was to receive some of the credit for changing the City's road policy, which reduces the assessment rate on business and residents from the present 50 percent, to 25 percent, he would not bind a future Council with an unfunded mandate. He stated he did not enjoy this, and would rather cut the fee in half, Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 13 however, the State of Minnesota has set levy limits and restrictions on city government, and there must be a funding source for the roads. He explained the next road projects will be coming forward in 2 to 3 years, and either he, or a future Mayor, would be receiving a report that a road must be done, and there will be no funds available. Mayor Coughlin stated he was planning for the future. He commented this was a painful process, and he wished past Council's had considered the long term, and provided a plan to pay for the roads. He explained, however, "the buck stops here", and he would take responsibility for it. He stated it was his desire to leave a City that is in as great, or better shape, when his children are grown, and he is an old person, in one of the senior high rises. He added that whether or not you agree with this explanation, the Council has a duty to protect the investment of the citizens who have gone before, in the streets, sidewalks, trails, and intra-structure of the City. Mayor Coughlin reiterated that Mounds View is a small town, and they have not invested in the intra-structure when they should have, and when it would have been much less expensive. He reiterated that what is good in terms of road standards can be debated, however, the City can not, and he will not, ignore this issue, and pass this responsibility on to someone else. He added he was not about to sign a document to reduce assessment rates on citizens when their roads need to be redone, if the City does not have funds available to make up the difference. He explained the good faith of the City begins with the Mayor, and he intends to meet these obligations, adding that if this proposal is overturned, he will propose an 100 percent assessment rate for everyone, so they can pay for the road in front of their house. Mayor Coughlin noted a recent street project on his road, and a number of people who live there had asked him how they were going to pay $7,000 to $9,000 for assessment. He explained that many of these people live on fixed incomes and can not afford to pay this amount, even on a ten- year payment plan. He advised that he must protect the interests of these people as well. He stated these projects would cost a certain amount of money, whether they are paid for in small increments, or up front. He noted that bonds are delayed taxation, plus interest, and he advised the City could set money aside, and earn interest on it to provide there is a little more to work with when the time comes to undertake some of these projects, or there will be no funds available. Mayor Coughlin stated this matter was not optional, and must be addressed. He added if anyone could come forward with a better idea of how to generate the funds necessary to deal with these issues, he was more than willing to listen. He explained, however, the hands of the City have been tied with levy limits and the like, and the City must act now. He reiterated there are streets and roads in the City that will require attention in a few years, and that will not be the time to deal with the funding issue. State Representative Barbara Haake stated her home was located on County Road I, one of the roads that has recently been resurfaced. She commented that many people have driven down her road, and are aware of the condition it was in, and how very important it was that it was upgraded. She added this was not the only road in Mounds View in this type of condition. She stated she sat on two committees at the State House of Representatives, that relate to the present consideration, Transportation Policy and Transportation Finance, which are addressing State policy in terms of the roads;and how they will finance-them. Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 14 Representative Haake stated she had attended a meeting that date with the Metropolitan Council, in regard to the original master plan for transit. She explained there has been discussion at this level in regard to inter-modal systems, roads, light rail, commuter rails, and every aspect of transportation. She stated whatever they decide to do, they are aware it will cost money. She explained that continued maintenance of the roads is imperative, as this is how the Sysco products are brought into the City, as well as all other products that must be transported, and the roads are to the benefit of the people. Representative Haake indicated the State is considering three priorities for the year 2000, and the second of these priorities is transportation, as relates to the costs of transportation links, such as the highway system, bottlenecks, and bridges. She noted the University of Minnesota is developing sensitivity design training, which is similar to the process utilized in the Mounds View area for Spring Lake Road and County Road I. She explained these residents received the road they desired because they did not utilize MSA funding, which limits the residents' control of the roads. She explained that the new road policy in Mounds View allows the residents of a neighborhood to decide what type of road they desire for their neighborhood. She pointed out with the sensitivity training, the engineers are beginning to research new concepts in street design, and with this research they may discover that the City can obtain the roads less expensively than anticipated in the original plan, due to the sand based soils in Mounds View. Representative Haake commented she was going to be assessed approximately $4,500 for the improvement of her road, and the average street assessment would be approximately $4,200 to $4,500, which represents 50 percent. She explained the Streets Policies Committee had provided a recommendation that the road in front of a resident's property be considered the starting point and allow the resident to "buy up" if they desired, and the second recommendation was to reduce the assessment rate to 25 percent. She explained by doing this, they were aware the citizens would benefit very much, however, the City must provide the balance of the funds, and bond issues and different forms of funding were discussed in this regard. Representative Haake stated she was present during the implementation of the original franchise fee, and had looked forward to seeing it sunset, and continue to decrease, however, there are issues at the State level, in terms of the levy limits, which have been extended for another year. She noted one of the taxation Chairs has indicated the levy limits might be lifted next year, however, they were uncertain this would occur, and in the interim, neither the City or the State have the funds to proceed with street improvements. She pointed out this was the result of a "crunch" felt not only by the City, but also at the State level. She added that the intra-structure throughout the State is beginning to fail, and must be provided for. She indicated although increasing the franchise fee is not the most popular solution, she was not aware of how they would otherwise obtain the necessary funds. She inquired if the proposed ordinance would sunset. Mayor Coughlin stated it would, on an annual basis. Representative Haake stated she appreciated Ms. Olson's arguments, which were logical. She suggested that if the ordinance sunsets in a year, people will have the opportunity to indicate their feelings at that time, and in the meantime, they can salt this fund with $125,000, an amount that could be spent very quickly, when redoing the roads. She explained something must be done to provide for this, and as long as these are dedicated funds, this might be the appropriate way to proceed. Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 15 Carol Prime, President of the New Brighton/Mounds View Chamber of Commerce, stated their Chamber represented a number of small and mid-sized businesses in Mounds View. She indicated they are very concerned regarding the proposed increase in the franchise fee, however, the majority of them also recognize that the quality of the streets and the quality of life in Mounds View is very important to their success as business owners. Ms. Prime requested the Council make a sincere effort to insure that the small and mid-sized business owners receive much notice in regard to the City's future plans. She explained some of the proposed increases would be very difficult adjustment for the business owners. She explained that some of these businesses have utility bills of$4,000 to $5,000 per month, and the present proposal represents an increase of $1,000 to $1,500. She added it was important to realize that many of these businesses employ a number of people in Mounds View. She noted they will see an increase on their home utility bills, as well as their business utility bills, and this represents a difficult issue for them. Ms. Prime stated most of the businesses are concerned with ongoing tax issues, and recognize that an increase at this time might indicate an increase again next year, or that what they had expected to sunset will not, and therefore they are planning for that. She requested the Council insure that the business owners be informed of the City's plan for the future, and that they communicate this plan on a regular basis. Mayor Coughlin commented he would be attending the Chamber function with Mayor Norm Coleman on Thursday, October 14, and would have the opportunity to speak with people in regard to this subject at that time. George Weineke, 2704 NE Highway 10, complimented the Mayor and Council on their hard work in addressing these difficult issues. He stated he was a small business owner in Mounds View, and enjoyed conducting his business in the City. He stated small businesses were aware that things were apt to change, and therefore,budgeted for this. He stated he was certain the City was aware of these problems years ago, and it was difficult for him to understand why they did not make some decisions at that time. He stated this was difficult to understand. Mr. Weineke stated he required water brought onto his property, which cost $21,000, and he did not request funds from anyone for this purpose, rather, he paid for this expense from his savings. He commented his parking lot required resurfacing, and again, he paid this $6,000 expense out of his own pocket. He explained he did not request other people to pay for the services on his property, and he felt he had an obligation to pay for them himself. He added he had a problem with the assessment reduction from 50 percent to 25 percent, as he believed people should pay for what they are using. He stated there always appears to be another increase required to pay for these services, and this seems to be a never-ending problem. Mr. Weineke stated that if the current proposal goes forward he would request the funds be dedicated as indicated, and no other Council be permitted to utilize those funds for any other purpose, no matter what the emergency. He reiterated this was a difficult decision to make, and he did not envy the Council in this regard. Mr. Weineke stated he has been in the insurance business for approximately 20 years, and the fore-mentioned $10,000 deductible for the City's water truck is shocking to him. He explained Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 16 the City saves nothing in terms of the difference between a $10,000 or $1,000 deductible. He stated he would like to discuss this matter with the person who made this decision. Mr. Weineke stated he budgets, small businesses budget, and even large companies budget, however, government does not seem to be able to comprehend this concept, and he could not understand this. He remarked this builds a tremendous amount of animosity towards government. He reiterated that when the funds are set aside for street improvements, they must not be utilized for any other purpose. Mayor Coughlin stated he is also a small business owner in the Metropolitan area, and understands the concept of budgeting. He commented that when he entered into government, he had a very difficult time understanding this as well. He explained, however, government has mandates upon it, and pressures from may different directions that business does not. Mayor Coughlin explained he was going to push for language in this fund creation, which would outline exactly what these monies are to be utilized for, so that the fund can not be raided, and any other proposed use of these funds would require a vote of the people. He stated this may ultimately become the largest pool of money at the City level, and he has seen what the temptation can be, in terms of borrowing from such sources, however, that is not the purpose of this fund. He explained the purpose is to attempt to deal with the intra-structure, and if this is a true, honest, and genuine need, the funds can not be dedicated for any other purpose. He stated this was his personal goal in the discussion of this issue. Cam Obert, 8315 Greenwood Drive, inquired if anyone remembered the telephone operated water meters, or more recently, the Bel Ray, and what occurred in these situations. He stated that he could not comment on the fact that Mounds View is a home ruled Charter City, because he is not necessarily in favor of that, however, this is what the City has, and therefore, it must be abided by. Mr. Obert stated promises were made over a year ago, that things would be different, and not the way they have always been in the City. He stated the City Charter governs and tells the Council how to operate the City. He added the Clerk Administrator's job description is indicated the Charter, and his performance is rated based upon the standards set forth therein. Mr. Obert stated the residents have been told that public notification is not required for the passage of an ordinance, and if the public does not like the ordinance, they can petition to have it overturned. He explained all were aware how difficult a process this is, adding that this matter is being viewed as "another sneaky, backroom deal," due to the manner in which it has been handled. He stated he would not even comment on whether or not he is personally in favor of the proposed fee. Mayor Coughlin noted this is the purpose of the present public hearing, and he would request Mr. Obert keep his comments germane to the issue. Mr. Obert stated he believed his point was very germane, as it has already been brought forward in a citing of the Charter. He noted the City had also been "backhanded" in terms of the pedestrian bridge that did not follow through, which was an issue before the previous Council. He stated the Council owed the community, as a Charter City, at least the courtesy of public hearings without the three-minute rule, to provide for a free flow and exchange of ideas and thoughts, and the decision should be based upon this. He explained it may be this Council's legacy to raise the franchise fee and set money aside for street funds, which is very admirable, Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 17 however, the matter will always "smack" of the "Bel Ray backroom deal," or the telephone operated water meters, unless the people are provided the opportunity to have full input. Mayor Coughlin stated one of the things he sees as different with this Council, is the number of Task Forces, committees, and citizen's groups which are given the charge of examining many of the issues. He explained that good citizens have spent a fair amount of time, and this City has spent a fair amount of money over the year for facilitators and the like, to determine solutions to problems. He commented the reports are given, the Council accepts them, and the recommendations are then put on the shelf to collect dust. He explained the Streets Policies Committee was given the charge of researching the background of this issue, and to recommend a comprehensive street policy to the City Council. He noted this group was open to everyone, and in fact, extended the time it was open for citizen participation, because they desired the citizen's input. He explained the committee's recommendation has been provided to the Council, the Council has accepted it, and the matter will not collect dust. He stated they are listening to the citizens. Mayor Coughlin explained, in regard to "sneaky, backroom dealings," as even the documents on the Council Chamber walls can attest, the issues have been out in the open for months, and every single meeting was open to the public. He commented he was pleased to see Mr. Obert in attendance, adding that his testimony at a recent Planning Commission meeting indicated he was not paying much attention to City business. Mayor Coughlin stated there have been countless opportunities for information, and in fact, Council Member Quick had insisted the Council provide two public hearings to discuss the Streets Policies Committee report. He explained this report contained a recommendation to reduce the assessment rate to 25 percent, and a recommendation to create a long-term fund dedicated to the intra-structure. He stated with the exception of the committee members, no one attended those hearings. He noted the entire report was published in the Mounds View Matters, and was reported on in the newspapers, however, nobody showed up for the discussion. Mayor Coughlin stated every opportunity has been extended for comment, at every step along the way. He advised that every citizen has a responsibility to remain informed of the issues. He reiterated they had attempted to provide notification, and the hearings were published. He added it might have been done better, as they all make mistakes and can play "hindsight is 20/20," however, he would not allow the Council to be painted with the brush that they are not listening to the citizens, and are trying to "ramrod" an item through. He stated this was a difficult issue, and he would rather be at home with his family, however, this is his responsibility as a good steward of the entire community. Nadjai Warner, 2765 Sherwood Road, asked Mayor Coughlin if the proposed funds were being set aside simply to cover the costs of re-surfacing of the streets, or if these projects would involve tearing up the intra-structure. Mayor Coughlin stated this depends upon the specific project, and what it requires. He explained some roads will simply be ground up and recycled, like Spring Lake Road and County Road I. Some roads, such as County Road H-2, in light of its truck traffic, may actually have been deteriorated, in terms of the substructure. Mrs. Warner inquired who would determine if the intra-structure was to be replaced, adding that by definition, she was assuming the intra-structure involved water and sewer lines. Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 18 Mayor Coughlin stated sewer and water lines are typically buried to a depth that will not be affected. He explained that generally the intra-structure is comprised of a two-inch binder of asphalt, the first layer, and an additional layer of approximately two inches on top of that. He added, however, there is also the substructure, which is comprised of limestone and class five rock that becomes compressed over time, and may require repair. Mrs. Warner inquired if she was correct in assuming, therefore, that when the roads are re- surfaced, the citizens will not also be assessed for replacing water and sewer lines. Mayor Coughlin explained this would only be the case if absolutely necessary. He stated if there is nothing wrong with the present utilities, he would not care to replace them. He pointed out there were places in the City where these lines are fairly old, however, new technology may provide solutions to this in terms of liners which can be installed in the utility lines, and this repair process does not require that the intra-structure be disturbed. Mrs. Warner inquired in the event that extensive work is required on water or sewer lines, if the people affected will be notified. Mayor Coughlin stated they would. Mrs. Warner stated the Mayor's road is beautiful, and she was very glad that they did not make it wider, and install curbs, as this would have destroyed all of the beautiful trees. She stated there is a beautiful canopy over the road now. She commented that had they made the road wider and installed curbs, the root systems of the remaining trees would have been destroyed, and they would have died. She inquired regarding Mayor Coughlin's expense for the improvement of this road. Mayor Coughlin stated this was a County turnback road, and the County was planning to give the City the funds to make this improvement, however, decided to do this "in house." Mrs. Warner suggested Mayor Coughlin request the County to extend this largess to the senior citizens in the area. She explained they have already paid for the water and sewer assessments, not only from a frontage standpoint, but also, area wide, and there are older people within the City who are still paying of that obligation. She requested Mayor Coughlin give the matter some consideration. Mrs. Warner noted that Mayor Coughlin had not cut her comment period off after three minutes. She requested to make an additional comment. Mayor Coughlin inquired if it was germane to the issue. Mrs. Warner stated she was not aware if it was or not, however, as a citizen of a democracy, she did not believe there should be time limits when citizens speak. She explained that the Mayor should be able to determine when a citizen is going off track. She stated she has thought this ever since Mayor Coughlin instituted this policy. Mayor Coughlin explained he did not institute this longstanding policy,he simply enforces it. Mrs. Warner stated she understood. She explained she was a great believer in democracy, and has lived twice the years as Mayor Coughlin, through the triumphs and the debauches of Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 19 democracy, and they still have the First Amendment, which is freedom of speech, and she believes this is very important. John Theis, representative of Northern States Power Company (NSP), stated that his company was somewhat concerned regarding the time frame of the proposed franchise fee ordinance. He explained after the passage of the ordinance, NSP has 60 days to implement the new program into their system. He commented they do not oppose the franchise fee increase, as long as their customers understand this is not an NSP rate increase on gas or electric service, but rather a tax by the City for necessary services, collected by NSP, who will return the money to the City. Mr. Theis commented that the proposed increase represents a fairly substantial impact to commercial and residential ratepayers, and particularly to small business owners, who are attempting to stay competitive, and perceive this as a negative proposal. He explained that NSP would prefer the City wait until after the first of the year to implement the increase. He stated at this time they would have the opportunity to discuss the matter with the City Administrator and City staff, and draft an ordinance with provisions for a meter fee charge, rather than a flat fee, in light of future deregulation. Mr. Theis stated NSP feels their nuclear plants are now compliant and ready to proceed in 2000, however, the plan to increase the fee from 2.5 to 4 percent may impact this, in terms of the new programming in the system. He noted they would upgrade their computer system for gas and electric service at the end of the year, in the event something might occur, and this is somewhat of a concern as well. Planning Commissioner Brian Kaden, stated he came to speak on this as someone who originally was opposed to the Spring Lake Road street reconstruction project, and as a member of the Streets Policies Committee. He explained that one of the reasons he became a member of the Streets Policies Committee was, during the opposition of this particular road project, he became aware of the poor condition of the roads within the City, and the lack of a means to finance them in the future. He stated he desired have a part in determining how to make things better for the future. Mr. Kaden stated the Streets Policies Committee had researched many surrounding suburbs, in terms of how they financed their street projects. He advised that the assessments for the Spring Lake Road/County Road I street projects ranged between $2,500 to $8,000 per resident, and the resident who was assessed over $8,000 was Ruth White, a retired person. He noted this was the amount she would have been required to pay, had the project gone forward as originally planned. Mr. Kaden explained the city of Coon Rapids charges a flat rate of $800 per lot for street projects, and the remainder is paid for by the general taxpayers. Other cities charge between 20 and 25 percent for this purpose, and they all have other mechanisms in place to help pay for the remainder of the street construction costs. He commented that one of the best programs is that of White Bear Lake, which has a 30 million-dollar fund, of which only the interest is utilized to pay for their street reconstruction projects, thereby removing the burden of this expense from the citizens. He explained they had the foresight years ago, to set this money aside and dedicate it for that purpose, and it can not be utilized for anything else. Mr. Kaden stated he would be in favor of the proposed franchise fee increase, if this money is dedicated for street reconstruction, and can not be used for any other purpose. He explained that Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 20 Mounds View desperately needs to provide for this, if the citizens don't want to see assessments in the range of$4,000 to $8,000. He noted that many people could not afford to pay this amount. Mr. Kaden stated he will be one of the last people in the community to see any benefit from this franchise fee, as his street was completed last year, and will not be done again for 20 or 30 years. He explained that everyone else would see the benefit before that time, when the reconstruction of their roads takes place. He added that businesses generate much truck traffic, and it is only fair that everybody pays for the roads. He stated commercial properties realized a decrease in their property tax rates at the State level, and whether or not they noticed this depends upon their current property value assessment, however, this will provide some relief in relation to the proposed franchise fee increase. Mr. Kaden stated that it does not seem unreasonable to pay between $14 and $20 per year for the next 20 years, to cover the cost of road reconstruction projects, when the alternative could be an $8,000 assessment. Planning Commissioner William Laube stated he was involved in many organizations within the City. He stated one of his concerns with the current proposal was in regard to some of the key words he was hearing, such as "preserve," "protect investments," and "good faith." He stated these were good words, however, there should be an attempt to look at the overall picture. He explained that not only are attempting to preserve Mounds View as it is today, but also for the future, and instituting a high tax on the citizens will result in a city which looks like Columbia Heights, or other smaller towns who can not afford this. Mr. Laube stated he has been watching the budget discussions for the last few months, and he was highly disappointed, due to the fact that the City "rubber stamps" things. He stated they do not seriously consider where the City's money is going. He noted a good example of this is the current airport negotiation. He pointed out the City is money spending money for attorney fees, however, he has not been able to obtain a dollar amount in this regard. He explained, in his opinion, since they do not know how much money is being expended for this purpose, it is a waste of money, and would be better directed elsewhere. He stated the tremendous amount of money being expended on attorney fees was up to the sole discretion of the City, and the citizens have no say in where these funds go. He reiterated that this is very disappointing to him, and there did not appear to be any challenges to this. Mr. Laube stated his complaint in regard to the proposed franchise fee increase is the lack of notice to the citizens. He stated from his perspective, this was just another issue that was "rubber stamped" as part of the budget process, and would be enacted. Mr. Laube stated he lives on a priority street, and will have to pay 100 percent of the cost when it is done, and will not see any part of this money. He commented he did not have a problem with putting money aside for streets for the rest of the City, however, he would rather see some honest, hard work at attempting to determine where the City's money is going. He pointed out that what he has seen in the City for nine years indicates that the money is just spent, the City has an endless pocket, and the citizens can afford it. He noted a good example of this is Tax Increment Financing. He stated the citizens are bearing the tax burden in the City. He suggested they start using some of the Tax Increment Financing funds in these areas. He advised the City should not spend the money out to the budget of 2025, but direct the money where it needs to go. He stated it was difficult to watch these things occur, and the information is not forthcoming to Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 21 the residents. He stated it was very difficult to obtain information, and he felt this was very unfair for the citizens. Planning Commissioner Ordeen Braathen, stated in his personal opinion, the proposed tax increase percentage was not a problem, whatsoever. He thanked the Council for, in his opinion, being more responsible for the finances of the City, than has been seen in quite some time. He added that he believed the Council was doing a good job. Duane McCarty, previous Mayor of the City of Mounds View stated he has lived in Mounds View for 35 years and a year after he moved in, the new sanitary sewer and water system was installed, and they filled in their cesspool, and he thought this was a good deal. He explained over the 30-year assessment process, he paid $32 per year, for a total of$960. He stated he was aware the City's intra-structure was getting old. He stated he wanted the sanitary sewer system replaced when it breaks down, but he doesn't want to pay for it. He stated he wants good roads around him so the value of his home stays up with the surrounding cities. He explained his property value is computed on a cost comparison basis, and if a like home in a near City has better intra-structure, it will demand a higher price than his home. He stated he wants his home value protected, and wants good roads around him,but he doesn't want to pay for this. Ex-Mayor McCarty stated he did not like taxes or franchise fees. He explained the reason the City went to the franchise fee for this consideration, was because the Council at the time it was implemented, did not have a plan or policy in place for the use of those funds. He stated the road policy was being attacked from all fronts. He noted during the very last months of his service on the Council, they managed to appoint the Streets Policies Committee, however, the committee's work was not completed until this year. He stated, for the first time, since the City has run out of the road funds that were dedicated from the Silver Lake Woods Project in the early 1980's, they now have a plan in place, and the opportunity to fund that plan, to assist with the intra-structure and keep it healthy. He stated this would provide that the property values don't decrease, however, he doesn't want to pay for it. Ex-Mayor McCarty explained it appears to be at such cross-purposes to be calling for these services and understanding the ramifications if the intra-structures are let go, and on the one hand cry for that, and on the other hand, howl about the cost. He stated the reason the City lowered the franchise fee last year, and set up a schedule to reduce it out of existence, was because they had enough movement in the levy to absorb the costs that the franchise fee had formerly supported. He stated it was determined with careful consideration that if they were going to take the money for a program, then they should take it in the most proper and visible source, the property taxes. He stated he did not like paying property taxes, however, the matter was that simple. He explained that now that there is a road plan in place, via the Streets Policies Committee recommendations and the Council's adoption of those recommendations, they need to pay for this, or do nothing and let the intra-structure deteriorate, which would not be very wise stewardship for the future, or for themselves, and simply does not make sense. Ex-Mayor McCarty stated there was not a "cast in stone" promise that the franchise fee would eventually disappear. He explained there was a plan in place with a sunset caveat attached, that the matter would be reviewed on an annual basis, and kept at the front of the debate, so that people would be aware of what was happening, and would have the opportunity to make their wishes known. Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 22 Ex-Mayor McCarty commented, of all the arguments he has heard against the franchise fee, if it weren't for the fact that they now have a plan in place and the funds are needed, he would be standing on the other side of the issue. He stated, however, he also recognizes that these things that are demanded and seen as a definite need, are a service to the community. He noted the Council could not possibly make their decision on the basis of the 25 people who spoke to this issue that evening, and should bear in mind there are 12,758 people in the City. He stated it was his belief that they might be surprised, as he was surprised with the vote on the Bel Ray, which response was totally opposite of what he thought he had heard, and passed with a very heavy affirmative vote. He stated if this subject were to go to a referendum of the people in the City, there would be a hands down victory in favor of getting the roads fixed, and keeping the franchise fee in place. Ex-Mayor McCarty asked if the proposed increase did not represent approximately $20 per year, adding that the reduced value of his home would be much greater than this amount, if the proposal does not move forward. He remarked as a person who has disliked the franchise fee with a passion, it was not easy for him to stand before the Council and take the opposite position. He explained, however, he would make the same statement he made at the last budget, when they did away with some departments and other things that were not popular, he was going to make this decision with his calculator, and suggested the Council do the same. Mr. Weineke stated he was concerned, in light of this discussion, that there must be many other financial problems within the City that required to be addressed. He added he was concerned that things might "snowball," and the franchise fee might go from 4 percent to 5 percent, and so on. Mayor Coughlin explained that this fee could not go any higher than 4 percent. Mr. Weineke stated other fees might be implemented in the future. He inquired if there were other major financial concerns that would be coming forward in the future, adding that the residents might not be aware, and these matters should be brought to their attention. Ms. Olson noted Mayor Coughlin's comment that bonds are delayed taxation plus interest. She commented that in her understanding, bonds are not all delayed taxation, but some, such as the school bond, are additional taxation. She inquired how the 2.5 franchise fee was utilized during the past year. City Administrator Whiting stated the franchise fee, from its inception, has been directed to the City's General Fund to supplement General Fund revenues. Ms. Olson asked if there was any specific area to which the franchise fee was directed, or if this was simply additional taxation, going into the General Fund. Mayor Coughlin explained the fee was directed to the General Fund, adding that it could be called a fee or an assessment, but it is essentially, a tax. Ms. Olson inquired if there were any different plans for the 2.5 percent fee during the upcoming year, or if it would again be directed into the General Fund as an additional taxation. City Administrator Whiting explained the discussion to date indicates the amount of the franchise fee proposed to go into the General Fund is 2.5 percent, as it was for the last two years. Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 23 He explained that it is with the understanding of Council, that in keeping with the original plan, the fee was to be reduced to 2 percent this year. Council Member Marty stated he would request staff research the possibility of trimming the 2.5 percent portion of the fee as close to half, or 2 percent, as possible, and direct the balance to the street fund, rather than diverting it into the General Fund, in that it was hoped the franchise fee would go into the street fund in the future. City Administrator Whiting noted the next item on the agenda relates to how this can be determined, and the choices that follow. He explained the Council has not completed its budget deliberations, and has another two months in which to do this, and a hearing in one month. He noted they have not reviewed all of the specific details in the final budget. He explained there are several ways to proceed with this ordinance and the policy that is put into place. He envisioned at this point, the franchise fee would continue to go into the General Fund, and the Council will commit to a portion of the revenues to be dedicated to the street fund on an annual basis. City Administrator Whiting noted that based upon the discussions to date, it appears that an equivalent to 1.5 percent of what is collected on the franchise fee will be dedicated to the street fund in the form of a transfer from the General Fund. He reiterated that the franchise fee sunsets on an annual basis, and the matter will have to be revisited year after year, and this will provide the opportunity for reconsider the issues. City Administrator Whiting explained that at this time, he was not aware of the exact numbers, however, he did not believe this would represent anything similar to the 30 million dollar fund of White Bear Lake. He stated that if the franchise fee generates approximately $125,000 per year from the 1.5 percent, this fund would be viewed in terms of providing the ability to cash flow the projects, so the City does not have to borrow for this purpose. He commented this will require a substantial amount of money, however, he did not believe the franchise fee will be the only source of revenue replenishing the street fund on an ongoing basis. City Administrator Whiting noted in five or ten years there will be some money accumulated in the street fund. He explained, however, there will also be projects that draw down the cash, which will likely be replenished at a ratio of 1 to 3, as at a 25 percent assessment rate, the City will receive a quarter back for every dollar spent on a project. He added the fund will generate some interest, which will help replenish it, in addition to revenues from the franchise fee. He explained that transfers to the dedicated funds generally occur late in the year, when the City has a full assessment of the budget, and how what is affordable. He stated they would have the option of transferring unspent General Fund-budgeted monies into this fund, if so desired, find ways to reduce expenditures, or dedicating a different percentage of the fee to this fund. City Administrator Whiting explained the Council will have to decide the term of this ordinance. He stated that in the last two years, it has sunset annually, which provides that the issues can be revisited in the following year. He suspected by the end of the budget period, there would be clarification of the details of the street fund, and what it will be able to accomplish. Council Member Marty stated Director of Public Works Ulrich had indicated it costs approximately $700,000 to refinish a mile of road. He noted this is the "Cadillac" of roads, 50 feet wide, with sidewalks and gutters, etc. He explained to Mrs. Warner that when it comes time Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 24 to redo her road, the Streets Policies Committee has recommended the citizens affected on that road will meet at public hearings for their specific road, and will decide what type of street they desire. He explained if the residents decide to have the "Cadillac" of roads, they can, although they will still be required to 25 percent of its cost. He added if they decide they want to keep the beautiful trees, it will be their decision, and the City will not come in with rules or mandates. Council Member Marty noted that he and Mayor Coughlin were members of the Streets Policies Committee at its onset, and these were the discussions that were coming forward. He commented after he and Mayor Coughlin were off the committee, the Streets Policies Committee came forward with their recommendations. He stated he was very impressed with their work. He stated Mary Malerick, Chairperson of the Streets Policies Committee has indicated that the neighboring cities of New Brighton, Spring Lake Park, Blaine, Roseville, Fridley, and St. Anthony have had a tax through the operating levy, or separate funds through sewer and water or street lighting, which have been instituted and in place for some time for street replacement. He explained that until now, the City of Mounds View has not had anything in place to generate revenue to replace the streets. He stated he did not know how they had gotten this far without it, but believes it is high time that something is done. Council Member Marty stated the cities of Arden Hills and White Bear Lake have street funds of which they can only utilize the interest, and not the principal. He noted much could be done with the interest on a 30 million-dollar fund, however, Mounds View does not have anything set aside. He explained that 1.5 percent, in the form of a franchise fee, will provide approximately $125,000 a year, and for a $700,000 per mile road, this amount will not go very far. He stated this was why he was hoping to be able to apply more of the franchise fee directly toward the street fund. Council Member Marty stated he had attended the League of Minnesota Cities conference in June, along with other Council Members and members of staff. He noted this was the conference at which Council Member Stigney had won a $1,000 door prize. He stated he attended a seminar at this conference, in regard to explaining taxes to the citizens, and had questioned one of the experts teaching the seminar, in regard to Tax Increment Financing. He stated the expert indicated, with commercial and business taxes being lowered by the State in the last couple of years, cities with Tax Increment Financing situations could be in for some difficult times. He stated that some of the cities entering into new Tax Increment Financing programs are specifying this is not just based upon taxes, but the minimum payment. He explained that the City had researched a Tax Increment Financing situation this spring, in terms of minimum payments, to insure the City will not be caught short if the State continues to lower the business and commercial taxes. He noted, however, the expert speaker further indicated the only way cities can cover themselves, or possibly recoup, if the State's course of action follows true with the past couple of years, is to maintain their franchise fee. He advised this is the only means the City has to correspond with the taxes coming into the City, and if commercial and business taxes continue to be decreased, the only way to cover the operating expenses of the City is the franchise fee. Ms. Olson stated that Mounds View does not need to be concerned about this, as the majority of the City's commercial Tax Increment Financing Districts are "pay as you go" situations. She explained whether or not the actual tax capacity percentages decrease, this will not hinder or hurt the City. She stated however, there is a potential problem with the Council's desire to look at the potential of meeting the "big plan", prior to making any future Tax Increment Financing Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 25 modifications within its policy. She explained if they continue projected spending or cast it out into the future, with money they believe exists for financing the "big plan", there is a potential problem. She stated the City would not be in its present situation, if the old districts were closed out and decertified, because that tax money has nothing to do with running the City and does not go into the General Fund, rather it relates to continuing enactment for developers. Ms. Olson inquired what expenses were cut in terms of balancing the budget, or was reviewed and suggested could be cut in terms of excessive spending in any area. She stated the City Administrator was charged with determining what is needed for the upcoming year, in order to run the City, in a "perfect world" situation, and based upon this concept what was questioned in terms of potential cuts in expenses. City Administrator Whiting explained that based upon the discussion with the Council and Department heads, in terms of what they thought they needed to run their departments, the budget was simply proposed to include no new projects for the year 2000, and no capital expenditures at a rate higher than what the City has had. He stated they recognized their limitations from the Legislature, in terms of a property tax increase of less than one percent. He noted the only consideration not incorporated into the budget was the 1999 airport issue. He stated there was a projected revenue surplus of approximately $13,000, and a budget of approximately 3.7 million at first draft, without much critical review, but simply as an effort to prepare for the setting of the preliminary levy at the first meeting in September. Ms. Olson noted Mayor Coughlin's statement that the Street Policies Committees recommendations were well delivered to the citizens in the Mounds View Matters, and the newspaper. She stated, however, a committee's recommendation does not constitute policy. She stated this recommendation appeared to be a good one, and she believed, had she been on the Streets Policy Committee, and there were no funds available for the streets, she would attempt to find a means to create a fund to do this. She explained, however, this does not automatically indicate an increase of the franchise fee. She remarked that it was not apparent to the public that these recommendations became enacted as policy and there was going to be a franchise fee increase. Council Member Marty stated the Streets Committee meetings were open to the public, and their reports were submitted to the Council at open meetings as well. He pointed out they could have another"bloodletting" if the citizens don't feel there has been enough blood let yet, and they can touch upon this subject again, with the changes from the first reading. He stated he was not aware of a huge time rush, although there was a time frame for consideration. He suggested they could possibly fit this in at the next Council meeting. City Administrator Whiting stated the practical concern is being able to give the service providers due time. He explained there are 30 days from the date of publication in which the residents can contest the ordinance. He stated they could inform the utility providers that the Council has taken action, however, it will not be enacted until 30 days after the publication. He stated this would be, at the soonest, next week, and they would be looking at the third week of November before they could actually advise NSP and Minnegasco of what was going to occur. He explained they would want to put the utility providers on notice to go as possible, so there is no delay. He explained that if there is a delay, it will mean the first billing cycle implemented will be later in the year, and for every month this would represent one-twelfth of the proposed revenue that would not be attainable Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 26 Ms. Olson commented that the interpretation of franchise and franchise fee, if nothing else, enlightens the Charter Commission for their review of changes and modifications to the Charter for clarification to address franchise fee within a franchise so that there can be a public hearing and notification to the residents. She stated this was a very important thing, did not happen, was not required to happen, and was not done as a courtesy. She commented that the budget review would consist of consideration of all the issues as a whole, adding that when the issues are segmented, and considered separately, the resulting decisions may be different. Ms. Olson noted Ex-Mayor McCarty's statement that he would like to have services, however, he did not wish to pay for them, and explained, in her opinion, this did not properly reflect the attitude of the citizens of Mounds View. She stated no one was indicating they did not care about the intra-structure, however, this depends upon how the funds are taken. She stated citizens are not aware of everything that happens within the City, and probably do not have to be, as residents were voted into office because it was hoped their beliefs were similar to the beliefs of the majority of the people. She stated, however, when the issues are considered independently, and appears to be justified, this is not necessarily the case. She stated she had a difficult time believing there was nothing allocated in the City's budget for streets. Mayor Coughlin explained that reconstruction of the streets was a different issue than street maintenance. Council Member Marty added that the Director of Public Works has been attempting to do as much chip seal and patching as possible. He explained that Mr. Ulrich provided the Streets Policies Committee with a map, which indicated streets projected for work up to two years prior. He stated the Department has not had any funds to perform the work on these roads, and therefore, have been chip sealing and patching until they can come up with a plan. He stated this was the reason they were trying to proceed with this matter, and designate what they can from the franchise fee. He reiterated he would like see if a higher percentage could be allocated to the street fund. Ms. Olson stated she was aware of this. She reiterated she could not believe there were no funds allocated for this purpose, and questioned why retreats were important to the City, and why a secretary would not be sufficient, instead of an assistant to the Administrator. She remarked she would like to have these matters evaluated. Mayor Coughlin pointed out that the reason the documents were posted on the Chamber walls, was because the Council realized, early in this process, that they were going to look at the big picture and understand what the goals were, and to let the specifics follow the goals. Mrs. Warner inquired what had happened to the $1,000 door prize that Council Member Stigney had won at the League of Minnesota Cities conference. Council Member Stigney stated it has not been spent yet, and the plan was to have a luncheon or dinner for all of the commission members. Mrs. Warner suggested a dinner for all of the Charter Commission members and their wives Mrs. Warner stated the present franchise fee is 2.5 percent, and in her understanding, the entire franchise fee is going into the General Fund, and they were proposing to increase the fee to 4 percent. She inquired if they would put a portion of this into the General Fund, or if the entire 4 percent would be put into a fund specifically for streets. Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 27 City Administrator Whiting explained the money comes into the General Fund, and then is allocated to another fund, or is designated in a way still to be determined by the City Council. He stated the following agenda item, the resolution, directs staff to work with the Council to determine a way to do this, and how restrictive the Council desires to make it, in terms of whether they want to act with an ordinance, a Charter amendment, a resolution, etc. He stated there were many questions in terms of the appropriate way in which to do this, as well as the traditional means of dedicating funds to the City. Mrs. Warner stated this was not what she was interested in, but wanted to know if the entire 4 percent would go into a fund strictly designated for streets, or if they were going to do something creative with the funds, and find themselves in the same position they are in now. City Administrator Whiting explained that the language in the resolution suggests, unless the Council chooses to indicate otherwise, that anything over the 2.5 percent will be the amount that goes into the street fund. Mrs. Warner inquired what was wrong with putting the entire 4 percent into the street fund. She stated if it was not, it could just be "funny money" in the General Fund. City Administrator Whiting explained that the City does not have any "funny money." He explained that because this decision on the franchise fee must be made ahead of the final discussion, some of the questions she was asking have yet to be determined. Mrs. Warner stated the citizens of Mounds View should have some assurance of where the funds were going, and if they indicated that the entire 4 percent would go into a fund and "cast in stone"that it was for the streets, they might receive a very favorable response. Ex-Mayor McCarty stated his comment that he wanted to have services, however, he did not want to pay for them, was an attempt to point out that asking for services, and at the same time, opposing an increase in taxes simply does not work. He stated through his experience, he was aware that the proposed budget for the year 2000 is "bare bones," under State mandates, paying sales taxes on municipal purchases, and under mandates that must be funded whether necessary or not. He stated, without having seen that budget, he would wager it is "bare bones" and there are not enough funds in the General Fund budget to make the road project work. He stated the greater majority of the citizens of Mounds View want their intra-structure protected. They want their streets driveable, and the value of their homes protected, and they would embrace this plan. Ex-Mayor McCarty explained the City did have a fund in place for the streets, which expired in 1997, so if the time frame is correct, the adoption of the franchise fee this evening will provide the opportunity to make a comparison, and hold it up to the budgetary challenges. He stated that if in the future, it is determined that the total levy is not being utilized, this can be adjusted for the time being, which will not provide permanency, but will provide "breathing room," and time to allow the debate to settle out. He stated, however, to suggest that the City Council has any "float" or "humorous money" simply is not correct, and he knows this from experience. He stated he would challenge anybody who views this as a wrongful act of the Council, out of respect for the forum, to show him their alternative. Ex-Mayor McCarty stated as he left office the previous year, he did not know any of the three new Council Members,however, after seeing the debates, watching the election, and talking with Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 28 them, he made the statement that this would be the best Council the City ever had. He stated nothing has changed his mind, and this is the best Council the City has ever had. He requested the Council persevere, as there were many people behind them. He added that he was aware that this was a difficult job, and most of the people recognize this. Mr. Jahnke stated he believed the majority of people want to pay for their services, however, one of the issues is that the fee increased from 2.5 to 4 percent, which caused a problem in terms of communication, and he believed this should be looked at. He stated another issue is that the people have been told many things, which have changed. He explained that he understood that the franchise fee would go into a road fund, and he had no problem with this, however, if it goes into the General Fund, which is supposed to bail out the golf course for $200,000, that is different. He stated the people are thinking that if the golf course situation worsens, more of this fee will be directed to it. He stated these were the fears and concerns of the people. Mr. Jahnke stated he has discussed many things with Mayor Coughlin, and the Mayor has even called him and apologized for a statement he had made. He stated he really commends that type of honesty. He stated he did not think, and has been given no reason to think, that the comment regarding "backroom dealings"is appropriate. Mayor Coughlin requested Mr. Jahnke remain at the meeting for the consideration of the following resolution, which will designate the funds. He explained, in terms of communication, he has been one of the major proponents of putting every commission meeting on cable television. He explained that the only commission meeting that is not broadcast is that of the Charter Commission, and he will request, once again, they consider televising their meetings, as this is the citizens' Charter. Mr. Obert stated once again, it appeared that the audience misunderstood his comments. He explained he did not accuse anybody of conducting "backroom dealings" nor did he do this in regard to the Bel Ray issue, or the telephone operated water meters. He explained he was simply attempting to communicate that this was the perception this issue conveyed. He stated his major concern with this proposal is this perception. He stated he had not read the Streets Policies Committee report, which was indicated to state that the assessment was reduced to 25 percent, with an outside funding source to pick up the balance. He inquired if the report had indicated a 1.5- percent increase in the franchise fee. He explained that this represented the communication problem. He stated this matter had been rushed along, with consideration that date, and then enactment. He stated there was a difference between a street commission's recommendation and discussion, and the enactment that was being proposed that date. He stated through the years, one of his frustrations has been in regard to the difficulty in getting word out to the community. He stated there must be better notification, and as a Charter City,the citizens' input is necessary. Mr. Obert stated he was aware that the Council was honorable, and had not conducted a "backroom deal" however, there are citizens who are still angry regarding previous actions because of the way in which they were handled. He reiterated there were no "backroom deals," and he was not accusing anyone of this, however, this was the perception. He requested they try something different and attempt to get the people more involved. Council Member Marty explained the Streets Policies Committee has been before the Council a number of times, and has been before the Work Session, both of which are televised. He stated the Streets Policies Committee never requested or projected the raising of the franchise fee. He Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 29 stated this has come up in Council Work Session discussions a number of times, and those who care enough to view these meetings are aware that this is not a new subject. He stated the present consideration is an attempt to clarify the details, and spell out exactly where the funds will originate, and exactly what they are to be spent on, which are the streets. He noted the only discussions he has had in this regard have been in the Council Chambers, and he does not know where the "backroom dealings"perception might have originated. Council Member Thomason stated the documents on the Chamber walls, which have been posted for approximately 3 months, indicate under Council Expectations, Number 2, Franchise Fee, with an arrow pointing upward at government funds and street funds. She stated this document was created at a meeting with facilitator Carl Neu, with whom they had discussed ideas for funding of these projects. She stated they have also touched on these issues at other Council meetings. She reiterated this was not a case of the Council had not attempting to inform the public. She commented that the pubic is welcome to come down, tune in, and inquire regarding the meaning of these things. Mayor Coughlin added that this topic has been mentioned in an article in the Focus Newspaper in the last month, and in addition, was the subject of considerable discussion during the "Conversation with the Mayor"program on cable access. He stated, not only are these meetings being re-broadcast over and over, but he has been very vocal on this issue, and understands the controversy behind it. He stated if they can do better they will, they will take suggestions, and do something. He stated he has pushed to continue televising the Work Sessions when someone had requested to have them removed. He reiterated he has put all of the commissions on cable so that the citizens can view these issues from their home, as they realize that a lot of people are busy, and don't have time to sit through these lengthy meetings. He stated they were trying, and hope to continue on that open forum path. There was no further public input. Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 9:27 p.m. 2. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance. Council Member Stigney noted Mayor Coughlin's comment regarding an article published in the Focus Newspaper, and stated he did not believe there was any mention of the proposed increase from 2.5 to 4 percent to the franchise fee. He stated he had called and left a message with the newspaper to attempt to notify the public, and was informed that the time frame was such that they could not do publish this information. He stated he had also informed the New Brighton Bulletin, and the St. Paul Pioneer Press. He noted there were no published hearings in any of the newspapers. He stated at the City Council meeting of September 13, they had discussed the franchise fee, and perhaps carrying as it is, however, no residents he has spoken to were aware of this. He added that a poll of the audience would indicate they were all informed via telephone call. He stated the information provided to the residents is poor, and to proceed on this basis, without further notification of the public is, in his opinion, intolerable. Council Member Stigney advised that the franchise fee is only one pay option, and he hoped to have the opportunity to discuss the other alternatives. He made a motion to pass ordinance 641 and 643 at 2.5 percent to sunset in a year. He stated this would provide time to inform the residents and receive their input, and determine which direction to take. He stated all were aware Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 30 that a problem exists, and there is a need to create funding for street reconstruction projects, however, they have not examined the plan, the revenue sources, the costs or any of these factors. He stated it would be premature to pass the franchise fee increase at this time. He added he did not believe it would be harmful if the Council desired to dedicate a portion of the 2.5 percent fee to the streets, and he would not oppose this. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/ . To Adopt Ordinance 641, an Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Northern States Power Company Electric and Natural Gas Operations Within the City of Mounds View, and Ordinance 643, an Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Reliant Energy Minnegasco Natural Gas Operations Within the City of Mounds View, at the Rate of 2.5 Percent, to Sunset in One Year. Motion failed for lack of a second. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Waive the Readings and Approve Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 641, an Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Northern States Power Company Electric and Natural Gas Operations Within the City of Mounds View, and Ordinance 643, an Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Reliant Energy Minnegasco Natural Gas Operations Within the City of Mounds View, at the Rate of 4 Percent, to Sunset in the Year 2000. Council Member Stigney explained as the Council was not aware of how much money is required, or when it will be required, this one year only fund will not do anything for street reconstruction, and this will be an ongoing issue. He explained the interest accrued on the City's Tax Increment Funds is 2.4 million dollars, and this could be channeled toward the reconstruction costs rather than implementing an additional franchise fee. He stated within the three year time frame discussed for road reconstruction projects to continue, they must have an idea of which roads require reconstruction, which are MSA, what is the shortfall of necessary funds, and what money are they attempting to make up, in what period of time. He noted, if this is an ongoing consideration, and he was certain they would be constructing roads for many years, the golf course was planned to begin to provide money to the City after 16 years, in the year 2015, which could be a good source of revenue. He stated Tax Increment Financing District expirations will occur in the year 2015, and all of that money could go back into the tax base. Council Member Stigney explained that the creation of a fund that will sustain itself, i.e., a 30- million dollar fund, this was not realistic, and would never occur by increasing the franchise fee to 4 percent. He stated the issue to consider is cash flowing the projects, and that is to determine what money is needed when, and what is the best source for obtaining it, rather than increasing the franchise fee. Council Member Stigney reiterated there has been no communication in terms of notifying the residents of this proposal, and if they support it, so be it, however, in lieu of any support from the residents, he opposes this action. City Administrator Whiting stated the ordinances which were provided to the Council Members' should indicate not only 4 percent, but a sunset date which was originally drafted as the year 2001. He pointed out that the discussion at the prior Work Session, and that date, has indicated a sunset in the year 2000. Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 31 Mayor Coughlin asked the motioner and seconder if they would agree to an amendment of the sunset dates as stated. Council Members Quick and Marty agreed. Council Member Stigney noted there was also a Special Projects fund by which they were going to loan $200,000 to the golf course. He stated he was not aware what the total of that fund was, however, this is also a possible revenue source, rather than increasing the franchise fee without proper notification of the residents. Mayor Coughlin explained that the interest of this fund is presently utilized in entirety to perform chip seal and other road repairs. Council Member Marty stated the one year sunset period had come forward during a Work Session discussion of the issue. He explained the reason he had suggested one year increments was because he did not desire to saddle a future Council with a decision that this Council has made, as they have found to be the case in a number of situations. He noted Council Member Stigney had indicated, and he agreed with him, that each Council should have the right and ability to make their own decisions, if another Council is able to find a better solution, this one year sunset does not tie their hands. Council Member Stigney noted this fund was to be set up as a perpetual fund for street projects only, and would not be utilized for any other purpose. He asked the City Attorney if it was true that the City Council, on an enactment of three out of five Council Members, can change whatever they want to do in regard to an ordinance. City Attorney Riggs explained there are cities that have set up funds they agree to abide by, and there are means to craft language, which restrains the ability of any Council to amend the ordinance. Council Member Stigney inquired if there were means to draft the language to insure that future Council's would have to abide by whatever the present Council indicates. City Attorney Riggs stated if that is the agreeable language of Council, they would be able to set up funds that are restricted to that degree. Council Member Stigney inquired if a future Council would not have the ability to overturn that decision, for any reason. City Attorney Riggs advised he would not go so far as to indicate that, as the City Charter provides the citizens the ability to undo any ordinance. He explained he could not provide a 100 percent answer that this can never be undone, however, mechanisms can be put in place which would make it very onerous to do so. 3. Vote: Stigney, Thomason, Quick, Marty, Coughlin Ayes—4 Nays— 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 32 B. Consideration of Resolution 5379, a Resolution Dedicating the Increase in the Franchise Fees Collected in Fiscal Year 2000 to Streets Improvements and Maintenance and Directing Staff to Draft a Dedicated Fund Ordinance for this Purpose. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Approve Resolution No. 5379, a Resolution to Dedicate the Increase in Franchise Fees for Fiscal Year 2000 to Street Improvements and Maintenance, and to Direct Staff to Draft Ordinance Language Creating a Dedicated Fund and Stated Purpose for Long Term Fund Management for Street Improvements and Maintenance. Council Member Stigney reiterated he had the same objections to this resolution as he did to the previous action. Council Member Marty requested the Council consider increasing the amount of the franchise fee to be dedicated to the street fund. Mayor Coughlin stated he would agree to indicate this as part of the staff directive, if the seconder agrees. Council Member Quick did not agree. City Administrator Whiting noted that the determination of this matter be up to the discretion of the Council. Mayor Coughlin suggested the resolution stand as it is written, and if they are able to dedicate more money to this fund, this will be pursued. Ayes—4 Nays— 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. C. Board Appointments — Two Appointments to the Anoka County-Blaine Airport Advisory Commission. City Administrator Whiting stated the Council has reviewed the by-laws for this newly formed advisory commission, and the City of Mounds View will fill two seats. He stated he had put this item on the agenda to provide the opportunity to bring it forward to the public one more time, adding it has been published in the newspaper for anyone who might be interested in serving on this commission. He requested interested persons contact him at the City Hall. He explained that in two weeks, he would request the Council appoint two individuals to the commission. Mayor Coughlin stated they were seeking volunteers for these appointments, and it is a big step toward having some representation in this issue, and providing a good showing. He stated he might consider nominating himself to one of the positions, to lend his office and position to the legitimacy of this newly founded group. D Continuation of Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 640, an Ordinance Amending Title 900, Chapter 902 of the Mounds View Municipal Code Relating to Driveways and Repealing Provisions of Chapter 902 Relating to Street Openings. Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 33 1. Continued Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance. Planning Associate Ericson stated this ordinance, which has been before the Council on a number of occasions, adds language to the City Code which clarifies that existing non- conforming driveways would be allowed to remain, as long as there is not public safety hazard presented with these driveways. Planning Associate Ericson explained that the other change contemplated with this ordinance is an amendment to Chapter 902 as it relates to rights-of-way, which cleans up the Code in relation to the previous right-of-way ordinance that was passed. Planning Associate Ericson requested the Council's indulgence to set the public hearing for a Conditional Use Permit for an oversized shed to be located at 8270 Eastwood Road. He explained the public hearing has been published in the newspaper, and notice has been sent out, however, the item was inadvertently omitted from the Consent Agenda. MOTION/SECOND: Thomason/Stigney. To Set the Public Hearing for Resolution No. 595-99, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Shed Located at 8270 Eastwood Road, for the October 25, 1999, City Council Meeting. Ayes—5 Nays—0 Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomason. To Waive the Reading and Approve Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 640, an Ordinance Amending Title 900, Chapter 902 of the Mounds View Municipal Code Relating to Driveways and Repealing Provisions of Chapter 902 Relating to Street Openings, as Amended, to Include the Date, October 11, 1999. Council Member Stigney stated, upon close examination of this matter, he wondered if a there might be a "loophole" in terms of providing that someone could install a driveway without a permit or the Code, and be able to keep it forever. He explained the language appears to indicate this, and the addition of two words may offer clarification. He suggested the addition of the word "current" in the language which indicates "Permanent-surfaced driveways which do not conform to the current City Code" and the word"allowed" in the language which indicates "may be rebuilt, constructed or replaced in the same manner, fashion and location as allowed before, unless the location of said driveway poses a significant public safety hazard." Council Member Stigney stated this closes the possibility of a resident installing in a driveway without a building permit, and being fully aware of it, however, would otherwise have license to proceed. Planning Associate Ericson stated this amendment to the language was acceptable from staff's perspective. City Administrator Whiting pointed out that the word "current," might be subject to interpretation in the future. City Attorney Riggs stated it would be more appropriate to indicate a specific date. He requested Council Member Stigney clarify his concern. Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 34 Council Member Stigney stated the purpose of this ordinance was to provide if a resident has a non-conforming driveway, they can rebuild it in that same form, and he had no problem in this regard. He explained, however, his concern is that if they were to "bootleg" the driveway in, without a permit, and everyone was aware of this, but utilized the language of the ordinance to allow them to keep the driveway. He stated he was simply suggesting language, which might prevent this from occurring. Planning Associate Ericson commented that previous ordinances with similar situations include language, which indicates "existing, non-conforming driveways, as of the date of the passing of this ordinance, (or a date specific)," which could ultimately be today's date. He noted, however, a problem exists in that a driveway may be constructed in a location where none previously existed, and the property owner may indicate it existed prior to the date indicated on the ordinance, which would make this a difficult situation to enforce. Council Member Stigney agreed, adding that if the driveway was not previously allowed without a permit, it should not be allowed to perpetuate. He explained by indicating the word "allowed," and indicating a date from this point forward, it would close the gap on this type of occurrence. Council Member Quick commented that this might reward someone for not obtaining a permit. Council Member Stigney stated this was what he was attempting to avoid. Council Member Quick inquired if he was to install a driveway which meets the Code, but he did not obtain a permit. Council Member Stigney stated that it would not be allowed pursuant to the Code. Planning Associate Ericson stated a number of things occur that the City is not aware of, and people do not obtain building permits for. He stated staff attempts to resolve these issues by requiring a building permit after the fact. He advised this would always be an issue, and he did not believe the language of the ordinance would prevent it from occurring. Council Member Stigney suggested the word "permitted" might be more appropriate than the word "allowed, however, the language of the ordinance, as it is currently written, presents a problem. He explained that if a driveway was not previously permitted, this would imply that they did not obtain a permit for it, and it should not be allowed to proceed. Mayor Coughlin noted a motion would be required to extend the meeting at this time. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Extend the Meeting for no More than One-half Hour. Ayes—5 Nays—0 Motion carried. City Attorney Riggs explained the addition of today's date, after the initial words "conform to the City Code as of..." would set a time frame that the Council could use for enforcement purposes. He stated, however, as Planning Associate Ericson has indicated, there will always be issues, and he did not think this could be addressed through the ordinance. He stated the date would be automatically set through the adoption of the ordinance, however, when the City Code is updated and codified in the future, the ordinances generally lose their "as adopted' dates Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 35 within the ordinances themselves. He suggested that the indication of a date in the ordinance might be a better option, as this would provide as much clarification as is possible. Council Member Stigney inquired if the word "permitted" or "allowed" should be indicated in the language. Planning Associate Ericson explained the fact that they were dealing with non-conforming driveways would signify they are not permitted, and this language might not be necessary. Mayor Coughlin stated it should be assumed that people are innocent until proven guilty, and that 99.5 percent of the residents in town are good, God-fearing, law-abiding people. He stated it was unfortunate that a few people might make this difficult for the rest, but hopefully the Code Enforcement staff can address these incidents. Council Member Marty suggested the date, October 11, 1999, be indicated after the words "City Code..." in the language of the ordinance. City Attorney Riggs stated this would be sufficient. Mayor Coughlin inquired if the motioner and the seconder would agree to this. Council Members Stigney and Marty agreed. 2. Vote: Quick, Thomason, Stigney,Marty, Coughlin Ayes—4 Nays— 1 (Quick) Motion carried. 11. Next Council Work Session: Monday, October 25, 1999—6:00 P.M. Next Council Meeting: Monday, October 25, 1999—7:00 P.M. 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Coughlin adjourned the meeting at 10:06 p.m. Transcribed and recorded by: Trish Pearson TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. I '7 A CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA APPROVING JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS AGAINST CITY FUNDS WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View,pursuant to Minnesota Statute 412.141, has full authority over the financial affairs of the City and; WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the claim numbers: 13762 through 13771 in the amount of$ 30,800.90 101416 through 101543 in the amount of$ 194,834.22 TOTAL AMOUNT OF CLAIMS PRESENTED: $ 225,635.12 and has found said claims to be just and correct; It was moved that the City Council of Mounds View hereby approve the attached list of claims dated 10/26/99 by the vote ayes nayes. Mayor Clerk-Administrator Date: 10/21/1999 Time: 10:05:39 Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 1 City of Mounds View FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Ranges: Fund: (A) Dept Id: (A) Program: (A) Vendor #: (A) Invoice #: (A) Schedule Journal #: (A) Bank #: (A) Cash #: (A) Payroll Check Dates: (A) Options: Print: A Sort: C Report Format: 1 Print Ranges/Options: Y # of copies: 1 Process Payroll: N Total By Account: Y Page on Sort: N Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount 13762 ICMA Retirement Trust ICMA for 10/20/99 4,044.67 Total for Chk 13762 4,044.67* 13763 Edward Jones Money Market for 10/21/9 125.00 Total for Chk 13763 125.00* 13764 Minnesota Benefit Asso MN Benefit for October 472.38 Total for Chk 13764 472.38* 13765 Minnesota Child Suppor Child Support for 10/21/ 690.90 Total for Chk 13765 690.90* 13766 MINNESOTA STATE RETIRE MN Retirement & MN Mutua 432.69 Total for Chk 13766 432.69* 13767 Public Employees Insur Health Ins. for November 14,847.93 Total for Chk 13767 14,847.93* 13768 Public Employees Retir PERA forl0/21/99 9,940.83 Total for Chk 13768 9,940.83* 13769 Public Employees Retir Defined Contribution for 112.50 Total for Chk 13769 112.50* 13770 Sunrise United Methodi Sunrise for October 14.00 Total for Chk 13770 14.00* 13771 Western Bank Savings for 10/21/99 120.00 Total for Chk 13771 120.00* 101416 Ron Huber Transmission for Truck # 4360 350.00 Total for Chk 101416 350.00* 101417 Metrocall State Display Service 4200 15.05 Total for Chk 101417 15.05* Date: 10/21/1999 Time: 10:05:39 Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 2 City of Mounds View FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount 101418 Northern States Power 2450 Bronson Dr.-Booster 4823 3,379.44 Total for Chk 101418 3,379.44* 101420 Becky Madsen/dba Custo Janitorial 4730 1,410.00 Total for Chk 101420 1,410.00* 101421 Scott L. Hess Bat Houses 4900 580.00 Total for Chk 101421 580.00* 101422 H. T. Wakefield Pumping System 4900 5,500.00 Total for Chk 101422 5,500.00* 101423 Backyard Building Syst Golf Course Shed 4900 1,976.54 Total for Chk 101423 1,976.54* 101424 Steve Wagenbach Golf Course Shed 4900 540.00 Total for Chk 101424 540.00* 101425 Able Hose & Rubber, In Coupling,Clamp,Nitrile F 4826 212.15 Total for Chk 101425 212.15* 101426 Action Systems Computer Stand 4160 192.15 Total for Chk 101426 192.15* 101427 Adventures in Advertis League Bag Tags 4901 761.59 Total for Chk 101427 761.59* 101428 Airtouch 799-2590 4130 232.74 Total for Chk 101428 232.74* 101429 All City Elevator, Inc Bi-monthly elevator sery 4160 73.00 Total for Chk 101429 73.00* 101430 American Fasteners of HD Type Boxes 4900 14.55 Total for Chk 101430 14.55* 101431 American Office Produc Suggestion Box 4350 330.46 Total for Chk 101431 330.46* 101432 Ancom AM/FM VHF Antennas 4415 433.50 Total for Chk 101432 433.50* 101433 Bacon's Electric Repair Street Lights-Hod 4416 484.32 Total for Chk 101433 484.32* 101435 Bankcard Center Best Buy 4900 4,500.26 Total for Chk 101435 4,500.26* 101436 Batteries Plus 16" Cable, Side Term.Bol 4900 61.94 Total for Chk 101436 61.94* Date: 10/21/1999 Time: 10:05:39 Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 3 City of Mounds View FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount 101437 Beisswengers Control Valve 4823 164.26 Total for Chk 101437 164.26* 101438 Biffs, Inc. Bridges Golf Course 4360 1,082.99 Total for Chk 101438 1,082.99* 101439 City of Blaine 8290 Coral Sea N.E. 4901 97.22 Total for Chk 101439 97.22* 101440 Blue Tow Service Towing 4900 51.50 Total for Chk 101440 51.50* 101441 Bluemels Tree Service Hauled 1 load 4470 319.50 Total for Chk 101441 319.50* 101442 Bob's Personal Coffee Coffee 4160 36.99 Total for Chk 101442 36.99* 101443 Bredemus Hardware Co., Latches 4823 235.83 Total for Chk 101443 235.83* 9 101444 David Brick mileage Reimbursement 4200 72.00 Total for Chk 101444 72.00* 101445 Bumper to Bumper Trk.Gd.Black 4462 174.15 Total for Chk 101445 174.15* 101446 Kevin Carroll Tuition Reimbursement 4650 750.00 Total for Chk 101446 750.00* 101447 Cintas - 748 Uniform Rental 4900 642.20 Total for Chk 101447 642.20* 101448 Classic Touch, Inc. Car Washes 4200 23.43 Total for Chk 101448 23.43* 101449 Copy Equipment, Inc. Bluelines 4826 57.01 Total for Chk 101449 57.01* 101450 Crysteel Dist., Inc. Backrack 4415 211.94 Total for Chk 101450 211.94* 101451 Cummins North Central, Vehicle Repair 4826 449.57 Total for Chk 101451 449.57* 101452 Cy's Uniforms Uniform Jacket 4200 393.95 Total for Chk 101452 393.95* 101453 D. C. A. Inc. Flex.Spending Acct.-Sept 4160 150.00 Total for Chk 101453 150.00* Date: 10/21/1999 Time: 10:05:39 Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 4 City of Mounds View FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount 101454 Dehn Oil No.2 Diesel Fuel 4462 3,573.90 Total for Chk 101454 3,573.90* 101455 Department of Public S Digital Terminals-July,A 4200 1,560.00 Total for Chk 101455 1,560.00* 101456 Doug's T V, Appliance 3# Spool 4360 26.62 Total for Chk 101456 26.62* 101457 East Side Beverage Co. Beverages 4901 72.90 Total for Chk 101457 72.90* 101458 Electronic Communicati Fire Alarm System Inspec 4350 78.00 Total for Chk 101458 78.00* 101459 Elegant Thymes Caterin Schneider Buffet 7,597.54 Total for Chk 101459 7,597.54* 101460 Fastsigns Banners 4350 652.85 Total for Chk 101460 652.85* 101461 Fedors Market Supplies 4460 19.06 Total for Chk 101461 19.06* 101462 Five D Limited Gasoline 4200 724.64 Total for Chk 101462 724.64* 101463 Florence Bargy Meter Refund 30.00 Total for Chk 101463 30.00* 101464 Focus News Legal Notice-Doroff CUP 4160 172.35 Total for Chk 101464 172.35* 101465 Friendly Chevrolet GEO Spring 4360 17.64 Total for Chk 101465 17.64* 101466 Goodwill/Easter Seal S Clean-Up Day Pickup 4420 262.50 Total for Chk 101466 262.50* 101467 Gopher State One-Call, 121 Calls 4823 211.75 Total for Chk 101467 211.75* 101468 W. W. Grainger Fuses 4900 17.39 Total for Chk 101468 17.39* 101469 Greater St.Paul Prayer Breakfast-Coughlin, Thom 4100 20.00 Total for Chk 101469 20.00* 101470 Green Tree Vendor Sery Lease Payment 4823 153.28 Total for Chk 101470 153.28* W. Date: 10/21/1999 Time: 10:05:39 Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 5 City of Mounds View FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount 101471 Harmon Glass Company Door Glass 4350 615.52 Total for Chk 101471 615.52* 101472 Hoffman Filter Service Oil Filter Pickup 4460 50.00 Total for Chk 101472 50.00* 101473 Home Depot Commercial Nuts,Bolts,Tool Hooks 4900 100.92 Total for Chk 101473 100.92* 101474 Hughes & Costello Prosecution Statement 4200 3,500.00 Total for Chk 101474 3,500.00* 101475 Hydraulic Specialty Co Hose, Coupling, Connecto 4465 19.33 Total for Chk 101475 19.33* 101476 Industrial Door Co. Belt 4460 23.27 Total for Chk 101476 23.27* 101477 Infratech Joint Sealing 4823 3,432.50 Total for Chk 101477 3,432.50* 101478 Innovative Images Room Decor 4350 68.43 Total for Chk 101478 68.43* 101479 Johnston Fargo Culvert 48" End Section 4360 1,780.68 Total for Chk 101479 1,780.68* 101480 Kath Auto Parts & Mach Disc Brake Set 4462 48.92 Total for Chk 101480 48.92* 101481 Kath Fuel Oil Service Fuel 4900 1,059.37 Total for Chk 101481 1,059.37* 101482 Kennedy & Graven Airport Legislation 4100 13,146.02 Total for Chk 101482 13,146.02* 101483 Thomas Kinney Mileage Reimbursement 4200 149.10 Total for Chk 101483 149.10* 101484 Larsco, Inc. Electrical Connectors 4823 72.66 Total for Chk 101484 72.66* 101485 League of Minnesota Ci Workers' Comp. 4470 1,051.05 Total for Chk 101485 1,051.05* 101486 Lesco, Inc. Chemicals 4900 3,831.97 Total for Chk 101486 3,831.97* 101487 Lillie Suburban News Banquet Facility Ad 4730 245.00 Total for Chk 101487 245.00* Date: 10/21/1999 Time: 10:05:39 Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 6 City of Mounds View FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount 101488 M R Sign Road Signs 4475 1,248.40 Total for Chk 101488 1,248.40* 101489 M.T.I. Distributing Co Labor,Materials for Equi 4900 591.02 Total for Chk 101489 591.02* 101490 Maertens-Brenny Constr Brick Cleaning,Graffiti 4650 18,668.00 Total for Chk 101490 18,668.00* 101491 Masys Corporation Enfors Maintenance 4200 623.69 Total for Chk 101491 623.69* 101492 Menards Lawn Edging, Coupler Kit 4650 519.92 Total for Chk 101492 519.92* 101493 Metro Council Environm Wastewater Service 4823 56,317.92 Total for Chk 101493 56,317.92* 101494 Metro Legal Services, Del. to B.Long 4100 18.00 Total for Chk 101494 18.00* 101495 Micron Government Comp Computer Equipment 4160 4,173.31 Total for Chk 101495 4,173.31* 101496 Midwest Coca/Cola Beverages 4901 313.34 Total for Chk 101496 313.34* 101497 Minar Ford Car Part 4462 41.97 Total for Chk 101497 41.97* 101498 Minnesota Dept. of Eco Unemployment-Johnson 4353 4,246.67 Total for Chk 101498 4,246.67* 101499 Minnesota Golf Cars, I Club Car Parts 4900 387.87 Total for Chk 101499 387.87* 101500 Minnesota Home Schoole Cancelled Event 225.00 Total for Chk 101500 225.00* 101501 Minnesota State Treasu Bldg.Permit Surcharge-Se 1,485.72 Total for Chk 101501 1,485.72* 101502 University of Minnesot Fall Conference 4472 480.00 Total for Chk 101502 480.00* 101503 MN Fall Maintenance Ex Fall Maint.Expo-Ulrich 4472 35.00 Total for Chk 101503 35.00* 101504 Mounds View Football B Contribution 4730 50.00 Total for Chk 101504 50.00* Date: 10/21/1999 Time: 10:05:39 Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 7 City of Mounds View FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Check 4 Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount 101505 Mounds View, City of Golf League Banquet 4900 2,543.11 Total for Chk 101505 2,543.11* 101506 N.E.P. Corporation Stone, Saw Blades 4460 324.02 Total for Chk 101506 324.02* 101507 Kenneth Nathe Driveway-2520 Woodcrest 4823 825.00 Total for Chk 101507 825.00* 101508 New Brighton/Mounds Vi Membership 4130 172.75 Total for Chk 101508 172.75* 101509 North Country Ford 4462 337.67 Total for Chk 101509 337.67* 101510 North Star Turf, Inc. Staples 4900 119.77 Total for Chk 101510 119.77* 101511 Northern Sanitary Supp Plug Expansion 4350 21.99 Total for Chk 101511 21.99* 101512 Northern States Power 5214 Long Lake Rd. 4360 865.46 Total for Chk 101512 865.46* 101513 Northern Tool S Equipm Long Taper Punch 4900 162.26 Total for Chk 101513 162.26* 101514 Northwest Family YMCA Lifeguard Reimbursement 4350 3,055.84 Total for Chk 101514 3,055.84* 101515 Office Depot Tape, Pens, Tabs, Binder 4160 19.65 Total for Chk 101515 19.65* 101516 Orkin Exterminating Co Exterminating-Oct. 4160 88.29 Total for Chk 101516 88.29* 101517 Perfect "10" Car Wash Car Washes 4200 7.40 Total for Chk 101517 7.40* 101518 Pinkerton Services Gro Drug/Alcohol Testing 4160 109.44 Total for Chk 101518 109.44* 101519 Plaisted Companies, In Topdressing Sand 4900 576.78 Total for Chk 101519 576.78* 101520 Pomp's Tire Service, I Tires 4900 160.85 Total for Chk 101520 160.85* 101521 Printmaster Printing Inspection Posters 4180 45.74 Total for Chk 101521 45.74* Mk Date: 10/21/1999 Time: 10:05:39 Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 8 City of Mounds View FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount 101522 Pro Sign Installed graphics-Squad 4200 307.68 Total for Chk 101522 307.68* 101523 Ramsey County Public W Street Painting 4470 252.52 Total for Chk 101523 252.52* 101524 Reeds Sales & Service Power Broom 4900 647.83 Total for Chk 101524 647.83* 101525 Roberts Beverage Servi Sipper Wedding 3,101.27 Total for Chk 101525 3,101.27* 101526 Ruff-Cut Weed Mowing 4360 352.00 Total for Chk 101526 352.00* 101527 Savin Corporation Copy Plan Agreement 4160 2,578.37 Total for Chk 101527 2,578.37* 101528 The Scotts Company Bentgrass, Sports Turf 4900 2,890.14 Total for Chk 101528 2,890.14* 101529 Short-Elliott & Hendri Booster Sta.Improvements 4823 54.76 Total for Chk 101529 54.76* 101530 Shred-It Shredding 4200 49.95 Total for Chk 101530 49.95* 101531 Sims Security Security Officer 94.51 Total for Chk 101531 94.51* 101532 City of St. Paul Asphalt 4470 616.68 Total for Chk 101532 616.68* 101533 Star Tribune Ad-Housing Inspector 4160 512.50 Total for Chk 101533 512.50* 101534 Sysco Food Services of Beef, Chicken, Cole Slaw 520.38 Total for Chk 101534 520.38* 101535 T R Computer Sales, In Permit Works Training 4180 5,744.68 Total for Chk 101535 5,744.68* 101536 Time Saver Planning Comm.Mtg. 10/6 4180 340.50 Total for Chk 101536 340.50* 101537 Treadway Graphics DARE Promotional Product 4200 176.36 Total for Chk 101537 176.36* 101538 U. S. West Communicati 784-1076 4360 61.50 Total for Chk 101538 61.50* 1.1.111111111111111 Date: 10/21/1999 Time: 10:05:40 Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 9 City of Mounds View FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount 101539 U. S. West 784-4349 4160 2,485.69 Total for Chk 101539 2,485.69* 101540 Vasco Rubbish Removal Clean-up Day pickup 4420 2,174.00 Total for Chk 101540 2,174.00* 101541 Viking Electric Conduit 4823 42.10 Total for Chk 101541 42.10* 101542 Walters Recycling & Re Rubbish Pickup-Lakeside 4350 66.17 Total for Chk 101542 66.17* 101543 Warning Systems, Inc. Equipment for Squad 4200 2,557.39 Total for Chk 101543 2,557.39* Grand Total 225,635.12* Item No. Type of Business: CA WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing: CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mayor and City Council From: Barb Benesch Item Title/Subject: CONTRACTOR LICENSES FOR APPROVAL Meeting Date: October 25, 1999 Please consider the following contractor licenses for approval. The licenses listed will expire on December 30, 1999. All applicants have submitted appropriate fees and proof of insurance. Licenses are noted with a"New" or"Renewal" after the company name. Those licenses defined as"new" include all applicants that have never been licensed with the City or have not been licensed within the past two years. Those defined as "renewal" were licensed last year. Asphalt Czars of Tar, Inc. - New Jerry's Blacktop, Inc. -New HVAC G.R. Mechanical Plumbing & Heating, Inc. -New Sewer/Water Metro Utilities, Inc. - New Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested. Item No. ! E Type of Business: CA WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mayor and City Council From: Rick Jopke Item Title/Subject: WATER WELL TESTING Meeting Date: October 25, 1999 As you may know, the Mounds View Code requires that all buildings designed for human habitation be connected to the Municipal water system. However, there are six properties in the City which do not have access to a Municipal water main and, therefore, are exempt from this requirement. These properties are required, however, to submit certified well test results twice a year, once in April and once in October to verify water quality. There is a cost of approximately $25 to the property owner to conduct this test. After receiving these well test results for ten years years with only one negative resuls, Staff is requesting that the City Code be amended to require that well testing be required only once a year instead of twice a year, preferably in June. Retesting and treatment is required if negative results are received. Staff Recommendation: Approve first reading of proposed Ordinance No. 636 amending Chapter 906.01, Subd. 2(b). Schedule second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 636 for November 8, 1999. ORDINANCE NO. 636 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 900, CHAPTER 906, MUNICIPAL WATER SYSTEM, OF THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 906.01, SUBD. 2(B) TESTING REQUIRED; WATER QUALITY THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 906.01, Sub. 2(b), of this Mounds View Municipal Code relating to water quality and testing is amended with the proposed additions and the proposed deletions,to Section 906.01,Subd. 2(b),Testing Required; Water Quality,to read as follows: Subd. 2 Exceptions; Regulatory Provisions: a. Exceptions: Any existing building which is required to connect to the Municipal water system under Subdivision 1 hereof but which does not have access to a Municipal water main adjacent to the property on which such building is built shall not be required to connect to the Municipal water system until such time as a Municipal water main is constructed adjacent to such property. b. Testing Required; Water Quality: The owner of any property exempted under Subdivision 2a above shall be required to submit copies of certified test results to the City showing the well serving the property to have coliform organisms (mpn) of less than one and one-tenth(1.1)per one hundred (100)ml and to have less than one one-hundredth(0.01)mg/liter of nitrate nitrogen. Testing shall be required twice once each year,once during April and once during October. during the month of June. c. Treatment Equipment: Any well which cannot meet the requirements listed in Subdivision 2b above shall be required to have equipment attached which is capable of reducing the contaminants listed to acceptable levels for all faucets used for human consumption. This equipment may be a central unit or separate units located at each faucet used for consumption. Copies of equipment specifications and certified test of the units shall be submitted to the City for approval(Ord. 503, 4-27-92) SECTION 2. This ordinance is effective 30 days after its publication. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of , 1999. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of , 1999. ATTEST: Dan Coughlin, Mayor (SEAL) Charles S. Whiting, Clerk-Administrator APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney an c ©UNDO CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2401 HIGHWAY 10 �" MOUNDS VIEW,MN 55112 �'w� OG�,+lVJ o 'St.Palet*9% LICENSE APPLICATION FORM ' Date of Application q- 11,o -9 Q Business Name 51-1 A M - 0- J E,T kE IUIv.E.LS Phone 10(2 -78g - 111 7 Business Address 77 0 O LO NI t', 1..A k.E RA M o u M 1/r e CO 1 MA) SSI I,?.62 Owners/Corporate fficers/Associates/Partners (name and title:) `A Ith,c,L4 0s Lys i G.. )&i a5 VN 0 ui/ve .5 Have you ever had a license revoked? NO If yes, attach explanation. References: Cities where previously or currently license for same activity(name of City and year(s) licensed) PO niOs Viet() • Applications for the following licenses must complete the applicable section on the reverse side of this form: ► Bowling Alleys Gasoline Stations ► Automobile Sales ► 4— Kennels ► Cigarette and Tobacco ► Restaurants ► Dance Halls • I hereby certify that information provided on this application is true and hereby correct and understand any misrepresentation made herein may be ground for denial of this application. Applicants's Full Name MAR C I A P. TOS L vAi (Please print) Date of Birth i / G2 / 55 Applicant's Signature cAZA--ok e 9n4__q_____, Item No. ID A Staff Report No. Meeting Date: October 25, 1999 Type of Business: PH& CB WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; CA:ConsentAgenda;CB:Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor & City Council From: James Ericson, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 5377, a Resolution contemplating the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for an Over-sized Shed at 8270 Eastwood Road. Date of Report: October 21, 1999 Background: The applicants, Alan and Tammy Doroff, have applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 384 square-foot shed in the backyard of their home located at 8270 Eastwood Road. The area of this property is 18,711 square feet, or .43 acres. Most of the lots in this neighborhood are of the same size, many of which are improved with similar types of split-entry homes with attached double car garages. The shed, described to be a barn-like structure fifteen feet tall, would be situated behind the in-ground pool as indicated on the site plan. The backyard of the Doroffs' property is enclosed by an eight-foot tall wood fence which offers complete screening of the backyard area from the adjacent neighbors. The area of the backyard is 6,880 square feet, of which 384 square feet would be taken for the shed. This would amount to a coverage rate of 6 percent. The Code limits backyard coverage of accessory buildings to no more than 20 percent. There is an existing shed that would be removed upon construction of the new shed. The Planning Commission acted upon this item at their meeting on October 25, 1999, voting unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of the requested conditional use permit. Discussion: Dimensional Requirements: Required Proposed Met? Shed Setbacks (Side) 5 feet 6 feet Met (Rear) 5 feet 35 feet Met Percent of Rear Yard <20% 6% Met Total Area of Accessory Buildings: _< 1,400 sf. 384 sf. (shed) Met 480 sf. (garage) 864 sf. (Total) Planning Case No.571-99 Doroff Shed CUP October 25, 1999 Page 2 CUP requirements: Section 1106.04 of the Zoning Code states that no accessory building other than a garage shall exceed 216 square feet except by conditional use permit. With a conditional use permit, the maximum area for a shed is 400 square feet and for all accessory buildings the maximum area is a combined 1,400 square feet. As with any conditional use permit application, the Planning Commission needs to examine the possible adverse effects of the proposed use and review the general CUP criteria and specific CUP requirements, if any are listed. Section 1125.01, Subdivision le lists the general adverse effects criteria which need to be addressed in order for a conditional use permit to be approved. These criteria are as follows: 1. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 8270 Eastwood Road, low-density residential. This proposal does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The Geographical Area Involved. 4. The Character of the Surrounding Area Almost every lot in this area of Mounds View is the same size as the subject property. Many of the homes in the immediate area have a similar split-entry design and have attached two-car garages. Many of the homes have sheds in addition to their garages. 3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed It is not believed that the construction of the shed, even one so large as is proposed by the applicants, would depreciate the neighborhood. The shed would be completely screened except for the peak, which might be visible from the adjacent properties. The shed would allow the applicants to store all of their pool equipment, yard equipment and other common items in one structure without taking away any room in the garage. 5. The demonstrated need for such a use. The existing garage is a small, two-car garage of only 480 square feet. While expanding the garage to the rear is feasible, this option would take up well-utilized backyard space next to the home. The applicants desire to construct the shed behind the pool in a less-used part of the yard to minimize the impact of adding 384 square-feet of accessory building space. This proposal satisfactorily addresses the adverse effects criteria. Also in Section 1125.01, the Planning Commission is to consider the general conditional use permit criteria, which are as follows: Planning Case No. 571-99 Doroff Shed CUP October 25, 1999 Page 3 (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. (8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided The addition of a storage shed, even one as large as that proposed, would not create a greater impact on existing public facilities or services, on utilities or access roads, nor would it create an increase in traffic on adjacent streets. (2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. The location of the shed behind the home and garage would hide it from general public view. Because of the tall fence surrounding the backyard area, the shed itself would be screened even from the adjoining properties as well. The shed would have a barn-like design, similar to one on an adjacent property, and would neither be incompatible with nor detrimental to this district. (4) The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. (5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Sheds and out-buildings are typical uses in residential areas, and allow for the storage of yard and garden equipment . Having this shed will allow the property owners to replace a dilapidated metal shed and to store items currently left outside within a secure and protected structure. Staff and the Planning Commission believes that this proposal meets the general requirements as indicated above. In addition to these general conditional use permit criteria, Section 1106.04, Subdivision 7 lists the specific criteria which need to be met in order to approve a conditional use permit for an over-sized shed. The criteria with responses are as follows: a. The accessory building must conform with Section 1103.06 of this Title and subdivision 1106.03(l) of this Title. This section of the Code dictates where in the yard an accessory building can be located. The proposed shed would be located in the rear yard, which is the only place a shed can be located according to the Code. Planning Case No. 571-99 Doroff Shed CUP October 25, 1999 Page 4 b. The combined square footage of all accessory buildings on one lot cannot exceed one thousand four hundred(1,400) square feet. The area of the garage (480 square feet) and the proposed shed (384 square feet) total 864 square feet, well within the 1,400 maximum allowance. c. The accessory building shall not exceed four hundred(400) square feet. The proposed shed would be 384 square feet. d. The building must be a permanent structure. The shed would be a wood-framed structure mounted upon a concrete pad. It is considered permanent. e. The building shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform appearance with the dwelling unit. The appearance of the shed will be different from the house, in that it will be a finished wood exterior having a barn-like design. The structure would be located in the backyard completely out of public view makes which makes this requirement less of an issue. The fact that most sheds are of a finished-wood construction makes this all the more typical. f. Should the use for which the permit was granted be changed, the permit shall be subject to reconsideration, revocation or other action regulated by Section 1125.01 of this Title. The applicants indicate that this shed would be used strictly for storage, and that no activities would be proposed for the structure other than storage. Staff and the Planning Commission believes that all of the specific CUP requirements, as well as the general requirements and the adverse effects criteria are satisfied. Any adverse affects of this accessory structure are minimal and are far out-weighed by the overall benefits. Recommendation: Staff and the Planning Commission is recommending approval of this conditional use permit request. If it is the Council's desire, staff has drafted for action Resolution 5377 which approves the CUP as requested with stipulations. The Council is free to add to the stipulations or make any other amendments to this Resolution as it deems appropriate. `) James Ericson, Planning Associate N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEVDEVCASES\571-99\SHED-CUP.CC1 TY TR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION wEf772401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 p�'"tf Parrnet$°. 612-717-4020 612-784-3462 -FAX Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information Name of Applicant A Ian °E-am j -c- Telephone 6,)a-r7q9-6/(25. Address S a-10 to Pryld Fax MOt s \ .LOj mK 55)le •Injerest in Property(check appropriate box) Owner of Property a Contract for Deed Owner ❑ Lessee,Operator,Manager ❑ Agreement to Purchase ❑ Other(explain) Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application,and if you are not the owner of the property,you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. = osaI c ni ` FaS` , ,� a - e ,n V i`r(�„) iC } t,--{A Legal Description Lot t E�No� 1 ?as f- �Kc Property Identification#(PIN#) C- O 31 I CO99 #of Acres Lai Si t x a ` I Current Zoning a i C.l e.Yl: -k9l Type of Application ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment $250 O Rezoning $250/acre; min$250 max$1500 ❑ Major Subdivision $250+$250 deposit* ❑ Minor Subdivision $200 ❑ Planned Unit Development(PUD) Refer to rezoning fees ❑ PUD Amendment $350 XConditional Use Permit R-1, R-2$75;all others$250 ❑ Variance R-1, R-2$100 all others$250 ❑ Code Appeal $100 ❑ Develop Review/Site Plan $125/acre;min$125 max$750 ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit R-1,R-2$150;all others$200 O Wetland Buffer Permit R-1,R-2$25;all others$100 ❑ Floodplain Permit $200 ❑ Other *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices,materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty(30)days after consideration of the application is completed. Please complete the reverse side of this application. City of Mounds View,MN Development Application Page 2 Present Use of Property ❑ Undeveloped/Vacant Single Family Dwelling ❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling ❑ Multi-family Dwelling ❑ Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Industrial Establishment ❑ Other(explain) Property Classification 0 Abstract Torrens De ption..o P oposal '( kttret C ,ei9 j l ata 1 find U cel BY MY(OUR)SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION,I HEREBY DECLARE THAT,TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE,THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. Signature of Applicant - Dcri cy# Name of Applicant(typed/printed) Nan Dhr Signature of Property Owner alt.r. al-c-od kljall(Ln \- thY/e Name of Property Owner(typed/printed) P1\an 1 1-cam i. Address of Owner 13 Prifil-Lonod ' ``'""-"' cic rc1 tait.13 1111Q EL 11 Phone Number of Owner NODI-ter ca- )a5 }oma (obi-- 444—(Ar15 Ala is tar (Dia - 3 —63)-10 `�c�lY`rli t WO rt ************************************************************************************************ FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal 9-t O Date of Acceptance Assigned to: Planning Case No. 57 / C3 9' 60-day Limit 120-day limit Fees Paid: O Account# Check# Receipt# Application: -7 5 /o0 3a—2 GI 33�1.D Park Dedication: Deposits: Other: Total: N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\FORMS\DEVAPP.FOR 1/98 - • • -NORiTH COUNTY -2— LINE- • - • • - • - N 8491{F. 4;41..18494 495 ii n nrii 8494 8495 N 8480 8481 S !N N 8490 84.81N 8484 8485 8470 8471 — 8474 8484 847 8475 8470 ,.--- 8475 8474 8471 8466 848 8480 84658467 P. 8464 8465 ------- 84408460 84411 8436 G 8455 8454 8455 8450 8' a m PUD 8432 8444 8443 8444 c9 8445 8444 g 8453 r 8464 Q8431 8435 t" 8434 8454 y: 84248434 8433 I 8432 8441 8444 8425 8425 8424 -" 8425 8428 8429 8425 8 8415 ' 8420 841 S 8414 _+__ • 8415 5408 8415 8415 8408 �0 NEM8401 8406 8405 8404 8400 or 8384 8389 8400 8379 8390 8405 __ 8400 8395 8400 8405 6" `.8378 8384 8395 8380 8351 8390 8395 8388 i:�j 837. ----------5365 837_9 --- 8380 8373 8370 8355 --X70 8379 8380 8385 8384 536_ 8372 8360 8375 8360 - - -_ 836 8378 8355 8368 X 8350 8355 8350 8375 8378 8375 8360 -Or` 8340 8345 8371 8372 8365 8360 8354 8345 8384 8345 gip 88340 8325 8 - 8340 8331 8330 • 8321 8335 8325 8320 8320 8342 8325 8312 8315 83 8315 8318 8323 il 8315 8340, 8332 8315 8300 8303 101v),.. 8305 8310 pqp 8321 T,8300 8305`8330 8322 8305 8290 8295 290 8291 290 O 8285 .290 8295 8310 8307 .`,.'•.. �' •so o 8273 ARDAN '`i:'<:.. 8300 C 8285 8280 8287 8280 82818273 8 _82B0 7 r 60 3 2s7 8300 • PARK �� • r- 8 60 w 8260 8261 8285 -,E....-4---- ,cu VELAND 260 8273 �--- ARK 8265 0 8 8250 8255 7 250 w 8255 8280 8255 8250 50 8251 = 8267 8241 8242 O . n 8260 � � ro m n rn ao n v� _ _. ro In t, 8240 8261 82 n o r- v i3� n '�' 8250 8271 N m n e a --" ---a- . m m m 8231 8232 { N N N N N N 8230 8255 re-:, N N N N!! N n 8247 AVE m c nFPI.) n gri.:1. : °c� $ 8239 1111111111- 12,1 m O $ rri umi (II v 8220 "'"""` - N N N N N I N 3Q j N N N N N NIN 210 5211 8205 - ' 8225 , 8184 8193 8224 S t 820( _ + _______----/. 8212 8217 N N N N 8180 8185 r• 8208 DR � r----- 8205 8208 m n 1154 ( 8175 �_ r, t „,.., 8160 8171 82Q0 j a�s5 0° alsa �1PORT2� N N N N 8155 ` ds 8150 8165 8145 G rO $ j ° 8142 8145 -7 O, Oil 8145 _ 5140 8135 o r I 8135 • 8�xto ��iP> 8140 8141 _ - 1 8132 8121 8126: I 8125 8130 8131 a 121 N O- - N m / m n os l rn an n .. I ro m in I .a 8111 n o - • m • In m u) N foop n n !t �1 m 1,?, 1 m N N N:;•: N 4 N N8100 8101 N Pi y N N Ni-N NI-NI N N N ,N 812 •12N Ni N N �pHERWOOD ii ,o •. m N 1 °.i' 8080 COm g 8099 i m g 8085 ti umi 1 8086 8085 N I rN 8080 0o Cit) n ce 8081 N Nam 8075 co co N N I N p _ t –1- N N N N p ! - 8071 _ 8072 Q— 8070 808' 8070 _8071 8068 8071 8068 8072 8071 80600 8071 8084 - •--- 8075 8060 8059 8050 8055 8060 8085 8050 8041 8046 8046 5� 8042 8045 8052 8051 8044 8045 8046 8036 "•.-8040 "- 8032 8033 8040 8035 8032 8031 8038 8035 8024 8026 8025 8028 21 8022 8019 80� 8016 8015 p 8025 8018 8011 8000 88 8011 __. 8000 - 8016 8009 8006 8011 8000 8001 8010 8000..8005 -_ 7aoa _ 700? loon ,. .......'7oR�s 8004 7981 7990 0 7981 7990 0 7989 Zoning Map Planning Case 571-99 Applicant: Doroff Shed CUP Request N4 Location: 8270 Eastwood Road City of Mounds View Location Map 111111 !!!! EN _ Or I�I!_ :1m . ri - I- ■I= -- I. -- -- mom -INN =Ism mom IN EMI imilim milli NE ..� =me --oin.• I•m I'- �� Iice. , mil ==" �� MEM MOM mum MOM Milli ow lim NM WM. mum imis 4m No �ms maim. iiimMI NUM weiNIIIM mum. mum NUL iti - --r -� rt� mi. ��i. Nom ir� �rl -■ 8270 Eastwood Road � r11.. -vlm1...ni,.,1l,1,,n;:,1:,'Ur,,Aa..o,,.i71rmr..44.N117,1,, ,:6'.'7.H'1:,41_..12_"74, "11 0_mm_1;:= - „ : 11 :'= N1 ■■Its ■■■■ •���� --'-.' :.:1111II ... .......- ,���•'7 .-� ' '111111 �n it ,m M . .11. 111111 ....."' . . .. si■n ,,„ a... — I ..... 141 Iwilinka... air m ul map • I I _i Hi El NI ' -' - NE- ■gi = -�- NMIMEMIIIMMgip===--_- _—_-: _ _______ _ ..- -- _ — --r-r- --r--r i i I i I I I -- inaillt - Alan & Tammy Doroff 8270 Eastwood Road 11,11a1.-,,,41:::, -'-- - Conditional Use Permit (Oversized �Claaei.- u. �__ �= '' °1!� =�__ 'I' `® Accessory Bldg.) IIIIII "'°�iI%:;;""""" - Planning Case No. 571-99 114.1 0 Fig is tmi mire ll::::,,..„i 7: ,p • - �"„ uuiiiiiiiiriii 1iiiiiiiiiii ♦ Illm w unnunuuu . 1111:e r4� �� um i uun j1 �.i,�� ,, ;grump ,_4 e�ummnunu nail �t►„ali!��g _ _,+=r- 8270 Eastwood Road ,, :A ;,�NtlainiaillIII - ; Properties Within 350' -=�-•Eatiggig�, uuuuuul il i11161d11:.. = � uuua Illlilll��ll, _,; .'•ia� u11110 ."4'4,7q3 AIP tifilq mmiEmm lip-- ..,. " 0 i.E.minuiritimimm t. __,"I ika, fl =111 Illiw- CO .<(:( Z ., \:?22.Y2•`2 A\" • m . s `.xi:Yw: .�22Y, , Ym2 . 2Y :i \ , A pwLi, , Y k , N yw m2 'iimEl# , ,, . 3 , E_i z, 2 �� . �x ,ax \w„ za2Hr v ` u : 1z(' 2 , i i............................................................. sYz xsxi , twAnw iiiiittainft22t .` \ „ :` ..aix #Kfirx;, i . i titefl gmmaA k,ni ,Rmita2.. .�,•`Z22 , E �` ,iYxi rix` ,xi., �, Vi�ss,, Yir`x :`2 2 x,� L.,,'u'�x`a.,.... Y i ,,.i ce :,fix z2, i,tt,N ,,,,, 1, xu:iY;xi,. 41 c4� o M tO * oA off' _ . . _, .tz zv.... O t COPftwai H a CD N 414w o CN P.4.141 ] �t,2F,x`,Yrix^`2'YY,�x `:;,»,,,,w,...,,.:.`x,q•pikeO Vik=r eel 110.410114.4w .Q 1 CD CO O -0 c6 LO 0 oCO;It M N O X N U7-1 � (OC O a N J Z 7 iji ry/ .,, : gypv % O o �+ paoi apisAuuns FYI ;u,.. .., f .. 3;s %�"y / S«.. .•,iii,",�.;..• �i:,41 ,iii/.: O O IN c,) QoA C Km = 00 1 0- O 13 C 0 O to 'Q := 0 c) 0 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 595-99 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR AN OVERSIZED SHED FOR ALAN AND TAMMY DOROFF, 8270 EASTWOOD ROAD,MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 571-99 WHEREAS, Alan and Tammy Doroff have applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 384 square-foot shed on property they own, located at 8270 Eastwood Road, zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, legally described as followed: Lot 3, Block 2, East Oaks, Ramsey County,Minnesota WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code allows by conditional use sheds up to 400 square feet in area and no more than 1,400 square feet total accessory building space on one lot; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Site Plan d. Area Map with Building Footprints e. Location Map f. Staff Report WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the dimensional requirements as stated in Chapter 1104 the Zoning Code for this proposal have been met; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings that possible adverse effects have been considered in its recommendation, as required by Section 1.125.01 Subd. 1.e.: 1. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 8270 Eastwood Road, low-density residential. This proposal does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The Geographical Area Involved. Planning Commission Resolution 595-99 October 6, 1999 Page 2 4. The Character of the Surrounding Area Almost every lot in this area of Mounds View is the same size as the subject property. Many of the homes in the immediate area have a similar split-entry design and have attached two-car garages. Many of the homes have sheds in addition to their garages. 3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed It is not believed that the construction of the shed, even one so large as is proposed by the applicants, would depreciate the neighborhood. The shed would be completely screened except for the peak, which might be visible from the adjacent properties. The shed would allow the applicants to store all of their pool equipment, yard equipment and other common items in one structure without taking away any room in the garage. 5. The demonstrated need for such a use. The existing garage is a small, two-car garage of only 480 square feet. While expanding the garage to the rear is feasible, this option would take up well-utilized backyard space next to the home. The applicants desire to construct the shed behind the pool in a less-used part of the yard to minimize the impact of adding 384 square-feet of accessory building space. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the general criteria for approval of a conditional use permit, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. 3.b.: (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. (8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided The addition of a storage shed, even one as large as that proposed, would not create a greater impact on existing public facilities or services, on utilities or access roads, nor would it create an increase in traffic on adjacent streets. (2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. The location of the shed behind the home and garage would hide it from general public view. Because of the tall fence surrounding the backyard area, the shed itself would be screened even from the adjoining properties as well. The shed would have a barn-like design, similar to one on an adjacent property, and would neither be incompatible with nor detrimental to this district. Planning Commission Resolution 595-99 October 6, 1999 Page 3 (4) The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. (5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Sheds and out-buildings are typical uses in residential areas, and allow for the storage of yard and garden equipment . Having this shed will allow the property owners to replace a dilapidated metal shed and to store items currently left outside within a secure and protected structure. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the specific cup requirements as specified in Section 1106.04, Subdivision 7: a. The accessory building must conform with Section 1103.06 of this Title and subdivision 1106.03(l) of this Title. This section of the Code dictates where in the yard an accessory building can be located. The proposed shed would be located in the rear yard, which is the only place a shed can be located according to the Code. b. ' The combined square footage of all accessory buildings on one lot cannot exceed one thousand four hundred(1,400)square feet. The area of the garage (480 square feet) and the proposed shed (384 square feet)totals 864 square feet, well within the 1,400 maximum allowance. c. The accessory building shall not exceed four hundred(400) square feet. The proposed shed would be 384 square feet. d. The building must be a permanent structure. The shed would be a wood-framed structure mounted upon a concrete pad. It is considered permanent. e. The building shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform appearance with the dwelling unit. The appearance of the shed will be different from the house, in that it will be a finished wood exterior having a barn-like design. The fact that most sheds are of a finished-wood construction makes this all the more typical arguably uniform in appearance. Planning Commission Resolution 595-99 October 6, 1999 Page 4 f. Should the use for which the permit was granted be changed the permit shall be subject to reconsideration, revocation or other action regulated by Section 1125.01 of this Title. The applicants indicate that this shed would be used strictly for storage, and that no activities would be proposed for the structure other than storage. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following stipulations: 1. The conditional use permit shall be recorded with Ramsey County within 60 days of City Council approval, and proof of such recording shall be provided to the City of Mounds View. 2. The shed shall not be used for living space or other uses not allowed by the district in which it is located or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted, the conditional use permit shall become null and void. 3. No other sheds or accessory buildings, other than the existing garage shall be allowed on this lot. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 6th day of October, 1999. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\571-99\595-99PC.RES RESOLUTION NO. 5377 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR AN OVERSIZED SHED FOR ALAN AND TAMMY DOROFF, 8270 EASTWOOD ROAD, MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 571-99 WHEREAS, Alan and Tammy Doroff have applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 384 square-foot shed on property they own, located at 8270 Eastwood Road, zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, legally described as followed: Lot 3, Block 2, East Oaks, Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code allows by conditional use sheds up to 400 square feet in area and no more than 1,400 square feet total accessory building space on one lot; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Site Plan d. Area Map with Building Footprints e. Location Map f. Staff Report WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council finds that the dimensional requirements as stated in Chapter 1104 the Zoning Code for this proposal have been met; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council makes the following findings that possible adverse effects have been considered in its recommendation, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. 1.e.: I. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 8270 Eastwood Road, low-density residential. This proposal does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The Geographical Area Involved. Resolution 5377 October 25, 1999 Page 2 4. The Character of the Surrounding Area Almost every lot in this area of Mounds View is the same size as the subject property. Many of the homes in the immediate area have a similar split-entry design and have attached two-car garages. Many of the homes have sheds in addition to their garages. 3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed It is not believed that the construction of the shed, even one so large as is proposed by the applicants, would depreciate the neighborhood. The shed would be completely screened except for the peak, which might be visible from the adjacent properties. The shed would allow the applicants to store all of their pool equipment, yard equipment and other common items in one structure without taking away any room in the garage. S. The demonstrated need for such a use. The existing garage is a small, two-car garage of only 480 square feet. While expanding the garage to the rear is feasible, this option would take up well-utilized backyard space next to the home. The applicants desire to construct the shed behind the pool in a less-used part of the yard to minimize the impact of adding 384 square-feet of accessory building space. WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council makes the following findings regarding the general criteria for approval of a conditional use permit, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. 3.b.: (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. (8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided The addition of a storage shed, even one as large as that proposed, would not create a greater impact on existing public facilities or services, on utilities or access roads, nor would it create an increase in traffic on adjacent streets. (2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. The location of the shed behind the home and garage would hide it from general public view. Because of the tall fence surrounding the backyard area, the shed itself would be screened even from the adjoining properties as well. The shed would have a barn-like design, similar to one on an adjacent property, and would neither be incompatible with nor detrimental to this district. Resolution 5377 October 25, 1999 Page 3 (4) The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. (5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Sheds and out-buildings are typical uses in residential areas, and allow for the storage of yard and garden equipment . Having this shed will allow the property owners to replace a dilapidated metal shed and to store items currently left outside within a secure and protected structure. WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council makes the following findings regarding the specific cup requirements as specified in Section 1106.04, Subdivision 7: a. The accessory building must conform with Section 1103.06 of this Title and subdivision 1106.03(l) of this Title. This section of the Code dictates where in the yard an accessory building can be located. The proposed shed would be located in the rear yard, which is the only place a shed can be located according to the Code. b. The combined square footage of all accessory buildings on one lot cannot exceed one thousand four hundred(1,400) square feet. The area of the garage(480 square feet) and the proposed shed (384 square feet)totals 864 square feet, well within the 1,400 maximum allowance. c. The accessory building shall not exceed four hundred(400) square feet. The proposed shed would be 384 square feet. d. The building must be a permanent structure. The shed would be a wood-framed structure mounted upon a concrete pad. It is considered permanent. e. The building shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform appearance with the dwelling unit. The appearance of the shed will be different from the house, in that it will be a finished wood exterior having a barn-like design. The fact that most sheds are of a finished-wood construction makes this all the more typical. Resolution 5377 October 25, 1999 Page 4 f. Should the use for which the permit was granted be changed, the permit shall be subject to reconsideration, revocation or other action regulated by Section 1125.01 of this Title. The applicants indicate that this shed would be used strictly for storage, and that no activities would be proposed for the structure other than storage. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council approves the conditional use permit request with the following stipulations: 1. The conditional use permit shall be recorded with Ramsey County within 60 days of City Council approval, and proof of such recording shall be provided to the City of Mounds View. 2. The shed shall not be used for living space or other uses not allowed by the district in which it is located or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted, the conditional use permit shall become null and void. 3. No other sheds or accessory buildings, other than the existing garage shall be allowed on this lot. Adopted this 25th day of October, 1999. Dan Coughlin, Mayor ATTEST: Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDE VIDE V CAS ES\571-99\5377CC,RES Item No. /D .13 Staff Report No. Meeting Date: October 25, 1999 Type of Business: CB WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Jim Ericson, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Resolution 5380, a Resolution Approving a Wetland Buffer Permit to Construct a Single-family Home and Driveway on Property Located at 7638 Silver Lake Road. Planning Case 572-99 Date of Report: October 21, 1999 Project Summary: Jeffrey Hofstede, property owner of 7638 Silver Lake Road, has requested that the City approve a wetland buffer permit to allow for development within the 100-foot buffer surrounding the wetland that encroaches onto his property. Mr. Hofstede proposes to construct a single family home and driveway on his property. Regulatory Background: The City reviews all development that occurs within wetlands and their buffers because of the important role that wetlands play in maintaining the ecosystem and the area hydrology, in that they are critical to the present and future health, safety and general welfare of the land, animals and people within the City. Any existing and potential development within the City and the Rice Creek Watershed pose increasing economic and ecologic demands, potentially despoiling, polluting or negatively altering wetlands and their contributory function and benefit to the City. According to Chapter 1010 of the Municipal Code relating to the Wetland Zoning District, any work occurring within the 100-foot buffer surrounding a wetland requires approval of a wetland buffer permit. Analysis: The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and finds that in terms of the distance from the wetland and the potential impacts of the additional stormwater runoff, the wetland itself would not be adversely affected so long as a minimum five foot natural buffer is retained to surround the wetland to provide for additional filtration of runoff. It was further noted that the stormwater from the home be directed away from the wetland to allow for the runoff to be absorbed into the lawn areas instead of being guided directly to the wetland. In addition, the driveway should be constructed with enough of a slope to direct runoff to the north, away from the wetland. City of Mounds View Staff Report October 21, 1999 Page 2 Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 5380, a Resolution approving the wetland buffer permit requested by Jeffrey Hofstede, with stipulations. j(ORO fir , James Ericson, Planning Associate N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\572-99\5380CC.RPT .ITY r. ►; F` . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION m.strsg2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 Parcae612-717-4020 rs�`�Q 612-784-3462 -FAX Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information Name of Applicant 110Fs7ETelephone 6/Z 77'/ 7801 Address /9 2/ 7/9 ve.04 v04s(1 , Ai L • Fax ,i /s in Ai 5-5-1/8 • Interest in Property(check appropriate box) Owner of Property ❑ Contract for Deed Owner a Lessee, Operator,Manager 0 Agreement to Purchase ❑ Other(explain) Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application,and if you are not the owner of the property,you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. Property Description/Proposal Address or General Location If� Legal Description L/r. I 1 EX e�EJ l fit 206,1 1&. / •-#)Egf& Property Identification#(PIN#) 07 30 23 2/ 0©Q a #of Acres Current Zoning Type of Application ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment $250 ❑ Rezoning $250/acre; min$250 max$1500 ❑ Major Subdivision $250+$250 deposit* O Minor Subdivision $200 ❑ Planned Unit Development(PUD) Refer to rezoning fees ❑ PUD Amendment $350 ❑ Conditional Use Permit R-1, R-2$75;all others$250 ❑ Variance R-1, R-2$100 all others$250 ❑ Code Appeal $100 ❑ Develop Review/Site Plan $125/acre;min$125 max$750 ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit R-1,R-2$150;all others$200 Uzi Wetland Buffer Permit R-1,R-2$25;all others$100 ❑ Floodplain Permit $200 O Other *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices,materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty(30)days after consideration of the application is completed. Please complete the reverse side of this application. City of Mounds View,MN Page 2 Development Application Present Use of Property • Undeveloped/Vacant ❑ Single Family Dwelling ❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling ❑ Multi-family Dwelling ❑ Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Industrial Establishment ❑ Other(explain) Property Classification 0 Abstract 0 Torrens Description of Proposal BY MY(OUR)SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION,I HEREBY DECLARE THAT,TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE,THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TR AND ACCURATE. • Signature of Applicant y _ i cs Name of Applicant(typed/printed) /� Off/ ' `~' of l CDC': Signature of Property Owner ; ;' _ Name of Property Owner(typed/printed) f L�� f l!5: 7 V Address of Owner / 9Z-T ` LO/Z (4, fipQ Phone Number of Owner 6/2 2 9' ��o/ ************************************************************************************************ FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal /J/Y/9`I ��n� �c��}zl Date of Acceptance . /OA4/ �7 Assigned to: Planning Case No. 5-7 •q 60-day Limit 120-day limit Fees Paid: Account# Check# Receipt Application: a 5''Oo LO-3L2/0 oto r-I 3[Q Park Dedication: Deposits: Other: Total: t/98 N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\FORN1S\DEVAPP.FOR - - — —- I 7897 i " HILLVIEW 1' Er N 78351 7890 7887 [, .j - - ,tiAc)�� N 7886 --Th.— _ _ *7Z! 4 7861 N 00 R` .M.........__. 7825 7880 7879 w M M•"r 0 7876 f 7860: 7835 m N B-2 X7815 7870 7865 7870 ;,7805 7860`7851 7850CI ' $ 00 t,��� .>"\" 7801 ��., 0 7850 7841 O N N N780C -1 '1,9› 8 7791 `� 13-1........,..........$.. ---t- OAKWOOD DR 3 ,,`� - A.., v r 3 R-4 g`b p 783•• 7821 r ry 7786. 7781 7750 ry �' til �;::•:•::::;::.:. ----•--• 776ea7769 i 7780 •:\ ' © �1 ::::.::.':.':...:::.::.::.:S.:::.: . 7785 '<:\\///.:x•.•::::. •:•:. .:. .. ._... ,7758 ` 'V B-2 , ::;: . ::.f.::::. 7775 .,.,..._�.. _77_59;7770., _ PUD o°` H .�:...M. ....- --:?-- -�',: --�--- _7748 7747768 7767 ft. 4. 7765 7738° 7739•,,, 7729 O 0,6 7755 O a0` 4o :•:.4•:; -•••�7728 3 772 7728 7723 cc; 7735 `' ,, *:::.*::•:•:•:•:•:-:. ::::.:::::::1:r.v::: • —-1* r^, 77180 771 7718 7715 � "T r�L • \ o:771& g . Lake 7710 7711 N.770t 7692 Rp d .. . 03 , 7686 7685 N 7692 7685 N 7690 PUD c 'Na) 7680 Le 7663 fly 768 NN. L Q 7675 7669 7670 .� 768 Y• o O 7670 7665 7660 o 76611X-.,..-._....._.. .._. . . . _...... ._..,7s44 7653 _ _ g i . 7655 7666 7647 __ -- �: N 7631 7633 7664 7629 _7634 7635 782 7629 1 _7620 7625 T 7620 ' "" 7s1� �62i—' 7soo •�s19 _ 7600 _�so1 -.. SILVER VIEW 760 7585 7594 7575 • ""'"'"""" 7581 7580 758 _ 7579 7588 _.- PARK ' 7564 7565 -----t---, r O 7565 1 7584 0 7565 . c '._..._.`...._.._.. 7556 O- �__ _ • 7555 3 7555 7572 R-2 w: ; 7546 __-- - -----J ._Y _ - Ww 7555 ' 7552•• ` ' ._._._— 7545 7550 O_7545 7560 : 7550 u): N 4 7538 w 7546 Y 7515 ' . /545 •-2' - 7542 P F a ) _ . _ N rn M 7540 og 0p * g ;750N N7500 N° k lei °° ao 7532 1 M } N7521 7530 - N t DRIVE ;; 7522 o f 7474 7489 N 7490 7485 N 75011 -.Q 5�O M _ 7465747 7493 N N N 750 7474 7471 7462 _./..4-- 7474 --f-=--- BRONSON 74 743 "" ---- — ME 7448 • 7451#7456 Pt oro 0 1 :: 7445co 1 7444 4211 • • w 7415 7442 42 vN• 't N N 7401 7430 7435 7434 Z z �! _ N 01� 733 - -••-- S 7409 ; I- 7440 tXR A V1EW� c 740 _ .74.0. co 7405.,.,.,.._ ` 7412 7405 -.'"..-.4 ._ 7408 n n ,N N 1 333 Z 7381 7395 . 7400 > n w! N 7329 J. 7380 7382 �-�-- Zoning Map Planning Case 572-99 Request: Wetland Buffer Permit N4 Location: 7638 Silver Lake Road II VC./41•U IY C I / V -- --132.01-- 1 --, o • o I o Z X 10 c v �� CO v zo . D co D D • rn • X O co N (n N 4 • 4% X co 0 co It L,.....x. 20.00 905.5 • 1905.51 \\14.51 0 0 . •-- \48.0 \� Ni f-4. R h • N PO DWELLING o ,tomill LB N O 4 2n • - N 1 o is, 1 1 ♦ we-A 31.0 v I .�, 1910.21 ':*4 '' t' rn �, II �� 210\� 10.51 1' ti 910.2 co0II 1 ccs ll m o u O N M w O 9.M • o a N r• 'V O �-�t cNn co -0 - co _ coz / N N N m co C ‘ $31 fin Z • co N m D 'I� X v o • .0 o O -< N o Zio O (-P N o v m . .c m z v 13 l in 3 M D o m I ♦ w 0 `� )ea < X N 1 sags—..41 -wir -s -rn 132.01-00 v 0 `0 - m — - 0 En co 'l cam-Wi3 N O or N BIT. CURB\ ^' X 1 iv 9Z 0-n - n X 00 I X vn mo r N co o N iW rn my Opp • CA •.. -47j O-_I 11 SILVER L41 ROAp ; �z 1 cello RESOLUTION NO. 5380 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A WETLAND BUFFER PERMIT FOR JEFFREY HOFSTEDE, 7638 SILVER LAKE ROAD PLANNING CASE 572-99 WHEREAS, Jeffrey Hofstede has requested approval of a Wetland Buffer Permit for property of which he is the owner, legally known as: Lot 4, Spring Lake Park Knolls Add., except the west 205.1 feet thereof Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the above-described property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential; and, WHEREAS, Section 1010.08 of the Municipal Code states that a Wetland Buffer Permit is required when any construction activities are planned within one-hundred feet of a wetland; and, WHEREAS, no development activities or disturbances of any kind will occur within the wetland itself, and, WHEREAS,the proposed home and driveway fall completely within the 100-foot buffer area adjacent to the wetland; and, WHEREAS,Mr. Hofstede has drafted the site plan so as to maintain the greatest possible distance between the proposed home and driveway and the wetland; and, WHEREAS,the City Engineer has reviewed the final plans and has determined that the extent of impervious encroachment into the buffer should not negatively impact the wetland. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council approves the Wetland Buffer Permit Jeffrey Hofstede contingent upon the following: 1. Plans and supporting documentation for controlling erosion shall be provided by the applicant and approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. 2. The pervious surface areas of the lots shall be sodded or landscaped (up to the five- foot natural vegetation strip along the wetland) to prevent substantial soil loss from the site. This will need to be accomplished before a certificate of occupancy is issued. Resolution 5380 Hofstede Wetland Buffer Permit October 25, 1999 Page 2 3. Only clean fill, substantially free of chemical pollutants and contaminants, shall be brought onto the site. 4. The minimum elevation for the building on this site shall not be less than 900.3 as specified in the City's Local Water Management Plan. 5. No waste--solid, hazardous or otherwise--shall be allowed to enter directly or indirectly into the wetland. 6. Mr. Hofstede shall execute and arrange to have recorded with Ramsey County an easement document which dedicates to the City for public purposes an easement over the entirety of the wetland, including the adjacent five-foot natural area surrounding the wetland. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER STIPULATED that the Mounds View City Council makes no claims or guarantees regarding the ability of the applicant to obtain building permits nor does the approval of this wetland buffer permit constitute an implicit or explicit approval of any required building permits for this project. Adopted this 25th day of October, 1999. Dan Coughlin, Mayor ATTEST: Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\572-99\5380CC.RES (OTT or 1O .. ilpi le. 1e October 14, 1999 Ms. Julie Olsen, Chair Mounds View Charter Commission Mr, Chuck Whiting Clerk Administrator City of Mounds View 2401 County Road 10 Mounds View,MN 55112 Dear Chuck, The Mounds View Charter Commission has reviewed your letter dated August 12, 1999. We will be needing additional information in order to complete the review of the charter revisions as requested. Point 1) Charter Section 3.01 - as to"council meetings" • we are requesting the city to provide us with the State law and or City code that the council is reciting from. Point 2) Charter Section 4.02- as to "filing for office" • Would like to see where in the State of Minnesota Constitution that this is addressed. • Would like the case law of Minnesota Term Limits Coalition V. Keefe. Point 3) Charter Section 5.05 - as to`initiative", "resolutions" • A copy of the city attorney's letter dated June 28, 1998 • Copy of the State law that your letter is referring to • Copies of Case law involving charter cities that your letter is referring to Point 4) "Voting majority for zoning amendments" • Need state law definition of 2/3rds majority. Sincerely, Julie Olsen Chair Mounds View Charter Commission co VOGS Phone: (612)717-4000 vv Fax: (612)784-3462 vv A ~egress ' PartnevS���S August 12, 1999 Ms. Julie Ann Olson, Chair Mounds View Charter Commission 2663 Lake Court Circle Mounds View,MN 55112 Re: Request from the City Council for Review of Charter Provisions Dear Julie: At its July 26 City Council meeting,the Mounds View City Council discussed various charter provisions and directed me to draft this request for review of particular City Charter provisions. These provisions in the view of the City's counsel may be either unconstitutional or inconsistent within the charter or city codes. Suggested considerations are included. The Council would appreciate the Charter Commission's review and opinion of the following Charter provisions: • Charter Section 3.01 as to "council meetings" should be modified to strike out language which references calling special meetings upon at least 24 hours notice to each member. Thus, the second sentence of Section 3.01 should be revised to read as follows "The Mayor or any two members of the Council may call special meetings of the Council upon such reasonable public notice as may be prescribed by council rule in compliance with the laws of Minnesota." • The amendments adopted to Charter Section 4.02 as to "filing for office"which were adopted at the election held on November 8, 1994, should be removed from the charter. as such provision have been deemed unconstitutional by Minnesota Courts. Case law in Minnesota has held that charter amendments as to term limits for elected office are unconstitutional. Minnesota Term Limits Coalition v. Keefe, 535 N.W. 2d 306 (Minn. 1995). The adoption of subdivision 2 of Section 4.02 for the charter would appear to fall squarely within this holding. Thus, whether or not the new provision of the subdivision 2 are contained or printed in the charter,the amendment could not be implemented because it has been ruled unconstitutional. Removal of these provisions from the charter would appear to be the preferable course of action to avoid the possibility that a citizen of the city could be misled by including it or that a citizen of the city could force removal of the unconstitutional provision by judicial action should the provision be continued to be printed in the newly updated charter and city code. I have included city attorney Long's letter dated July 26, 1999, regarding this matter for your further reference. /, 2401 Highway 10• Mounds View, MN 55112-149:.- [ IPwrcEo INwiK,»jtM _ recydeeDaDc • • The provisions contained in Charter Section 5.05 as to "initiative", and in Charter Section 5.07 as to "referendums"should, as in the case of Section 4.02,be brought consistent with case law covering these topics. As such, these two sections of the charter should be revised to be consistent with the correspondence previously provided by city attorney Long dated June 28, 1998, which noted that initiative and referendum provisions contained within the charter as to resolutions were not appropriate. • The present city code language as to approvals for zoning contained at Code Section 1125.01, subd. 1(j),wherein a 4/5 vote is required for a zoning amendment, is not consistent with the provisions and requirements provided for ordinance adoption contained in Section 3.04 of the charter. The charter only requires an affirmative vote of three or more members of the council for the adoption of all ordinances, etc.,unless, otherwise provided within the charter. The super majority requirement contained in Section 1125.01, subd. 1(j) is not effective since it is not in compliance with the language of the charter. Furthermore, state law sets forth a two-thirds majority requirement for zoning amendments, and there would be some question whether or not a charter could impose different requirements. These four points address suggested changes or matters for consideration by the City Council and the Charter Commission. Please bring these points to the Charter Commission for their and your review. Recognizing the Charter Commission meets only once a month,please notify me and/or the City Council prior to October 21, 1999 of the Charter Commission's review of these points. The City Council can accept the Charter Commission's review at their October 25 Council meeting and if need be schedule their own further review at work sessions and council members there after. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at 612-717-4001. Sincerely, • Chuck Whiting •f Mounds View Clerk Administrator 06-09-99 18:12 From-KENNEDY i GRAVEN +6123379310 T-693 P.05/08 F-230 470 Pillsbury Canter Kennedy 200 South Slab Street Mlaaespol'MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 zckpliuuc CIf a V G II (612)337-9310 far. C t1 A re T E R R D hap'//ww'r icc uwdy-sravcn cum ROBERT C.LONC Mtrorncy•c Law Direct Dal(612)337-9202 crna,l rlongeicamcUy-gMvcn cum July 26, 1999 FMr. Charles S. Whiting CO City Clerk-Administrator City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View,MN 55112 Re: Term Limits Charter Amendment Dear Chuck: • Pursuant to your request to review the status of the term limit amendments to the Mounds View City Charter that were voted on and adopted at the general election held on November S, 1994, please find the following discussion and my recommendations. As you are aware, ..ase law in Minnesota has held that charter amendments as to term limits for elected office are unconstitutional. Minneapolis Term Limits Coalition v Keefe, 535 N.W.2d 306 (Minn. 1995). The adoption of Subdivision 2 of Section 4.02 for the Municipal Charter would appear to fall squarely within this unconstitutional holding by the Court. Thus, whether or not Subdivision 2 of the newly adopted Section 4.02 of the Charter is printed in the charter, the amendment could not be implemented because it has been ruled unconstitutional. Previous advice supplied by my office regarding the issue of the unconstitutionality of such a charter amendment dealt with the issue of whether such an unconstitutional amendment should be printed at public cost in the Charter where such a provision is known to be invalid. In our judgment, such public expenditures would be improper. Based on materials supplied by the City to my office, as well as information learned from other sources, it appears that in early 1995 the new charter amendment adding subdivisions 2, 3 and 4 to Section 4.02 of the Charter was forwarded pursuant to statutory requirements to the Secretary of State for inclusion in the City Charter. Based upon the City's compliance with the filing requirements of an approved charter amendment pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 410, it appears that a few of the City's copies of the Charter have been amended to include the three new subdivisions of Section 4.02. Despite such printing of the unconstitutional charter amendment, the question remains whether or not the City, during the present recodification and SIR-166333 fU210-t 08-09-99 18:12 From-KENNEDY 1 GRAVEN +6123379310 T-693 P.06/08 F-230 Charles S. Whiting July 26, 1999 Page 2 updating process of the City Code, should knowingly print an unconstitutional provision in its charter. it would appear that the following options are available to the City. First, it would appear that the most prudent course of action would be for the Mounds View Charter Commission to recommend removal of the unconstitutional amendment from the Charter. This course of action would appear preferable because there exists the distinct possibility that a citizen of the City could force removal of the unconstitutional provision by judicial action should the provision be printed in the newly updated charter and city code. Second, an alternative approach to responding to the issue of reprinting the unconstitutional provision in the Charter would be to include the adopted amendment, as appears to have been the case in some circumstances,` but to include a revisor's footnote which states that such provision has been deemed unconstitutional by the Minnesota Supreme Court. Such a footnote and printing would satisfy those who desire to have the charter reprinted with the unconstitutional term limit provision, but at the same time would prevent the public from being misled by the inclusion of an invalid provision in the Charter. Please let me know how the City Council and Charter Commission desire to proceed with this issue. Likewise, please feel free to contact me with any other questions or concerns you may have regarding this matter. Sincerely, Robert C. Long Mounds View City Attorney SJR:sms • It is not apparent tions the information provided to us regarding the copies of the Charter containing the amended Section 4.02.by whom or when such modifications to the Charter were completed. Please note, however,that the modifications do contain various typographical errors, which at a minunum need to be revised at the tune of the updating$tits reprinting of the Cbarrer and City Code. SJR-lbb333 MIF'144 48-09-89 18:13 From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN +6123379310 1-693 P.07/08 F-230 4711 Pillsbury C.cnt<i Kenliedy 200 South Sixth Scrccc M,nncapolis MN 55402 (612)337-9300 tc(cehon% � .j 1-JVCIl (612)337-9310 flit tutp•i i ww w.kw m cd y-gra v cn.t:u,n C ri A R T 6 RED ROBEKT C.LONG' Aturncy at Lav t)ircct Aral(612)337.9202 CO fl4d crrlongQkcnnc4y-graven cum June 29, 1998 City of Mounds View City Council CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View,MN 55112-1499 RE: Revised Second Petition to Initiate a Resolution Concerning the Anthony Properties Management, Inc. Project Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members: am once again writing in reference to the receipt by the City of Mounds View of a "Petition for Initiative" from an initiative committee organized under Chapter 5 of the City Charter. The petition purports to initiate ,t city resolution that, in effect, would require the City to submit the question of approving portions of a development project plan for the Anthony Properties proposed theater project in the City to the voters for approval at a special election. The Council previously requested an opinion as to whether the previously submitted initiative petition required the city to place the proposed resolution on the ballot for approval pursuant to the City Charter. I am updating my prior opinion in response to the revised initiative petition from the initiative committee. As before,in our opinion, the "Petition for initiative" is invalid for the reasons set forth below. Therefore, the City Council is under no obligation to place the proposed resolution on the ballot. 1. A long line of Minnesota court decisions beginning with Oakman v. Eveleth, 163 Minn. 100, 203 N.W. 514 (1925) and most recently in Hanson v. City of Granite Falls, 529 N.W 2d 485 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995) have held that the powers of initiative and referendum apply only to formal actions of a city council that are legislative in character, that is, measures that "lay[j down 'some permanent and uniform rale of law'. . ." Hanson, 529 N.W.2d at 488. Further, Mimi. Stat. § 410,20 provides the authority for initiative, referendum and recall within the City Charter. Such authonty is limited only to ordinances. Minn Stat. § 410.20; see Housing and Redevelopment Authority v City of Minneapolis, 293 Minn 227, 198 N.W.24 531, 536-37 (1972) (legislative intent of Minn. Stat. § 410.20 is limited to ordinances); Hanson, 529 N.W.2d at 488. In Hanson, a council resolution approving an airport layout plan was held not subject to referendum as it "was more in nature of an administrative act relating to the daily administration of'municipal aflatrs." Hanson, 529 N W 2d at 488. In Oalcman, an ordinance six-iai96s MUM-xi MEL 28-69-99 18:13 From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN +6123379310 1-693 P.08/08 F-230 City of Mounds View City Council June 29, 1998 Page 2 authorizing the settlement of a lawsuit was held not subject to referendum. Oakman, 163 Minn. at , 203 N.W. at 516-17. In both 1ianson and Oakman, the matters were found to be administrative, not legislative, in nature. Here, the decision to approve a resolution (rather than an ordinance)concerning a specific project development plan is, in our opinion, administrative in nature and not a legislative act subject to referendum. It is a well established principal of law in Minnesota that local charters and laws must be in harmony with and subject to the constitution and laws of the state and that a city may not prohibit anything permitted by general law or permit anything prohibited by general law. Giant v. Berrisford, 94 Minn. 45, 101 N.W. 940 (1904). Minn. Stat. § 410.20 provides that a local charter may retain initiative authority over the submitting of ordinances petition, etc. Such statutory a city council by authority does not apply to resolutions,at 536-37 see,. Houser 2, and Redevelopment Authority, 293 Minn. at , 198 N.W.2d529 atN53 7 (legislative intent of Minn. Stat. § 410.20 is limited to ordinances); Hanson, 488. Thus, the proposed resolution submitted by the initiative committee is in direct conflict with this statutory authority. 3. Upon review of the petition and proposed resolution, it appears deficient and defective in construction. Pursuant to Section 5.05 of the City Charter, "[a]ny ordinance or resolution may be proposed by a petition which shall state at the head of each page or attached thereto the exucr re::r of the proposed ordinance or resolution" (emphasis added). The petition for initiative does not appear to meet this requirement and is therefore defective. Therefore, the resolution proposed by the imitative committee would be 1) administrative in nature and not subject to referendum, 2) contrary to a general law of the state, and also 3) defective in construction according to the terms of the City Charter. Thus, the City Council is under no obligation to place the initiative resolution on the ballot. If we can be of any further assistance in this matter, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, COC) Robert C. Long City Attorney RCL:sjr cc7 Chuck Whiting SJR-14590t3 MU2 IC-s 1 Item No. It -� Staff Report No. Meeting Date: October 25, 1999 Type of Business: CB City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor & City Council From: James Ericson, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Approval of a Limited Use Agreement to Allow a Driveway over and across Unimproved City Right of Way. Date of Report: October 21, 1999 Background: On September 20, 1999, Spencer Mistelske was before the Council to request that the City Council consider a proposal to allow for a driveway to be constructed over and across unimproved City right of way. Mr. Mistelske reported that he had entered into a purchase agreement with the property owners of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Smuder Addition. The agreement, which has not yet been exercised, was contingent upon favorable wetland analysis, soil borings and City allowance of said driveway request. Mr. Mistelske stated his willingness to sign a limited use agreement which among other things would absolve the City from any potential liabilities and indemnify and hold harmless the City in any and all events. He further stated that at some point in the future if Laport Drive is constructed, he understood that he would be accordingly assessed for the adjacent improvements. The Council discussed this request and directed staff to coordinate the drafting of a limited use agreement to allow for the driveway, contingent upon the results of a wetland delineation study for the subject parcels. This study has been completed, the results of which are attached to this report. The study indicates that the edge of the wetland is a significant distance from the lots in questions--as staff and a representative from SEH had assumed. The 100-foot buffer only slightly encroaches upon Lot 3. The driveway would be located on that part of Laport Drive which is outside of the buffer area, which would eliminate the need for a buffer permit. Discussion: Approving the Limited Use Agreement would not prevent the City from exploring development possibilities within the"Laport Meadows" area, often referred to as the"Little Woods." The agreement indicates that Mr. Mistelske would be responsible--as would any other property owner--for any assessments resulting from street improvements in the event a street is constructed on the unimproved right of way. The City would not maintain this driveway nor would it be liable for any claims or judgements associated with the driveway. City of Mounds View Staff Report October 21, 1999 Page 2 Recommendation: Per the Council's direction, staff has put before the Council this limited use agreement that would allow Mr. Mistelske to install a driveway over and upon City right of way, to be maintained in perpetuity or until such time that a street is constructed that Mr. Mistelske could directly access. This agreement has been reviewed by Mr. Mistelske and the City Attorney, who both find said document acceptable and in proper form. If it is the Council's desire, staff has drafted a resolution for action that would approve of the Limited Use Agreement with the restrictions and limitations as stated herein. James Ericson Planning Associate C:\OFFICE\WP WJN\WPDOCS\REPORTS\LIMITED.RPT GRANT AND ACCEPTANCE OF LIMITED USE AGREEMENT THIS LMTED USE AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made as of 1999, by and between the CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City"), and SPENCER MISTELSKE (the "Resident"). RECITALS A. The Resident is the owner of property legally described on the attached Exhibit A (the "Parcel"). B. The Resident desires to use a portion of Laport Drive, which is a dedicated and unimproved City street, for the purpose of constructing, using, and maintaining a driveway designed to serve the Parcel. A drawing of the location of the driveway is attached as Exhibit B. AGREEMENT 1. Offer and Acceptance of Agreement. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the City and the Resident agree that the Resident may construct and maintain the driveway depicted on Exhibit B. 2. Consideration. In consideration for the right to construct and maintain the driveway, the Resident has paid to the City one dollar($1.00)upon execution of this Agreement. 3. Construction, Maintenance, and Repair of Driveway. The Resident shall construct the Driveway and shall be solely responsible for all maintenance and repair of the driveway, including removal of snow and ice. The City shall have no responsibility for the maintenance or repair of the driveway. 4. Indemnification. The Resident shall at all times indemnify and hold harmless the City from any and all claims for damages, including costs and attorney fees, arising from or by reason of the design, construction, maintenance, use, and removal of the Project; provided, however, that nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to waive any rights that the City has against the Resident under this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as a waiver by the City of any immunities, defenses, or other limitations on liability to which the City is entitled by law, including but not limited to the maximum monetary limits on liability established by Minnesota Statutes, Section 466.04. 5. Limitation of Use. The use of this driveway shall be limited to the Resident. The driveway shall provide no access to other properties or residences. In the event of additional development in this area, improvement of the right of way by means of a standard City street will be required. 6. Termination. The City or the Resident may terminate this Agreement at any time for any reason, or for no reason at all, by providing 30 days written notice to the other party. Upon termination of this Agreement, the Resident shall remove the driveway and return the property to the condition it was in prior to construction of the driveway at the Resident's sole cost. 7. Assignability of Agreement. The Resident may assign its rights under this Agreement to any purchaser of the Parcel, provided that such purchaser agrees in writing to accept the Resident's obligations and responsibilities under this Agreement by executing an agreement substantially in the form set forth in Exhibit C. The City may assign its rights under this Agreement to any person at any time. 8. Miscellaneous Provisions. (a) The City is entitled to recover its reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred drafting this Agreement and in enforcing the terms of this Agreement. (b) Any notice, demand, or other communication under this Agreement by either party to the other shall be sufficiently given or delivered if it is dispatched by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered personally; and (I) in the case of the Resident, is addressed to or delivered personally to the Resident at 2442 Laport Drive, Mounds View, MN 55112 and (ii) in the case of the City, is addressed to or delivered personally to the City at City of Mounds View, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds, View, MN 55112, Attn: City Administrator; or at such other address with respect to either such party as that party may, from time to time, designate in writing and forward to the other as provided in this Section. (c) The City may record this Agreement and any amendments thereto in the office of the Ramsey County Recorder or Registrar of Titles, as may be applicable. In either case, the Resident shall pay all costs for recording and shall assist and cooperate with the City as necessary to record this Agreement. (d) This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Resident and the City and supersedes any other written or oral agreements between the parties. This Agreement can be modified only in a writing signed by the parties. C:\OFFICE\WP W IN\WPDOCS\JERICSON\LIMITUS E.AGR IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Resident and City have executed this limited use agreement this day of , 1999. CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW By Its Mayor And Its City Administrator STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) On this day of , 1999, before me, a notary public within and for Ramsey County, personally appeared and to me personally known who by me duly sworn, did say that they are the Mayor and City Administrator of the City of Mounds View, Minnesota(the "City") named in the foregoing instrument; that the seal affixed to said instrument is the seal of said City; that said instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of said City pursuant to a resolution of its governing body; and said Mayor and City Administrator acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said City. Notary Public RESIDENT Spencer Mistelske STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 1999, before me, a notary public within and for County, personally appeared Spencer Mistelske, to me personally known who by me duly sworn, who, before, me, acknowledged the same to be his free act and deed. Notary Public EXHIBIT A Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, SMUDER ADDITION, Ramsey County, Minnesota EXHIBIT B (Site Plan indicating location of driveway) EXHIBIT C ASSIGNMENT OF LIMITED USE AGREEMENT FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Spencer Mistelske("Assignor"), hereby assigns and transfers unto ("Assignee"), all of Assignors' right, title, and interest in the Limited Use Agreement, executed as of , 1999, between Assignors and the City of Mounds View, Minnesota, and Assignee hereby assumes Assignors' obligations thereunder. Dated: ("Assignee") By STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) On this day of , before me, a notary public within and for County, personally appeared , to me personally known who by me duly sworn, who, before, me, acknowledged the same to be his/her free act and deed. Notary Public ASSIGNOR Spencer Mistelske STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) On this day of , before me, a notary public within and for County, personally appeared Spencer Mistelske, to me personally known who by me duly sworn, who, before, me, acknowledged the same to be his free act and deed. Notary Public CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY SWENSON LAND SURVEYING, INC. 14980 Waco Street RONALD J.SWENSON Ramsey,Minnesota 55303 TELEPHONE REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR (612)427-1020 -r •Denotes Iron Monuments Found SURVEY FOR: SP€Nth m t 6 l E L Cj K� 0 Denotes Iron Monuments Set Scale 1 Inch equals_teet Book'Page1 Invoice No. .3-4-67— ` SET p�D + — - - -, -+ pl�6tittRT� if _. .....( i+ � __+'_ / —Ft / / / reR loot 7 M to EAST • ii, ti .9o.yg 83.0e - k o Lu Luo ,:i. 1ti IS 3 CO 31111111 . 0 N /-) N e") op p(1 o i o 0 `r) Z % 90.96 83.06 1.5 $ C,4.4,.4 A/89°59'57"E Gime t FcmcE I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of: Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, SMUDER ADDITION, Ramsey County, Minnesota. It does purport to show improvements or encroachments, if any. As survey d by me this 20th day of October 1999. 4Swenso� d Surveying, Inc. Ronald J. Swenson, Registered Land Surveyor, Mn License No. 13297 RESOLUTION NO. 5381 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A LIMITED USE AGREEMENT TO PERMIT THE INSTALLATION, USE AND MAINTENANCE OF A DRIVEWAY OVER AND ACROSS UNIMPROVED CITY RIGHT OF WAY WHEREAS, Spencer Mistelske, the"Applicant," has requested permission from the City of Mounds View to install, use and maintain a driveway over and across unimproved City right of way to service a parcel of land fronting unimproved Laport Drive, legally described as: Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, SMUDER ADDITION, Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Wetland Delineation Report b. Wetland Zoning Map c. Plat Map d. Letter from Mr. Mistelske, dated 9/13/99 e. Purchase Agreement, dated 8/19/99 f Staff Report g. Site Survey h. Limited Use Agreement I. Staff Report WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council finds that the installation of a driveway over and across City right of way would not be detrimental to the health, safety and public welfare of the community; and, Resolution 5377 October 25, 1999 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council agrees to allow for such driveway installation upon execution of a"Grant and Acceptance of Limited Use Agreement;" and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council makes no claims or guarantees regarding the ability of the Applicant to obtain a building permit for a residential dwelling upon said parcel nor does execution of said agreement constitute an implicit approval of any requested building permits. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council authorizes the execution of a"Grant and Acceptance of Limited Use Agreement" in a form acceptable to the Applicant and the City. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Applicant shall be responsible for recording the "Grant and Acceptance of Limited Use Agreement" with Ramsey County prior to the issuance of any building permits for the above-described parcel. Adopted this 25th day of October, 1999. Dan Coughlin, Mayor ATTEST: Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator (SEAL) C:\OFFICE\W P W IN\WPDOCSVERICSON\5381CC.RES I .1 t6=►i i. \\ r r 1 4 LEAGUE OF MINNSOTA CITIES • 1999 PolicyAdoption Conference NOVEMBER 19, 1999 RADISSON HOTEL SOUTH, BLOOMINGTON Near, learn, discuss, take home, and vote on important policies that will set the course for the cities'legislative efforts. Join your city colleagues, League staff, legislators and other policy-makers for an important discussion of key legislative concerns for cities during the upcoming legislative session. Tentative Agenda 8:00 Registration and Refreshments 8:30 Welcome from LMC President Susan Hoyt and Executive Director Jim Miller 8:45 Reform of Joint and Several Liability Steve Sviggum,Speaker of the House,invited Jack Hennen,LMCIT Defense Attorney 9:45 Break 10:00 Electric Utility Industry Deregulation Steve Minn,Commissioner of Commerce 10:45 The Future of Ventura Administration Property Tax Reform Matt Smith,Commissioner of Revenue,invited 11:30 Potpourri of Legislative Issues—IGR Staff 11:45 Lunch 12:45 Cities in Minnesota's Changing Political Climate: A Moderated Discussion with Wy Spano and Sarah Janecek Kevin Frazell,Moderator,League of Minnesota Cities 1:45 Policy Adoption 2:30 Adjourn To register, call the LMC fax library at (651) 215-4039 and request document #61020. For more information, contact Cathy Dovidio at (651) 281-1250. i