Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 1999/11/22 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNCIL AGENDA MONDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 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 November 15, 1999 Minutes 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: 6. REPORTS 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Just and Correct Claims. B. Set a Public Hearing for 7:05 p.m., Monday December 13, 1999, to Consider Resolution 5387, a Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit and Development Review for Sunrise United Methodist Church, 7687 Long Lake Road. C. Set a Public Hearing for 7:10 p.m., Monday December 13, 1999, for the First Reading (Introduction) of Ordinance 642, an Ordinance Amending Title 1100, Chapters 1104, 1107 and 1121 of the Zoning Code, Related to Driveways and Curb Cuts. D. Consideration of Resolution 5390, to Support a Multi-Jurisdictional Law Enforcement Training Center. E. Contractor Licenses for Approval. 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. A Public Hearing to consider a new Tobacco License for Tobacco Empire at 2563 %2 Highway 10. B. Consideration of NSP Request to Modify Method used to Calculate the Franchise Fee on Electric and Natural Gas Sales in the City of Mounds View. N:\DATA\USERS\Joanb\SHARE\AGENDAS\11-22-99.doc Page Two City Council Agenda November 22, 1999 C. Award of Bid for Locker Room Remodeling at Community Center; Wold Architects will be presenting. D. First Reading of Ordinance for Long Term Financial Plan. E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 644, an Ordinance Amendment to Allow Billboards by Conditional Use Permit. F. Follow-up to Y2000 Budget Public Meeting. G. Review of Golf Course Interfund Loan. H. Consideration of Resolution 5391, Approving TH 10 Jurisdictional Transfer. I. City Cable TV Broadcast Policy. J. Resolution Approving Fee Increases for 2000. K. Update on Filling Vacant Positions in the Community Development Department. 11. Truth in Taxation Meeting: Monday, December 6, 1999 -- 6:00 P.M. Next Council Work Session: Monday,December 6, 1999 Next Council Meeting: Monday, December 13, 1999 -- 7:00 P.M. 12. ADJOURNMENT N:\DATA\USERSVoanb\SHARE\AGENDAS\ll-22-99.doc Page 1 of 1 From: TimeSaver)@aol.com <TimeSaverl @aol.com> To: joanb@rcmnet.org <joanb@rcmnet.org> Date: Thursday, November 18, 1999 5:34 PM Subject: Nov. 15, 1999 Hi - here's the minutes. Trish had one question about Stigney's requested minute correction (Page 2 I think). It says: Council Member Stigney requested the vote tally on Page 17 be deleted. This request was made in writing so the rest of the Council was unaware of it. Please verify whether this vote tally should be deleted. It appears to me that it should remain as the vote on the actual motion. The previous vote tally addressed the motion to limit debate. Once verified, please take appropriate aciton and remove the bold feature from the meeting mintues. Thanks! Carla 11/19/99 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting November 15, 1999 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View,MN 55112 7:05 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,November 15, 1999, Amended City Council Agenda Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to add items to the agenda. Mayor Coughlin requested Item I, Airport Commission Appointments, be considered at the beginning of Council Business. He stated the one of the two appointees for whom he is seeking approval was present. Mayor Coughlin requested the addition of Item J, Cable Broadcast Policy of Meetings in Mounds View to the agenda. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Accept the November 15, 1999, Amended City Council Agenda as Presented, with the Addition of Item 10 J, Cable Broadcast Policy of Meetings in Mounds View. Ayes—5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Monday, October 25, 1999, City Council Minutes Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 3, seventh paragraph, last sentence, to indicate "...one half more noise." Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 6, second paragraph of Item 9, sixth sentence, to indicate "...address these issues in somewhat of a brainstorming or visioning process." Council Member Stigney requested a correction to Page 3, fourth paragraph of Reports, second sentence, to indicate "This includes any new, changed, or continuation..." Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting November 15, 1999 Page 2 Council Member Stigney requested a correction to Page 11, Motion, to omit the following: "aso Amended to Stipulate 'The Stormwater from the Home be Directed Away from the Wetland t Allow for the Runoff to be Absorbed Into the Lawn Areas Instead of Being Guided Directlyto the Wetland. In Addition, the Driveway Shall be Constructed With Enough of a Slope to Dirt Runoff to the North, Away From the Wetland.'" Direct Council Member Stigney requested the vote tally on Page 17 be deleted. Council Member Stigney requested a correction to Page 18, third paragraph, first sentence, to indicate "...go over the TIF plan for the City, that it was somewhat premature to take the fi steps toward making a loan to the golf course." rst Council Member Stigney requested a correction to Page 18, third paragraph, last sentence, to indicate "He recommended they hold off action until after that meeting." MOTION/SECOND: minute Stigney/Thomason. To accept the October 25, 1999 City Council as corrected. s Ayes—4 Nays—0 Abstain— 1 (Marty) Motion carried. 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS A. Acknowledgement of Presentation of Mounds View Plaque of Dedicated Service, Kitty Hickok. Mayor Coughlin stated this item was to acknowledge the presentation of a plaque to Kitty Hickok at her going away party the previous week, for her dedicated service to the City of Mounds View. He read the plaque, which indicates "For 12 years of dedicated service presented to Kathleen "Kitty" Hickok, in appreciation and recognition of her humor, enthusiastiattitude, and 12 years of exceptional service to the City of Mounds View, with sincere gratitude." Mounds View City Council and staff, November 1999. Mayor Coughlin stated he and Council Member Thomason had the opportunity to attend Ms. Hickok's going away party. He commented it was very nice to see some of the same old faces, and some who have gone on before, and returned for this occasion, however, it seemed more like a funeral than a party. He stated it should be acknowledged that Ms. Hickok did a wonderful job for the City. Mayor Coughlin stated Ms. Hickok had been employed with the City for 12 years, and during that time, never missed a payroll, although she had gone on maternity leave, and at oneoin , contracted pneumonia. He added, regardless of snow, sleet or hail, Ms. Hickok came in to work and made sure that everyone was paid, and everything was put in order. He advised that anything done consistently for twelve years should be honored, and he had indicated this to Ms. Hickok at her going away party. Mayor Coughlin stated he was dismayed at the number of City employees who are leaving. He pointed out that 29 people have left the City within the past three years. He explained some of these individuals were of retirement age, and were leaving in due course, and off to better thins and some people truly were just with the City temporarily, and then moved upthe g corporate Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting November 15, 1999 Page 3 ladder, however, this does not account for all of these people. He commented if the City continues to do what they are doing, they will end up with the same results, and one definition of insanity is when you continue to do the same thing over and over, and expect different results. Mayor Coughlin stated this was not a staff or department level problem. He explained through the City Charter, and the organization structure, the five Members of the Council are the bosses, and the "evil management" as it were, and it should be noted there continues to be a morale problem in the City, caused by certain elements of the City Council. He stated as Chairman of the Council, and as Mayor, it is his responsibility to call these things out of bounds, and at times he has failed to do so, therefore, he would extend his apologies to staff and the citizens he represents. Mayor Coughlin explained that earlier in the year, an accusation made by a particular Council Member, that members of the Police Department were utilizing their City codes to pay for washing their private vehicles at a local car wash. He pointed out that no evidence was given to support that claim, however, it was stated. He stated at that time, he left previous Police Chief Ramacher to defend himself, however, in retrospect, he felt this was out of bounds, and contributed to the morale problem within the City. Mayor Coughlin stated there are members of the Public Works Department who come in at a moment's notice to plow the streets, or handle sewer backups, and the like. He explained these are thankless jobs, and these individuals are never seen, yet all of these things get done, however, a particular Council Member has accused these individuals of misusing City resources to work on their cars after hours, in the shop, during the wintertime. He explained this destroyed morale, and again he did not call this out of bounds, therefore he would further extend his apologies. Mayor Coughlin advised the Council Members are the leaders, and the ones who set the tone and build or tear down morale. He stated he was aware that some individuals specifically left the City, not because they wanted to, but because they felt they had to. He stated this was wrong, and furthermore, it is immoral. Mayor Coughlin advised that morale does not simply mean coming in to work with a plastic smile on your face, it means feeling good about waking up and doing your job. He explained when you have completed your job, you go home to your respective families, and they would like mom or dad to come home in a pleasant mood. He pointed out if mom or dad is in a bad mood when they return home, because of morale issues, it effects more than just the City of Mounds View, it also effects families, neighbors and friendships. Mayor Coughlin stated the Council is in place because of people, and there are people under the Council who are employed to help serve people, therefore, it is all about people. He stated the 4 million-dollar budget does not simply represent numbers, but also people. He explained people pay taxes in, and in turn, are served by those taxes being spent. He advised if they deal with people as numbers, and do not recognize there are hearts and souls and minds beyond this, they are remiss in their duty. Mayor Coughlin extended his apologies to the citizens of Mounds View, and particularly to City staff, not only those staff members who were present, but also those who have moved on. He stated he would not take full ownership of this problem, as it was not only his problem. He stated however, as Chairman of the Council, he has, at times failed to call things out of bounds, Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting November 15, 1999 Page 4 and therefore, would apologize in as much as he has helped cause some of the existing morale difficulties. Mayor Coughlin called upon the Council to examine very carefully the manner in which they are dealing with staff, and what their perspectives in the community are. He explained that staff members are the individuals who conduct the administrative work, and none of the Council Members are supposed to do this work, much less are able to. He advised these are talented good, and devoted people, who want to work for the City. He stated in this day and age, when there is essentially zero unemployment, to maintain quality people is key. He explained he did not desire to have a group of interns or recently graduated college students in charge of managing the City of Mounds View. He pointed out for some positions this is ideal, and everyone has to begin somewhere, however, you can not run the entire town in that manner. Mayor Coughlin explained he would like the Council to surround themselves with people who are smarter, more professional, more talented, and more creative than they are. He explained this is because Mr. Whiting, Mr. Ulrich, Mr. Ericson and Mr. Jopke, and the rest of City staff, are the individuals who actually make the City work. Mayor Coughlin commented the Council has the opportunity to be seen on television, and they receive all of the accolades and the grief, however, they are not the ones who run the City. He explained the day-to-day operations are carried out by people behind the scenes, and there is actually a person behind the wheel of the snowplow at 2:00 a.m., who works eight hours without a break, because the roads must be plowed for the health safety and welfare of the community. Mayor Coughlin stated from this moment forward, he would not allow these good people to be accused of things they have never done, and then have to carry this unwanted and unnecessary burden around, only to have the occasional person poke fun at them, or accuse them anew of things they were accused of in the Council Chambers. Mayor Coughlin advised the Staff/Council Retreat would be held the following day. He stated one of the issues that should be discussed at this meeting is how this Council interacts, deals with, and supports its staff. He stated elements of the Council come forward with the mentality that everyone is considered guilty until they are proven innocent, however, this is not America, and this is not Mounds View. He explained it is time to eliminate the negativity, and get back to a point where staff, Council and citizens collectively can feel good about their town, and staff does not have to look over their shoulder for the next "grenade"to be lobbed from the podium. Mayor Coughlin indicated staff is not doing all they could do, for fear that next week they will be attacked on television, and will then have to defend their good name. He explained this is not necessary or warranted, and to place an honorable and noble person in the position of having to defend themselves against accusations is not only wrong, it is immoral. Mayor Coughlin stated he desired to acknowledge Kitty Hickok for her job with the City, and also extended his thanks to the other 29 people, some who left for legitimate reasons, and some who simply just fled. He stated he would commit himself anew to look at the "big picture" in Mounds View, and help support the staff that supports the City, because to do no less would be against his oath of office and his integrity. Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting November 15, 1999 Page 5 Council Member Marty stated he did not have the opportunity to attend Ms. Hickok's going away party, as he was out of town, and he was sorry to have missed it. He stated Ms. Hickok would be missed. He pointed out he had heard many things from her fellow staff members and former staff members that once City Hall began to downsize, Ms. Hickok took on the responsibility of someone else's job, in addition to her own, without receiving any additional compensation. Council Member Marty stated he applauded Ms. Hickok for remaining as long as she had, and extended his appreciation for her great contribution to the City. He stated 29 people have left the City, and at times are not being replaced, and if the Council begins to perform the administrative work, things will really begin to decline. He advised the City required good, qualified people to perform the jobs. He commented Ms. Hickok was hired for a job, and performed it for a number of years, and then City staff downsized, and she performed two jobs. He indicated now, they must attempt to find someone else to hire for one position, to perform two jobs, and there are problems in other areas of the City, because this is not the first time this has happened. Council Member Marty stated staff would not go the extra mile anymore, for fear of personal attacks or questioned motives. He pointed out there have been a number of personal attacks on City staff, and he would apologize also, for the same reasons expressed by Mayor Coughlin. He noted a situation he had observed as an audience member, during which he thought to himself that he was glad he was not a Member of the Council at that time, and did not have to get involved. He stated, however, he was elected, and elected by the people to speak for the people, therefore, he should have spoken up in defense of these unfounded accusations. Council Member Marty stated he did not desire to hear any more personal attacks, slams, hazing, or degradation on staff at Council meetings or through the newspaper. He took this personally, in terms of communication, and he would have liked this to be communicated directly to him, instead of reading about it in the newspaper. He pointed out the Council has made some inroads, however, they have a long way to go, and this issue needs to be addressed. He advised the morale of the staff, and the morale of the Council as well, is not what it could be. Council Member Marty stated the Staff/Council Retreat the following evening would not be televised, however, it begins at 5:00 p.m., and is open to the public, therefore, if anyone is interested in attending, they are welcome to do so. He stated accusations have been made, and you are considered guilty until you prove yourself innocent. He explained he would like to see these issues confronted and resolved before they get to the point of being aired on television or printed in the newspaper, as these are not proper forums for these matters. He added that he hoped the Council would attempt to address this, as well as the communication issue, during the Staff/Council Retreat. Council Member Marty stated he personally applauded staff for all of their efforts. He commented that prior to becoming a Council Member, he did not have a very high opinion of staff. He advised, however, he has since become aware of the magnitude and caliber of work staff performs, and the number of jobs performed by fewer people than were managing the City 5 or 10 years prior. He reiterated he applauds the entire City staff. He added that many staff members have become very creative in completing tasks that were previously performed by more individuals. He indicated he looked forward to the Staff/Council Retreat the following evening. Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting November 15, 1999 Page 6 City Administrator Whiting expressed his appreciation for Mayor Coughlin and Council Member Marty's kind words. He stated many people would miss Ms. Hickok, who was a fixture and close friend to many people, and a very reliable person, in terms of their personal interests with regard to the payroll and health insurance questions. He extended his compliments to Ms. Hickok who was able to provide assistance to everyone, whenever necessary. City Administrator Whiting advised, in regard to the concern staff would not continue to give 110 percent, staff has attempted to assume neutral roles in dealing with the Council and residents, so as to avoid any appearance of a possible politicized agenda on their part. He indicated it was possible staff could do more, however, over thepast 2 or 3 s, they have attempted to assume a role of professionalism and work in the best interests of the rCouncil, the City Code, and the policies of the City. He explained that staff is not perfect, however, this has been their objective in the past 2 or 3 years, and individuals who have been with the City longer than he have indicated the same. 6. REPORTS Council Member Stigney stated at the previous Council Meeting, the Mayor indicated the Charter Commission had overspent their budget one and one-half times, and at that time, he had taken exception to this statement, as he is a Charter Commission member and did not believe this to be the case. He stated the next morning he discussed this matter with the City Administrator, who reviewed the charges and billings, and determined that there were no charges made by the Charter Commission, only charges made by the City. Council Member Stigney reported at the Planning Commission meeting on November 3, there was discussion of the MSP Real Estate proposal to construct a senior residential facility, which would be before the Council that evening. He stated the Commission considered a Special Planning Case regarding Ordinance 642, which is related to driveway widths and curb cuts, and this ordinance is still undergoing some revision. Council Member Stigney reported staff updated the Commission regarding the billboard ordinance, and discussed with the Commission some legalities regarding the use of billboards on CRP and PF properties, in that allowing billboards in these areas may result in having to allow them in other parts of the City. He stated the Commission discussed this item quite extensively, and unanimously decided that the use of billboards conflicts with the basic land use objective of the PF Zoning District, therefore, staff is preparing an amendment to reflect this. Council Member Stigney stated two items were discussed prior to meeting proper of the Charter Commission on November 11. He stated one item pertained to comments made by the Mayor to the Charter Commission. He explained that several of the Commission members felt these comments were out of order, and perhaps an apology was due, as the Charter Commission is a volunteer organization and the members felt their integrity was being attacked in public, and took exception to this. Council Member Stigney stated there was also some confusion and discussion in terms of why a declaratory judgment was entertained by the Council. He stated the Charter Commission members believed they had acted appropriately to staff's request to respond by a certain date, and responded with questions requiring clarification in order to proceed with making recommended changes to the Charter. Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting November 15, 1999 Page 7 Council Member Stigney stated City Administrator Whiting and City Attorney Long attended the Charter Commission meeting, and explained some of the legal ramifications presented, and some of the background of these legalities, and answered many of the Commission's questions as well. He stated the Commission members were very thankful for City Administrator Whiting and City Administrator Long's attendance, and wished to extend their appreciation to them. Council Member Stigney stated the City Attorney offered to draft preliminary language to bring forward at the next Charter Commission meeting, and the Commission would review this language to determine if it meets their criteria for incorporating the recommended changes into the Charter. Mayor Coughlin stated he attended the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting at which a number of items were discussed. He stated representatives of Walgreen's Development attended and presented a variety of interesting ideas for use of the land located across the street from City Hall. He indicated he was very pleased and proud of the Parks and Recreation Commission and its constituent members for the depth of dialogue that took place. He advised the Commission approved of the concept of the project, and that approval will likely appear in written form in the near future. Mayor Coughlin stated he attended the Pinewood Elementary School Facilities Committee meeting, which is conducting ongoing research to determine where to best spend their allotment of the 80 million-dollar bond referendum. He stated he served on this Committee both in his capacity as Mayor, representing the City, as well as a contractor with an understanding of blueprints and the like, and this was an enjoyable meeting to attend. He stated he would be attending another meeting the following morning. Mayor Coughlin reported he had the pleasure and honor of teaching a political science class at his alma mater, NorthWestern College in Roseville, on October 29. He stated he had shared the podium with candidate for mayor, John Kishalishian, who is now Mayor-elect. He extended his congratulations to Mr. Kishalishian. Mayor Coughlin commented this was an enjoyable event, with much dialogue. He added he had forgotten how pointed, at times, college students questions could be. Mayor Coughlin reported the New Brighton/Mounds View Chamber of Commerce would meet in Council Chambers on November 29, at 12:00 p.m. He stated he plans to attend this meeting, along with County Commissioner Tony Bennett, the Commissioner's assistant, Joe Murphy, and members of staff He indicated the purpose of this meeting is to begin the dialogue regarding what can potentially be done to redevelop Highway 10 to best serve the business community, and make the roadway a more aesthetically pleasing element. Mayor Coughlin stated there would be three openings available on the Planning Commission at the end of the year, five openings on the Parks and Recreation Commission, and one business representative opening for the Economic Development Commission. He indicated that interested parties should stop by City Hall or telephone for an application, and advised the deadline for application submittal is December 6, 1999. Mayor Coughlin suggested the Council discuss the status of the December 27 City Council Meeting, and whether they wish to schedule or cancel this meeting, in light of the holidays, so Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting November 15, 1999 Page 8 they can indicate this on their calendars, and plan accordingly. He stated he would find it acceptable to cancel this meeting, and request staff to schedule all items requiring consideration at the next meeting. He stated pursuant to the City Charter and State Statutes, the Council is required to meet on the first business day of the new year, which is January 3, in order to conduct a few items of Council Business. He inquired if there was consensus among the Council to cancel the December 27 City Council Meeting. Council Member Stigney inquired if canceling this meeting would present a conflict with Charter provisions. Mayor Coughlin indicated the City Charter essentially states the meetings are set, however, the Council has cancelled meetings in the past, and changed meeting dates, and he did not see this matter as different from those previous actions. He deferred the question to City Attorney Long. City Attorney Long advised Section 3.01 of the City Charter indicates that the Council shall meet regularly, at least twice each month. He stated the reason this may have not come forward in the past is because there have been other meetings, such as the Truth in Taxation meetings, which are officially called to order during the same month. He explained the Charter is somewhat vague as to whether or not the regular Monday night meeting is required, or if a meeting on another night that is not subject to the regular agenda would be sufficient. He advised as long as there were two meetings in the month of December, although the Truth in Taxation meeting would not be the regular agenda meeting, the Council could consider other items once they are called to order, and this would meet the requirement. Mayor Coughlin inquired if it was the consensus of the Council to cancel the December 27, 1999 City Council Meeting. The Council agreed. Sherry Gunn, Chairperson of YPartners, stated they were conducting a fund raising event with the YMCA, called YPartners, and this event was one of the advantages of having the YMCA manage the Parks and Recreation Commission. She stated that due to funding and the City budget, they have an opportunity to privately raise a scholarship fund for the youth in the City of Mounds View. She explained this fund is to be utilized for youth who can not afford to participate in the Park and Recreation programs, however, would like very much to do so. She indicated this fund was also utilized to obtain quality items for YMCA Teen Nights, which are attended by an average of 50 to 60 children per night. Mrs. Gunn stated the funds raised would remain in the community, and would stay in Mounds View to help the Mounds View children. She advised this is a very worthwhile cause, and a need that requires to be met. She explained there are many children, who would like to participate on a softball team, soccer team, or play basketball, who simply can not afford to do this. She commented it appeared there would be budget constraints in the future, and their funding would diminish greatly, however, with the YMCA, they now have the opportunity to raise the necessary funds. Mrs. Gunn stated YPartners' goal for 1999, their first year, is $10,000, and to date they have raised $1,120. She stated call nights were scheduled for November 16, 17, 18, 23, and 30, from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m., in the City Hall, and they were in need of volunteers. She advised that any Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting November 15, 1999 Page 9 persons interested in assisting with this project would be provided with a list of names, as well as a script, and this would involve a two-hour time commitment. Mrs. Gunn stated the Council Members would receive their punch cards the following day. She indicated people who have participated in some manner with the Community Center or Parks and Recreation would be first contacted for call nights. She explained not everyone would be called, however, anyone desiring to donate to this fund may contact Terry Blattenbauer at the Mounds View Community Center, in this regard. Mayor Coughlin commented it was wonderful to have a benevolent fund for the youth. He stated children especially, should have the opportunity to take swimming lessons, be part of a "T"Ball league or the like, without having to worry about whether or not mom and dad are poor. He advised this was a wonderful opportunity to give to those who are needy in the community. He stated he had already received his pledge card, and that coffer number will go up. Mayor Coughlin took pause to respond to a previous statement made during the meeting. He advised that parliamentary procedure dictates you do not name a particular individual, if at all possible, when discussing items on any board, and this is why during his statements, he never puts forward individuals' names. He stated he finds continued attacks to be inappropriate. Mayor Coughlin stated, in regard to the Charter Commission budget, he was prepared to speak to this matter, after the City Attorney and City Administrator gave their reports. He advised he was prepared to state he was incorrect in his assessment of the Charter Commission's budget, in that items were billed to the Charter Commission, not only for their expenditures, but also for situations caused by the Charter Commission, which required the Council to seek legal advice. Mayor Coughlin expressed he is still concerned, having reviewed documents that go back most of a decade, that border battles continue, and slowly but surely the legal bills and staff time accrue. He explained that if history is a guide, nothing is really accomplished in this regard, except the exchange of words. Mayor Coughlin stated in regard to a demand for an apology, he would not speak to a previous motion, as this according to parliamentary procedure, is not in order. He stated it is his belief that his oath of office, to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and that of the State of Minnesota, demands of him, regardless of his personal beliefs, that if he sees or perceives something to be unconstitutional, it is his duty to act. He stated to do otherwise, he would be remiss in his oath of office, and he takes that oath very seriously. A. Administrator and Attorney Report on November 11, 1999 Charter Commission Meeting. City Administrator Whiting stated he and City Attorney Long attended the Charter Commission meeting on Thursday, to review with the Commission members the questions he had directed to the Commission in a letter he sent in August, and attempted to address some of the Commissioners' questions in return. He indicated there was a good discussion, which lasted almost three hours, and he had come to a clearer understanding of the Commission members' feelings and understandings of the issues. Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting November 15, 1999 Page 10 City Administrator Whiting explained they spent some time discussing the budget issues, and the actual costs that went into the current year's budget calculations for spending. He stated it was noted that most of this expense relates to the City's legal costs at this time, and is not necessarily directly attributable to the Charter Commission itself However, there was discussion that perhaps having some better understanding going into the year, in terms of the actual budget, with some dialogue with the Charter Commission may be beneficial. He explained this type of discussion has not occurred in the past, recognizing however, the Charter Commission became more active during the year, and not necessarily in time for the budget discussions. City Administrator Whiting stated City Attorney Long has drafted the four points the Council reviewed and forwarded to the Charter Commission. He requested City Attorney Long provide a review of these points for the Council, and a summary of the discussion at that meeting. City Attorney Long stated he thought the meeting with the Charter Commission was very good. He noted this meeting occurred on Veteran's Day, therefore the Commission could not vote or conduct any business transactions to provide a clear indication of their general consensus He indicated there appeared to be a sense that the City Attorney's office would return with some proposed language, however, he explained he is not the Charter Commission's attorney, and rather the City's attorney, therefore, the Council would have to authorize this. City Attorney Long commented there was some question as to who would pay for this legal work, and he had pointed out that if the Council authorizes him to provide the language, the City could pay for this. He stated on all of these points the assumption was, if the Council agreed, the City's legal staff would come back to the Charter Commission with some language. City Attorney Long stated one of the four points were raised pertains to Section 3.01 of the Charter which relates to Council Meetings, which indicates that special meetings can be called with a minimum of 24 hours notice. He explained this provision was entered into the City Charter before State Statutes were changed to indicate that a special meeting would have to have at least 3 days notice. He advised the Charter Commission that on occasion, this provision has been interpreted to indicate only 24 hours notice is required, however, State law now requires a three-day notice, and there was good clarification of this point. He stated there appeared to be consensus among the Commissioners in this regard. City Attorney Long stated the second point raised relates to the issue of initiative and referendum in the Charter, Chapter 5, which indicates that ordinances and resolutions may be the subject of referendum, and has always been in the City Charter. He stated it was pointed out to the Charter Commission that there is a series of State Supreme Court Cases which indicate that only ordinances are the proper subject of referendum and initiatives, and furthermore, only ordinances legislative in nature. He commented there was a good discussion regarding the meaning of this. City Attorney Long stated there have been cases in Mounds View where this has come forward. He explained there was some question with the Theater Project, in regard to whether or not a resolution could be the subject of initiative, and the City Attorney's Office took the position that it was not the proper subject, because of the case law. He stated there appeared to be some consensus among the Commission to clarify this within the Charter, to provide there is no misunderstanding by citizenry that although this language is in the Charter, it is in fact, unreliable. He added this was a legal interpretation, and is not meant to imply the Charter was Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting November 15, 1999 Page 11 not properly drafted originally, however, given the cases which have come down, it is his opinion they should be as conservative as possible, to avoid misinterpretation in the future. City Attorney Long stated the third point relates to Section 3.04 of the City Charter which indicates that an affirmative vote of three or more members of the Council shall be required for adoption of all ordinances, resolutions and motions, unless otherwise provided in the Charter or by State Statutes. He explained there are certain State Statutory requirements, for example, an amendment to the Zoning Code, whereby a two-thirds vote, and by statutory language a four- fifths vote of the Council must occur. He explained there are other four-fifths vote requirements in the ordinances, and on the current agenda there is a proposed resolution to create a street fund, which is modeled after the Special Projects Fund in the ordinance, and the resolution suggests a four-fifths vote. He advised the City Attorney's position on this is that a four-fifths vote could not be imposed, either by ordinance or resolution, unless the Charter permits this. City Attorney Long stated he provided the Charter Commission another example of this, in which a conditional use permit came forward in the City, and the conditional use permit language required a four-fifths vote, however, the City Charter indicates only three votes were required to pass. He stated in this situation, the conditional use permit appeared to have failed on a three/two vote, and this resulted in a lengthy argument with the developer and his attorney, who maintained that the Charter indicates only a three-vote majority is required. He stated the City Attorney took the position that they could avoid legal action by clarifying the Charter language to indicate that a more restrictive vote could be imposed by ordinance. He advised this would provide, if the Council desired a four-fifths vote for Special Projects Funds, Street Funds, or conditional use permits, they could implement this. City Attorney Long indicated these three points were relatively simple, and there is language in place which can be proposed to the Charter Commission. He stated based upon the direction they received, if the Council so agrees, they would prepare language acting as the City Attorney, and bring this forward to the Charter Commission at their January meeting, at which time, the Charter Commission could either accept or modify the language. City Attorney Long stated the lengthiest discussion at the Charter Commission meeting was in regard to the term limits issue. He explained they had attempted to come to a general consensus regarding the meaning of the Supreme Court case, and there were legitimate, genuine questions and misunderstandings in terms of whether this case applied to Mounds View, or more specifically, to the city of Minneapolis. He advised that currently the State Supreme Court in Minnesota has ruled that by State Constitution, no city has the authority to adopt term limits either by ordinance or by charter. He explained that the question is what to do about the current Charter provision, which was clearly and properly adopted by a vote of the public, because at the time it was on the ballot, there was no Supreme Court ruling. City Attorney Long pointed out that both the City of Mounds View and the city of Minneapolis were presented with the same question at the same time, in terms of whether or not they should place the term limits provision on the ballot. He stated Mounds View's position, because there was no Supreme Court guidance, was to put the provision on the ballot, however, the city of Minneapolis decided not to place term limits on the ballot, because they did not think they were constitutional, which was a somewhat riskier position. He explained, however, the Supreme Court did rule that it is not proper, under Minnesota Constitutional law, to place a term limits provision on the ballot, or in a charter. Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting November 15, 1999 Page 12 City Attorney Long stated the question at hand is what to do about the provision, now that it has been adopted. He explained his concern from a legal standpoint is that what they attempt to clarify all of these three points, to avoid litigation from arising by virtue of the language in the Charter. He pointed out there were complications and some question as to if it was fair to remove something that the public has voted upon. He advised they would not want a situation to occur, whereby someone files for City office, and the City Clerk is essentially burdened with having to interpret whether the Charter provision valid or invalid. He advised that either way there is the potential for litigation over the issue. City Attorney Long stated option were discussed, which include repealing the provision, which was his original recommendation to the Council, or indicating by a footnote in the Charter that the Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled this provision unconstitutional, to provide clear written guidance that the provision is not being enforced. He stated they also discussed the procedure by which the Charter can be amended, and there was some lack of clarity in this regard. He explained to the Charter that the City Council was requesting them to use their authority, under State law, to amend the Charter by ordinance, whereby the Charter Commission can recommend ordinances, which by unanimous consent of the Council, can amend the Charter. He noted this is a typical procedure by which clean up is performed on charter language. City Attorney Long stated the Charter Commission had questioned whether or not the City Council has the authority to request the language of the Charter be changed, and he explained that the Council could request the Charter Commission to utilize its authority to bring forward those changes. He advised that if the Council unanimously agrees to those changes, they would become an amendment to the Charter. He indicated the changes could also go directly to a vote, and under State Statutes, the City Council can also propose Charter amendments. He explained that the Charter Commission has the right to review the proposed amendments, which would then go on the ballot. City Attorney Long stated there was discussion regarding Council's motion, which authorized action to seek a court order to require the Charter Commission to make these changes, and he advised that this is another avenue the City Council could pursue. He explained that if something is found to be unconstitutional, the Council can seek a declaratory judgement through the courts, rather than placing it back on the ballot for removal, which might be seen as an inefficient use of the electoral process. City Attorney Long reiterated this was a very good meeting, with many strongly held beliefs presented on these issues, and in the end, everyone felt they had received objective information. He stated if the Council so desires, they could authorize City legal staff to prepare the proper language to address these four issues, and provide that language to the Charter Commission at their January meeting. He stated this would provide the Charter Commission would not be expending monies from their budget, but rather the City would assume the costs of preparing this language. Mayor Coughlin inquired if it was the City Attorney's recommendation that the Council authorize legal staff to prepare a draft of the proposed changes, and present them to the Charter Commission for a final reaction one way or the other, and bring this forward to the Council. Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting November 15, 1999 Page 13 City Attorney Long stated in light of the discussion at the Commission meeting, this was his recommendation. He stated that having specific language to respond to would provide clarity to the Commission in terms of what is being requested, and they could then utilize their authority to make those amendments by ordinance to the Council. MOTION/SECOND: Coughlin/Marty. To Authorize Legal Staff to Recommend Proper Language to Change the Charter So it is in Keeping Fully with State Statutes and the Minnesota Supreme Court Rulings, Present this Language to the Charter Commission for a Final Response from the Charter Commission and for the Charter Commission to Bring this Forward to the City Council, As Amended to Indicate the Commission Report Back No Later than the February Meeting of the Charter Commission, and If there are Any Questions, Concerns, or Points of Order to be Made, They be Made In a Timely Manner, Prior to that Deadline. City Administrator Whiting stated staff could complete this language within the next three weeks, and it would be forwarded to the Charter Commission for review at their January meeting. He stated at their February meeting, the Charter Commission would formalize their response, if that is sufficient time, and the Council could expect a response in February. Mayor Coughlin stated he would amend the motion to indicate the Commission report back no later than the February meeting of the Charter Commission, and if there are any questions, concerns or points of order to be made, they be made in a timely manner,prior to that deadline. Council Member Marty stated he would agree to this amendment. Council Member Stigney requested clarification. He explained at the Charter Commission meeting in January, the Commission would review the City Attorney's language, and perhaps move forward with that as a response. He pointed out all items might not be able to be addressed at that time, and during the meeting they had discussed that each of the items would be handled separately. He inquired if the Council was requesting a bundled response, or simply a response. Mayor Coughlin stated the Council expected a reaction one way or the other. Council Member Marty stated there would be two meetings for this discussion, and he understood the motion to indicate that staff would prepare the ordinances, and submit them to the Charter Commission for review in the January and February meetings. Julie Olsen, Charter Commission Chair stated the Charter Commission would meet in January to discuss the issues, and City Attorney Long indicate he would be happy to return for the dialogue. She explained at the Charter Commission meeting in November, the Commissioners had just received their packet information, however, nothing had been reviewed other than what had been discussed, and she was of the understanding that all were in agreement that further discussion was necessary. She added she also understood that the points would be potentially considered item by item. She stated it was not possible to review all of the items at the January meeting. Ms. Olsen explained that the Commission received staff's letter in August, after their August meeting. She stated the Commission reviewed the information in September, writing down their questions and concerns, which required research, and the matter had to come back at the next meeting for approval, as it requires a unanimous vote. She stated the Charter Commission does not have legal or administrative staff to conduct the research and create the documents, rather the Commission members do this themselves. She stated she could not draft a document based upon Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting November 15, 1999 Page 14 what she believed everyone said or agreed upon, and pass that document on. She pointed out that the document would have to be brought forward at the next meeting in order to be approved. Ms. Olsen stated the Commission was not procrastinating on this matter, and they would attempt to do their best, however, City staff and the Charter Commission had all agreed they would review these points on an item by item basis. She reiterated it would not be possible to resolve all of the issues in one meeting. Council Member Marty indicated there would be two meetings, one in January, and one in February. Mayor Coughlin stated this was correct. He pointed out it was also within the Charter Commissions' purview to meet more often if necessary, as the Council does when there are items which require to be addressed outside the regular meetings. Ms. Olsen stated the Charter Commission already meets more often than they are required, in order to complete their business. She explained the Commission is required to meet once a year, and have elected their by-laws to meet twice a year, however, they are currently meeting once a month. Mayor Coughlin stated he did not question this, however, the Charter Commission is able to meet more often. He explained these items have been discussed by three separate mayors, and three or four City Councils, and have been ongoing since the 1990's. He stated he was not elected to continue to play these games. He advised Ms. Olsen, if the Commission finds they need more time, just as in the past, it is within her purview, both as the Chair of the Charter Commission, and as a representative thereof, to request an extension. Mayor Coughlin stated no extension was requested previously, and he did not wish to extend this matter out for another quarter year, as these are important issues which will be coming forward, and may actually face the City in terms of litigation. He stated there was an amended motion before the Council, and inquired if there was any further discussion at the Council level. Ms Olsen interjected that the letter addressed to the Charter Commission was not in a form, in accordance to statute, to request an additional time extension. Mayor Coughlin advised the Council was presently discussing the motion that was before them. He stated Ms. Olsen had indicated her opinion in this regard, however, it was necessary the Council address the action before them. Ms. Olsen inquired if no one was permitted to rebut his comment. Mayor Coughlin advised there were four elected Council Members present, representatives of the people, duly elected by the electorate. Council Member Marty advised if the Charter Commission could not meet the deadline with two meetings, it has been pointed out that they can request and extension. Mayor Coughlin stated this was correct, with recognition that the matter be expedited. Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting November 15, 1999 Page 15 City Administrator Whiting stated he did not want his comments to be misinterpreted. He explained that in his understanding, the soonest a response would be forwarded to the Council would be February, recognizing the manner in which the Charter Commission conducts its business, by reviewing items at one meeting, and revisiting them for additional work at the next meeting. He stated he did not intend to imply that the Commission imparted to him that they would complete their response by February. Council Member Stigney stated this was also his understanding, from the discussion at the meeting. He stated there appeared to be some time pressure on these issues, however, the only item that perhaps is subject to a time frame, is that item pertaining to votes, which might have some potential for impact. He suggested the Charter Commission consider this item first, as it would seem to have the highest priority. He stated, however, the other items are not much of anything, as State Statutes appear take precedence, and the issue related to term limits is subject to many different viewpoints, in terms of how to handle it. He stated he has no problem with the Charter Commission, as discussed at the meeting, reviewing whatever the City Attorney presents to them in the way of interim language, however, there was no commitment to attempt move forward with a response on all of the issues by the February meeting. He stated the Charter Commission would do whatever they could to resolve the issues as expeditiously as possible, however, he does not want the Commission to be subject to the same time constraints they were previously. He stated the time constraints were uncalled for, from the Council's perspective of dealing with the Commission. He stated the Commission had discussed reviewing these issues on a case by case basis, and hopefully accomplishing as much as possible, however, he did not want the Commission to be directed by the Council that they provide a response, "or else,"which was their impression of the previous directive. Council Member Stigney stated if it was agreeable to the Motioner and the Seconder that the Charter Commission review these issues and respond in whatever manner the Commission itself deems necessary, he would agree to the amendment, however, if this is not the case, he does not agree. Mayor Coughlin stated this was already incorporated into the motion, and he would leave the amendment as it stands. He pointed out that if three of these items are rather innocuous, as Council Member Stigney indicated, it should not take long to resolve them. He reiterated that additional time can be requested, however, it was within the purview of the Council to set a time line, so that the operations of the City can move forward, and the issue does not continue indefinitely. Council Member Stigney inquired if the City Attorney would submit these sections to the Commission so they are aware of the time frames they were dealing with. He reiterated in his understanding, the City Attorney would bring forward interim language for the Charter Commission to review at their January meeting, and the Commission would proceed from that basis. He stated he takes exception to the indicated time line. City Attorney Long stated he had focused primarily upon obtaining the language for the four sections, Section 3.01, pertaining to special meetings, Section 3.04, pertaining to the majority vote issue, or allowing a more restrictive vote, Chapter 5, pertaining to initiative and referendum, and deletion of resolutions, and Chapter 4, Section 4.02, pertaining to the filing for office, in relation to the term limit language. He stated he was not certain how the Council wished to proceed with the time line. Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 16 City Attorney Long stated there was discussion regarding whether or not there was some sense of urgency to resolving these issues, and this question is difficult to answer, in that as soon as you indicate there is not, the issues are likely to come forward. He indicated the problem from a legal standpoint is that if action is not taken, there is a question as to why, and this may present a problem. Council Member Marty moved to close off debate and call for the vote. Ayes—4 Nays— 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. Mayor Coughlin called for the vote on the motion. Ayes - 4 Nays— 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. No further reports were considered. 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Just and Correct Claims. B. Set a Public Hearing for 7:15 p.m., Monday, November 22, 1999 to Consider a New Tobacco License for Tobacco Empire at 2563 1/2 Highway 10. C. Approve Resolution No. 5383, a Resolution Creating Streets Fund and Dedication of Portion of Franchise Fee Revenue to Fund. D. Consideration of Resolution No. 5384, a Resolution Rejecting Sign Bids and Authorizing Rebid. E. Approve Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Roseville for Temporary Utilization of Management Information Systems Personnel. F. Consideration of Resolution No. 5389, a Resolution Approving Premise Permits for the Lion's Club to Permit Charitable Gambling at the Mermaid and Robert's Off Highway 10 in the City of Mounds View. Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to remove Items for discussion. Council Member Stigney requested Item C be removed from the Consent Agenda, for further discussion. City Administrator Whiting stated Bob Wharton from the Mounds View Lion's Club was present to address the Council on Item F, Charitable Gambling Permit Request, and had some information to provide regarding the Lion's Club's charitable donations within the past year. Bob Wharton, member of the Mounds View Lion's Club, and presently the Lions Club part- time Gambling Manager, provided the Council with a list of charitable donations made by this organization within the past year. He stated that every two years, the Lion's Club comes before the Council to request their premise permits be approved. He explained in addition to the State permits, the premise permits require the approval of the local Council, therefore, it behooves their organization to inform the Council how they spend the funds they raise from these projects. Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting November 15, 1999 Page 17 Mr. Wharton stated this year, there were five different categories, which total $84,000, and the largest amount of this money, approximately 40 percent, is directed to People and Families in Need, which includes a $1,200 per month donation to the local Food Shelf. He stated this also includes food certificates, Christmas and Thanksgiving certificates, and toys donated to families in need within the community. He explained that toys are given out in the Council Chambers by a Lion's Club member, who goes out to schools and churches and community action committees in the area, and obtains the names of children who are needy, contacts their parents, and determines their ages, and brothers and sisters. He stated all of these children receive a personalized toy from Santa Claus, by appointment. Mr. Wharton stated in recent years, the Lion's Club has also begun to fund the middle school Sale and Ask Programs, which are designed for children with no place to go after school, and they provide study programs, as well as some service projects. He stated additionally, they are working with the schools to form a Leo's Club, which is essentially a junior Lion's Club, in the middle school area. He advised that currently, there are four Leo's Clubs in the southern suburbs, and they have been quite successful. He stated this is a club where children belong, perform service projects, and learn how to help their community. Mr. Wharton stated the Lion's Club's annual Easter Party, which is currently held at the Community Center, provides treats and games for all of the youth in the community. He pointed out that in the past year, over 400 children attended the Easter Party. Mr. Wharton stated he would be happy to answer any question regarding any other charitable donations the Lion's Club has made. He commented they consider themselves to be a "Hometown Team," and the majority of the funds they raise remain within the Mounds View community,primarily to help children and families in need. Mayor Coughlin thanked Mr. Wharton for his report. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Approve the Consent Agenda for Items A, B, D, E, and F as presented. Ayes—4 Nays—0 Abstain— 1 (Thomason) Motion carried. Council Member Stigney stated Resolution 5383,pertaining to street funds now indicates that for the year 2000, at least 1.5 percent of the franchise fee will be used toward future street reconstruction projects. He stated he would move approval of this resolution with an amendment, which specifies that 2 percent will be used toward future street reconstruction projects. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/ . To Approve Resolution No. 5383, a Resolution Creating Streets Fund and Dedication of Portion of Franchise Fee Revenue to Fund, as Amended to Indicate that 2 Percent Will be Used Toward Future Street Reconstruction Projects. Motion failed. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To Approve Consent Agenda Item C as presented. Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting November 15, 1999 Page 18 Council Member Marty stated he had brought forward Council Member Stigney's point earlier, and asked the Finance Director if there was any possible way to dedicate more than 1.5 percent. He stated City Administrator Whiting had indicated they might be able to utilize TIF or General Fund dollars for this purpose. He stated at this time, he had not received a definite response, as the budget was still under consideration. He stated that if they were able to obtain more than 1.5 percent this would be ideal, however, this determination would come forward during the budget discussion. Mayor Coughlin clarified that within the resolution, at two points, it is indicated that at least 1.5 percent, and in his understanding, the spirit of this language is that, as much as they can dedicate, they will, and this provides a margin to work with. Council Member Stigney stated his point in making the amendment was to clarify that it would be 2 percent, whereas presently no one is certain if it will be increased beyond that point. He pointed out there were additional funds coming in from the Theatre Project and so forth, therefore, the percentage could be increased to allocate more funds towards the street reconstruction projects, and he believed they could easily have taken the additional .5 percent out of the General Fund. Mayor Coughlin explained that the Theater Project funds would not be fully realized this year, and furthermore, all were well aware of the levy restrictions of .93 percent in the City. He pointed out that they are fully aware of the maximum amount of funding coming into the City, and it is incorrect to indicate there is money "sitting around"that could be utilized. Council Member Stigney disagreed. Council Member Quick moved the question and closed off the debate. Ayes—4 Nays— 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. City Attorney Long noted a technical matter in terms of four votes in relation to the Charter, and thought it would proper to change that to number to three, during the Charter discussion, otherwise the resolution will indicate another four-vote requirement. He advised the word "four" should be changed to indicate "three,"in order to be consistent with the Charter. Council Member Quick inquired if the City Attorney's comments were out of order, as the Council is now required to vote upon the matter at hand. Mayor Coughlin advised the City Attorney's comment is in order, as it is a point of order. He explained that procedural questions take precedence over the vote. Mayor Coughlin with the understanding that the vote would be made with the indication of three votes, rather than four, as per legal counsel, called for the vote. Ayes—4 Nays— 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. City Administrator Whiting advised that further discussion of this resolution would be worthwhile, in terms of the policy implications City Attorney Long brought forward, and whether or not the Council desired to revisit the matter. He stated it appeared the requirement of Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting November 15, 1999 Page 19 four votes was to provide a more rigorous test, in order to prevent a change to this matter in the future. He stated the Council might wish to readdress this, so as not to raise an idea that this would be an easier thing to do. Mayor Coughlin stated this was his intention during the Work Session discussions, in that he did not want this fund to be subjected to raiding by future politicians. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 9. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR Julie Olsen, Charter Commission Chair stated recently, a new sign that was voted on to be placed in front of City Hall. She stated it was her understanding when the sign issue had first come forward, that if billboards were constructed on the golf course, there was some means to obtain the sign at no cost. She stated she has since learned that if there were billboards placed on the golf course, the revenues generated would have to remain with the golf course, and therefore, could not be utilized for the sign. She requested clarification of this matter. City Administrator Whiting stated there was an offer made, however, the City has had to consider a Zoning Amendment in order to allow billboards on the golf course, and this precludes any type of deal with regard to the sign. He stated these are two separate issues. He explained if the Council desires at some point in the future, once the Zoning is in place, to make some connection between the two, it likely could occur, however, there are many questions regarding what is appropriate or not appropriate in terms of this offer. He clarified that the City had previously accepted a bid for the sign, that bid was rejected, therefore, this item is currently being rebid. Ms. Olsen stated it was her understanding the only reason the new sign was considered was because it could be acquired without having to pay for it. She stated she did not think the City should spend any money on the sign, and was surprised to hear they were proposing to spend almost $50,000 for this purpose. She added that one-half of the funds were to come out of TIF, and it was also her earlier understanding that nothing further would be done with TIF, until the "Big Plan" was dealt with, and that the Council had until March to complete that. She inquired how the Council could approve one-half the cost of the sign to be funded by TIF. Mayor Coughlin stated this sign was a budget item, included in last year's budget by the previous Council. He stated the authorized amount was $40,000, which has been set aside. He stated since that time, it has come to the Council's attention that they would not receive any bids for signs within the $40,000 range, and the additional monies would not come from TIF, but rather from a variety of other sources. Finance Director Kessel stated at one of the previous Council meetings the prior month, the Council authorized staff to take the additional monies out of Contingency for the General Fund. Council Member Stigney inquired regarding the monies provided by the Coca Cola Fund. Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 20 Finance Director Kessel explained the initial $40,000 funding sources included the General Fund, with $10,000 from Coca Cola, $20,000 from TIF, $10,000 from Special Projects and $10,000 from General Fund Reserves, which was donated to the City by an organization called Made to Us, a year and a half prior. Mayor Coughlin stated it was his understanding the $40,000 was budgeted out of the General Fund. Finance Director Kessel clarified there were three funding sources for the sign, with $20,000 to be from TIF Mayor Coughlin stated therefore Ms. Olsen was correct in her assertion, however, this money was budgeted by a previous Council. Finance Director Kessel stated this was correct. He stated in 1998, the sign was a budget item for the 1999 Budget. Planning Commissioner Brian Kaden stated it has come to his attention that in the past couple of years, several employees have left the City, and morale has been very low. He stated as a person who at times has been an adversary of City Hall, and now through his involvement as a Planning Commissioner, and former member of the Streets Policies Committee, staff and administration work much harder than is realized. Mr. Kaden stated at a previous City Council meeting, a resident commented that if the City Administrator did his job, the City would not need to hire an assistant. He stated this resident has the right to make any comment he desires, however, he also has the right to state that City Administrator Whiting puts much effort into his job. He explained that when he was a member of the Streets Policies Committee, City Administrator Whiting was appointed to act as the Committee's facilitator, and to assist the group with organizing their ideas into proper format. He stated City Administrator Whiting often stayed until 9:00 p.m., to assist the Committee. He added that the City Administrator is a salaried employee, therefore, he was provided no additional compensation for this effort. He pointed out there are not many people who would do this. Mr. Kaden stated Planning Associate, Jim Ericson provides the Planning Commission with their information packets, sometimes delivering them at 9:00 or 10:00 p.m. at night. He stated these people are working very hard. He explained that in any organization, there might be some fat that can be trimmed, however, if you trim too much, you begin to cut away the muscle. He indicated that a company he had worked for attempted to run a department with temporary workers, and only two experienced people leading them. He advised that within six months, this company lost their contract, because the quality was not there. He stated the City could not train in an entirely new work force every three years, as this would be far too costly. He advised this would not result in savings on salaries, particularly if you lose your customers, which would not occur in this case, the residents would just become angry. Previous Mayor Duane McCarty stated in the far reaches of his memory, a Federal politician of some national note, upon leaving some office many years ago, was asked if he would stay in the play. He stated his response, that up until this point, he, himself, endorsed was "No, there is nothing worse than some old war horse stomping around in the wings." He stated he was going Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 21 to break with that belief. He extended his personal thanks, gratitude and congratulations to a staff that goes the extra mile. He stated he has also witnessed this staff working on their days off to get things done. He stated he has observed many staffs through his 15 years of involvement, and he holds the staff of Mounds View up as second to none. Mr. McCarty stated staff is not where the problem lies. He stated when he was County Commissioner, other County Commissioners from different areas of the State would approach him, and inquire regarding the latest battle in Mounds View. He explained that this occurred in Washington D.C. He added that when he was the Mayor, and attended State meetings, people would also inquire regarding the latest fight in Mounds View. Mr. McCarty stated he understood why the letters were written to the editor. He stated the Mayor did the proper thing, however, he did not believe this was the proper forum. He stated he would wish that this Council and these citizens could keep their laundry at home, and this was just too important to them. Mr. McCarty stated Mounds View is the finest City on the face of the earth, and he owes Mounds View very much. He stated he was privileged and honored with the friendships of many people. He stated the conversations they have been having lately are "What in the world is going on with that guy? He makes statements right off the top of his head with no backup, there are no proposals or alternatives, but just that they have the money somewhere." He indicated he did not believe anything could be done about this, in that personalities are just as they are. He advised they just have to do the best they can with what they have, and attempt to make it work, until the next election. There were no further requests or comments from the floor. 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Council Review of Letter to Governor Ventura re: Reliever Airports Policies. Mayor Coughlin stated formal Council action on this matter was not required, and this consideration was simply to determine if the Council was agreeable to the language presented in the letter to the Governor. Council Member Marty stated he thought the letter was very good. Mayor Coughlin pointed out he has been working with Attorney John Choi on this letter for some time, and added that Mr. Choi is a very skillful writer. B. Resolution Approving Fee Increases for 2000. Community Development Director Jopke stated this item was discussed at the Council's November 1 Work Session. He provided the Council with a list indicating fee increases for the permits and items that come through the Community Development Department. He stated this list was compiled to better cover the review costs, as well as to reflect the project value suggested by the Uniform Building Code. Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 22 Community Development Director Jopke stated one area discussed was in regard to plan check fees. He advised that currently, there are no plan check fees for projects valued under $10,000. He pointed out that the Council's original direction was to charge plan check fees on all projects. He stated, however, after further review and discussion with the Building Official, staff has concluded that projects which do not require staff review, such as roofing, siding, window replacements, and the like, should not be charged a plan check fee. He advised, however, projects such as garages, house additions, decks, large sheds, and commercial projects, would require a staff review, and therefore, plan check fees would be appropriate. Community Development Director Jopke stated another area in question was the cost of mailing Planning Commission agendas and meeting minutes. He explained that staff's exhibit does not make any changes to those charges, however, he has reviewed the actual costs incurred, which exceed the fees suggested. He advised that with consideration to copy charges, staff time and postage, it costs approximately $54 to mail agendas, and $144 to mail meeting minutes to people who pay the annual fee, and those fees are $20 and $40 per year. He stated if the Council so desires, these fees could be increased to reflect the actual costs incurred. He pointed out that after the first of the year, these items will be available on the Internet, and individuals will be able to obtain them through that medium, free of charge. Community Development Director Jopke stated staff recommends approval of Resolution 5382, which sets the fees for the year 2000, based upon Exhibit A. Council Member Marty stated he would move to indicate $5,000 as the starting limit for charging plan check fees. He added that the actual cost of mailing the Planning Commission agendas at $54, and the actual costs of mailing the Planning Commission minutes at $144 should be instituted, which could push people to the internet, and alleviate staff time. He explained there is a substantial difference in the actual costs versus the charges for mailing these items, therefore, the City should attempt to recoup the difference, if people choose not to utilize the Internet. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomason. To Approve Resolution No. 5382, a Resolution Approving Amendment to the City of Mounds View's Uniform Schedule of Fees and Charges, with $5,000 Project Valuation as the Starting Point for Plan Check Fees, and $54 and $144 Fees for Planning Commission Agenda and Minute Mailings, Respectively. Community Development Director Jopke requested clarification of the motion, in terms of which projects should be charged a plan check fee. Council Member Marty stated staff had indicated there were some projects for which a fee was not necessary. Mayor Coughlin stated these were specified in staff's Exhibit A. Council Member Marty inquired if this was staff's recommendation. Community Development Director Jopke advised that in reducing the $10,000 threshold to $5,000, might result in a situation where some of the items that still require a plan review would not be covered under the $5,000 threshold. He stated staff's approach was to eliminate those projects that do not require a plan review, and not charge a plan check fee on those, however, in Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 23 his understanding of the motion, anything over $5,000 would require a plan check fee, however, nothing under$5,000 would. Council Member Marty stated he was attempting to follows staff's recommendation with his motion. Community Development Director Jopke clarified that staff was proposing that a plan check fee would be required on any commercial project over $10,000, and specific projects such as garages, garage additions, house additions, and decks would require a plan check fee, regardless of their valuation. He explained staff does not propose there be a threshold for those projects. Council Member Marty inquired therefore, if commercial projects should remain at$10,000. Community Development Director Jopke advised that all commercial projects require a plan check fee. Council Member Marty inquired what the $5,000, and $10,000 thresholds pertain to. Community Development Director Jopke suggested that perhaps the threshold should be stricken in entirety. Council Member Marty stated it appeared the resolution might require to be re-written. Community Development Director Jopke stated the exhibit should be re-written. Mayor Coughlin suggested, rather than attempting to determine the specific details of the proposal at this time, the matter be continued until the next meeting. He stated a motion has been made and seconded, therefore, it would be in order to move that the consideration be postponed until the next meeting. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomason. To Postpone Consideration of Resolution No. 5382 Until the November 22, 1999 City Council Meeting. Ayes—5 Nays—0 Motion carried. C. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 636, an Ordinance Amending Title 900, Chapter 906, Section 906.01, Relating to the Water Test Requirements for Households with Well Water. Mayor Coughlin stated this consideration has previously come before the Council, and there have been no changes to the ordinance. MOTION/SECOND: Thomason/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 636, and Ordinance Amending Title 900, Chapter 906, Municipal Water System, of the Mounds View Municipal Code by Amending Section 906.01, Subdivision 2(B) Testing Required; Water Quality. 1. Roll Call/Vote: Stigney, Thomason, Coughlin, Marty Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 24 Ayes—4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Council Member Quick was not present for this vote. D. Consideration of Resolution 5385, a Resolution Approving a Development Review for a Two-story, 46-Room Senior Assisted Living Facility at 2670 County Road I. Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant, MSP Real Estate, has requested approval of a development review to construct a two-story senior assisted living complex to be located at 2670 County Road I. He provided the Council with the plans for this project, which indicate the elevations, the floor plan, and the site plan. He stated the Council approved the conditional use permit for this development on September 13, and also approved the rezoning of the property from B-2, Limited Business Commercial, to R-4, High Density Residential Zoning District to allow for this type of use. He explained that one of the requirements of the conditional use permit was that the applicant comes before the Council for approval of the development review. Planning Associate Ericson provided the Council with the applicant's rendition of the proposed building, which is a two-story facility, with a brick face and maintenance free exterior. He stated there have been some changes to the site plan, which indicate there will be a sidewalk along Mounds View Drive. He explained there is an existing sidewalk along County Road I, and the applicant would supply a sidewalk that would connect the north side of County Road I to Mounds View Drive, so the residents and their guests would be able to walk the site in an uninterrupted circular pattern. Be added this sidewalk would allow pedestrian traffic on Mounds View Drive to access the site as well. Planning Associate Ericson stated all dimensional requirements are met with this proposal. He indicated the drainage plans have been reviewed by the City Engineer, as well as the Director of Public Works, and there is significant green space on the site, which will accommodate some storm water runoff. He stated there are storm sewers located in both Mounds View Drive and County Road I, which will accommodate any runoff from the driveways. Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant's landscape plan has been reviewed and approved by City Forester, Rick Riske. He advised there are no plans to provide for signage at this time, however, the applicant proposes to utilize signage at some point in the near future, and the conditional use permit approved by the Council allows for 32 square feet of signage. Planning Associate Ericson stated the lighting for the parking lot would be provided by 4 light standards, approximately 21 feet in height, hooded, with 350 watt bulbs. He stated these lights will shine onto the parking lot, and will not impact any of the neighboring residential properties. He pointed out there will be some light spillage onto the SuperAmerica site, however, this will be minor, and is allowed for within the City Code. He added that the proposed lighting at the adjoining property lines in the residential district, and onto the City streets is all within the City Code. Planning Associate Ericson provided the Council with plans which indicate how the garbage dumpster will be enclosed. He advised this plan also meets City Code requirements. Planning Associate Ericson stated at their meeting on November 3, 1999, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the development review. He indicated in light of this, and the fact that the dimensional requirements are met, there are no outstanding issues, and the Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 25 amount of time the Planning Commission spent on this item, both in terms of the development review and the conditional use permit, staff recommends approval of this proposal. He stated staff has drafted Resolution 5385, which approves the development review for MSP Real Estate to construct their project as indicated in the plans, if Council so desires. Planning Associate Ericson stated the resolution contains a stipulation that the applicant install signage along County Road I, to indicate "right in, right out"access at this point. He explained it was hoped this would eliminate any vehicles from attempting to cross lanes of westbound traffic, to access the property at this location. He pointed out that if in the future, it appears there are some issues with the access the matter will be revisited. He explained that the other stipulation is that the building signage will be in compliance with the City Code and the approved conditional use permit. The applicant was present. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To Approve Resolution 5385, a Resolution Approving a Development Review for a Two-story, 46-Room Senior Assisted Residential Facility Located at 2670 County Road I; Planning Case No. 573-99. Council Member Marty inquired if the light standards were subject to a 20-foot limit, which issue had come forward during consideration of the Theater Project lighting. Planning Associate Ericson advised there is no limit on the height of a light standard. He explained that the Theater Project was subject to this requirement, because it was stipulated in the Planned Unit Development document. Ayes—5 Nays—0 Y Motion carried. E. Consideration of Resolution 5386, a Resolution Approving a Wetland Buffer Permit for Spencer Mistelske, 2442 Laport Drive. Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant was before the Council to request a Wetland Buffer Permit. He stated at the October 25 City Council meeting, the Council agreed to authorize a Limited Use Agreement for the applicant to construct a driveway over the unimproved right-of-way on Laport Drive. He explained at that time, the delineation indicated the house and the proposed driveway would be a significant distance from the wetland and there would be no encroachment into the 100-foot buffer setback. He stated however, when the applicant and the contractor went out the site to conduct further research, they realized there were a number of significant trees in the proposed path of the driveway. He explained that the applicant would prefer not to remove the trees, which is likely the City's preference as well. Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant has drafted a plan that would allow for construction of the driveway, and avoid the removal of any of the large and significant trees, however, this plan would involve an encroachment into the 100-foot setback by approximately 10 feet. He provided the Council with the Certificate of Survey, which indicates the proposed placement of the driveway. He pointed out that the driveway could still be installed without encroaching upon the buffer, however, staff believes, in terms of saving the trees, it might be appropriate to allow for the 10-foot encroachment. Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 26 Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has drafted Resolution 5386, which would allow for the Wetland Buffer Permit to construct the driveway according to the plans, with a 10-foot encroachment into the buffer area. The applicant was present. Council Member Marty stated it appeared the applicant might be able to construct the driveway along the southern edge of Laport Drive, however, this would still result in the loss of a tree. Planning Associate Ericson explained that in addition to this, the residents located on the corner of Edgewood and Laport Drives are mowing into that area. He pointed out that if the driveway runs along the property line, it would also run along somebody's sideyard, and the applicant was attempting to remain at a distance from the neighbors. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Coughlin. To Approve Resolution 5386, a Resolution Approving a Wetland Buffer Permit for Spencer Mistelske, 2442 Laport Drive, Planning Case 575-99. Pam DeGross, 8133 Woodlawn Drive, stated her property backs up to the proposed site. She stated they were not notified of this proposal until the previous week, when the survey was being conducted on the land, and there is a 30-foot encroachment of the survey onto their land. She stated the City plat indicates their land would not be affected at all if the applicant is permitted to build on this site, because Favor Street is half the size of a regular street. Mrs. DeGross stated she was opposed to the applicant constructing a driveway upon the wetlands, as they are very important to her family. She commented she was unaware what the Environmental Protection Agency would have to say in regard to this proposal, particularly in light of the proposed building location. She inquired regarding fire truck access, in the event of a fire in this area. She stated if the driveway is as small as proposed, with many large of trees, how would the fire trucks get through. She requested the Council consider this matter carefully, adding that she was very concerned with the entire situation. Mrs. DeGross stated the matter most upsetting to her is that the City has been conducting tests all summer long in the woods, and she has inquired what is occurring, however, no one informed them. She stated the City would be giving up great wetland for a new house, and there are already so many houses in the City. She stated there were many other lots that are buildable, that would not take wetlands. She explained there were many deer in this area, and a large variety of birds. She stated if the City desired to do something with this land, they should construct a walking path through it, so that everyone can enjoy it, however, they should not ruin it for one house. Mrs. DeGross stated the applicant would be constructing the driveway on an area that should be a road, and if it is going to be a road, curbs and gutters should be installed, not just a driveway. She stated this did not make sense to her. She requested the survey be redone, prior to any construction on the site. Council Member Stigney requested clarification of the location of Mrs. DeGross's property, in relation to the proposed site. Mrs. DeGross stated her home was located directly to the west. Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 27 Mayor Coughlin requested staff clarify this was the consideration of a small encroachment onto the buffer of the wetland, and the proposal would not be touching the wetlands, whatsoever. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. He explained that a delineation has been performed on the wetlands, which indicates the wetlands are approximately 120 feet from the subject property, and between 190 to 200 feet away from the proposed house. He stated the proposed encroachment would be into the 100-foot buffer of the wetland, and there would be no impact or encroachment into the wetland itself. He explained that the protection of wetlands is a perpetual concern for the City. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has apologized they had not provided better notification to Mrs. DeGross and her family regarding what was occurring. He explained staff was of the opinion that it was common knowledge these lots were being actively marketed, as there are "For Sale" signs posted, and colored advertisements in the newspaper each weekend, which run for a month at a time. He stated staff had simply assumed the DeGross' had the opportunity to offer on these lots, and staff has apologized for at least not keeping them informed in that regard. He stated he understood and shared with their frustration. Planning Associate Ericson stated with regard to Favor Street, there would be no construction, without a verification of the location and the survey, and staff will insure that any construction that does occur, it will occur on the platted lot. He pointed out that possibly the 30-foot flague lot could have been marking Favor Street, and not actually what the applicant felt was their lot. He reiterated that prior to any digging on the site, staff would insure the survey is verified. Council Member Quick inquired if the property directly to the north of the proposed site was privately owned. Planning Associate Ericson stated the City controls the property to the north of the proposed site. He explained there are a number of lots in this location that went tax-forfeit. He pointed out that some of this property may have been picked up with the Highway 118 construction that the City has use deeds over. He explained there are some lots that are privately owned, that could conceivably be developed in the near future, when the City receives the adjusted wetland reports. Council Member Quick inquired therefore, if the proposed site and the property to the east were both privately owned. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. Council Member Stigney inquired if there was enough access for a fire truck to get through the driveway, as well as garbage trucks and the like to service both residences. Planning Associate Ericson stated he would verify this with the City Fire Marshall, to insure that the 15-foot width is adequate. He advised many properties within the City utilize long driveways, therefore, it would not be uncommon to negotiate a large fire truck through a 100- foot driveway. He advised however, this would be reviewed by the Fire Marshall to insure it is not an issue. He explained if there is an issue in this regard, staff will review the matter again, and the applicant might possibly have to remove a tree. Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 28 Council Member Marty stated it appears that if the driveway is constructed more than 15 feet wide, the applicant will lose a number of trees. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. Council Member Thomason requested staff clarify that, in terms of encroachment onto the DeGross' property, staff would verify the survey with the County Plat Map and surveys prior to any construction commencing on the proposed site. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. He pointed out that verification of this was fairly simple in that there are three lots, and from the easternmost lot on Edgewood Drive, if they were to measure back 90 feet, an additional 83 feet, and another 91 feet, they will arrive at the edge of the property. He advised that within a few inches, staff would be very certain of the location of the property lines. He explained if the construction appears to be occurring beyond those property lines, staff will definitely be aware of this, and there should be no concerns about the applicant encroaching 30 feet beyond his property. Mayor Coughlin requested staff clarify that the motion, as it stands, is simply to approve a Wetland Buffer Permit to allow for the driveway to skirt the edge of the buffer, in order to save the large trees. He stated there would be continued development analysis by staff, prior to the issuance of any permits or any construction. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. Mayor Coughlin advised that the question before the Council was whether or not to approve the Wetland Buffer Permit. Council Member Marty inquired if this matter would come back to the Council prior to any construction on the proposed site. Mayor Coughlin stated the matter would proceed to the Building Inspector and Community Development Department and professional staff to conduct all the plan reviews, prior to the issuance of building permits, as is standard procedure. City Administrator Whiting explained for the benefit of the residents in the area, the Council has discussed this area because of the many requests the City has received regarding the potential for development. He stated there was some discussion regarding this matter o provide the City would have a coordinated response or position in terms of land use in the area. He stated he thought it would be worthwhile, at some point in the future, to bring the residents into the discussion, through a series of meetings that can be incorporated into the discussion. He pointed out the discussion has at this point been very preliminary, with some markings and survey stakes, and some of the wetland delineation which has come forward, and this has also been taking place on the north side of Highway 118. He indicated, however, he was not aware of a specific plan for this area at this point. He inquired if there were any substantive changes in the Comprehensive Plan in terms of this area. Community Development Director Jopke stated there is some language in the Comprehensive Plan that pertains to potential development in the area. Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 29 Mrs. DeGross stated their property is located on the west side of the woods, and they have no reason to be on the east side, and were not aware that the land was for sale. She stated they were only recently informed that the owner of the subject property had gone to the neighbors and offered the land to them, and had they known this, they would have purchased the property. Mrs. DeGross stated the buffer area was essentially the wetland, and with the current development in Mounds View, they have already taken so many wetlands from Mounds View. She requested the Council carefully consider their vote upon this matter. She reiterated she was not aware of the Environmental Protection Agency's involvement in this matter, and she was very concerned. Mayor Coughlin stated the Council is not dealing with wetlands. He clarified this consideration pertains to the buffer, and it is within the City's purview to set the amount of buffer area. He explained that Mounds View's wetland buffer, at 100-feet, is actually quite large compared to most cities in the Metropolitan area, and this is simply a buffer zone to highlight the fact that there is a wetland in the area. He reiterated that the land in question is not a wetland, and the Council Members, as they have indicated on many occasions, are very sympathetic to the wetland issue. Council Member Quick advised the buffer is primarily an area which provides another layer of scrutiny over the property, and its primary function is to provide the City further opportunity to scrutinize any development in the area. He stated he was not aware of any loss of wetlands in the City within the last 15 years. He added that with the Rice Creek Watershed District regulations, and other laws that have come down, if anything, the wetlands have increased. He noted since he has been on the Council, the City either controls, or has purchased through different means, a large portion of the wetlands, therefore, they are in public hands. Council Member Marty inquired if this property was not also discussed in the spring of the year, and another applicant had wanted to construct a driveway, however, that request was denied because through the paving of the driveway it would become a City street. Mayor Coughlin explained that the land was not as well delineated at that time, and there was some question as to where the buffer zone was located. Council Member Marty inquired if the delineation was current, and being performed by John Hammerschmidt. Planning Associate Ericson stated the delineation before the Council was current as of September or October. He pointed out this was not Mr. Hammerschmidt's project, which would be a reflection of the entire watershed area, which will look at the boundaries and the buffer for north and south of new Highway 10. Ayes—4 Nays— 1 (Marty) Motion carried. F. Approval of Amendment to City Attorney Retainer and Non-Retainer Agreement. City Administrator Whiting stated staff spent some time with City Attorneys Bob Long and Scott Riggs during the last several weeks attempting to address some issues related to retainer and Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 30 non-retainer questions. He stated they have compiled clerical policies that would be instituted pending approval of the Council, pertaining to the overall retainer of the City Attorney's Office. City Administrator Whiting provided the Council with an e-mail from Attorney Riggs to himself', as an example of this policy. He stated the second page of the e-mail correspondence indicates the Purchasing Authority Policy staff has drafted and included in the consideration of the entire Personnel Policies Manual. He explained that these policies were intended to provide some direction, in terms of the use of the City Attorney. City Administrator Whiting stated the general conditions of the retainer do not greatly differ from the previous conditions, and basically, they indicate a $3,000 per month retainer for general City work. He pointed out however, some of the questions that have come forward have probably arisen out of what is considered to be non-retainer work. He stated the proposed system, which is currently being practiced, provides that if a certain type of work the City Attorney performs is outside of the retainer, the appropriate member of staff or Council, depending upon the issue, would have to grant approval, prior to taking any action. City Administrator Whiting stated staff indicated by notation that the information provided the Council in their packet was somewhat different from what they have worked on in the interim, however, this information is somewhat substantive, and staff is recommending approval of this amendment. City Attorney Long stated the changes were indicated in two sentences added to the Council's information, which were both good suggestions made after the meeting with staff. He explained that a sentence would be added under the first paragraph in Item B of the Agreement, to indicate "The non-retainer matters will receive prior approval from the City, on the agreed upon e-mail approval form, before work begins on the matter." He advised that this provided a good example of situations in which they were not necessarily focused upon communication. He explained that an issue might come forward regarding the review of an easement, or the review of a survey for a private development, and they would open this up in an e-mail, non-retainer file because of the agreement, and were just doing this automatically. He stated staff raised a good point in that they were uncertain as to when the non-retainer clock started running, and now they have a good system in place, which indicates this. City Attorney Long pointed out the other change, which is also to the City's benefit is the addition of a sentence to Page 3, Item 6, which indicates "If the City has to pay any portion of this cost, the City's portion will be billed at the lower rate." He stated Finance Director Kessel pointed out that if there is a dispute, and they are unable to collect the money from a third party, this policy would promote they collect the money from the private developer, who is causing the legal bills to be incurred. He explained this would be billed at the standard third-party rate. He stated the premise is that all of the costs would be paid for by the third party, however, in an instance where work is performed, and the City for some reason has to pay for that, it would be billed at the lower rate. City Attorney Long stated they have enjoyed working for the City, and there has been much work in the last several years, in terms of the Community Center, the budget, and other such matters,which generate legal bills. He stated they do not like to see the bills be higher than what they have been in the past. He stated it was always enjoyable to be involved with some of the issues such as the golf course and the Airport litigation, and he was personally very happy with Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 31 this, because it serves to keep the retainer at the same level. He explained that if the non-retainer items are handled properly, they would be able to collect the majority of those fees from the third parties, unless the City decides to take on a project of their own. Council Member Marty stated this document clarifies a number of issues. He stated the Purchasing Authority Policy is good, and the rates are very fair. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Approve Amendment to City Attorney Retainer and Non-Retainer Agreement. Council Member Stigney stated he was not certain why some of the items listed under non- retainer work, were not covered by the retainer, for example, the review of Charter Commission questions, research of matters pending meetings, facilitation of City Council and Charter Commission issues, and so forth. He indicated he was concerned why these items would not be considered the normal retainer type work in representing the City. City Attorney Long stated since 1995, when he became City Attorney, the six non-retainer items listed have always been non-retainer. He stated that none of the categories are new in the agreement. He explained the first six items are considered retainer because whether he works on them for one hour or six hours with staff everyday, they are all included within the monthly retainer. He stated this is provided because they want staff to have some certainty in the budget, and don't want to discourage staff from calling and obtaining legal advice. He explained the other six items are non-retainer, and are all, in their opinion, special project related, such as real estate transactions and TIF documents. He added that the EDA is outside of the City, and tends to generate more legal review because of statutory issues. He explained that labor and employment matters, such as a personnel questions would not fall under the non-retainer, however, if there is a termination proceeding, this would open up a non-retainer file, because it becomes something they can not measure during the course of their time in civil litigation. He stated the revision of the personnel policies is designated to the special projects, because it becomes somewhat of a moving target, and is not simply the drafting of ordinances or resolutions. He explained that all of the non-retainer items are deemed to be special project related, some of which will be paid by third parties, some of which would be a special non- retainer project. He reiterated these were not new non-retainer categories, however, they desired to identify for staff the items that would fall into that category. Council Member Stigney inquired if there was one contact person within the firm, which would allow the City to avoid having two people research the same issue, and provide there is no duplication of effort and duplication of costs. City Attorney Long stated they were fairly confident there were no duplications of services. He explained that the initial contacts of City staff are filed through City Attorney Riggs at this point. He explained he has begun to do more legislative practice in the previous year, and does not wish to leave calls unanswered on his voice mail for an extended period of time. He stated he has directed the majority of these calls to City Attorney Riggs, who is performing much of the day to day contact with staff, and he will leave a voice mail or e-mail if there is an issue, which requires further review. City Attorney Long explained that City Attorney Riggs is handling all matters up to the point where an issue might be regarding something for which he has some special knowledge, or there Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 32 is a need for senior attorney oversight. He indicated if the matter is an ordinance draft, City Attorney Riggs reviews the first draft, and he reviews the final draft. He stated he did not believe they were double billing for these items, and the non-retainer items would have only one attorney working on it, unless it is a litigation matter, where you might have a senior attorney and associates conducting research. Ayes—5 Nays—0 Motion carried. At this time, Mayor Coughlin stated the meeting deadline was approaching, and in acknowledgment of Council Members who were fighting illness, requested the Council keep the meeting to the 10:00 deadline. Council Member Marty suggested consideration of Item H at this time. Mayor Coughlin inquired if it was the consensus of the Council to consider Item H at this time. The Council agreed. G. Review Y2000 Budget. Mayor Coughlin inquired if staff would be of the opinion, to the extent that the Council has not reviewed the entire budget at this point, that the Council required additional time to spend on this item. He stated if more time was needed, the Council could schedule a Special Budget Work Session, prior to the Public Hearing the following Monday, at 4:30 p.m. Council Member Thomason stated she had a third opportunity to review the budget, and the majority of her questions have been more than adequately answered by staff, therefore, she did not reasonably assume there would be anything further to address at that point. Council Member Stigney stated as he was not aware of the nature of Council Member Thomason's questions, or the responses to these, therefore, he would like copies of this information. Council Member Marty suggested if the Council Members were available, he believed a 4:30 meeting would allow some time to discuss the budget, rather than attempting to push the discussion through at that late hour. City Administrator Whiting stated one of the items that should be reviewed during the budget discussion is the Community Center. He explained the Community Center has had a connection to the General Fund in the past two or three years, and this is proposed again for next year. He stated the implications of that should be well understood, particularly by the three new Members of the Council, who have not dealt directly with that in the past. City Administrator Whiting stated the Council could indicate a pay plan for the upcoming year, and would be considering two union contracts, and the third collective bargaining agreement, which is actually in its second year. He noted staff is presently conducting legal work in this regard, and they will not be aware of the results of the union negotiations, however, there will be a three-percent budgeted increase in overall wages. He pointed out they may be receiving some Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 33 difficult news in the future regarding health insurance, and although the City has a cap, this does tend to affect the employees. City Administrator Whiting stated there should be some discussion in regard to the franchise fee, and what can be done beyond 1.5 percent, and particularly as it relates to the contingency amount at the end of the budget. He stated they have been discussing some options in terms of the Street Light Utility Fund, which could be examined more closely, because they have not had the same number of requests for new street lights, and perhaps some type of a rate credit could be considered. He added that to some extent, this discussion could also include the golf course interfund loan, which they would like to process, and within the next few meetings, attempt to hold another Work Session in that regard, and a noticed Council meeting for citizens who are interested in that. Finance Director Kessel stated he had distributed an overview of the information that will be presented at the November 22, 1999 meeting, which will be presented on a computer overhead projector. He stated there would be a summary of the budget in the Mounds View Matters. He indicated if the Council Members had any questions regarding the budget, they should submit them within the next few days, to provide staff can conduct the necessary research and provide the answers, and hopefully present a budget that everyone will be comfortable with. Council Member Stigney requested Finance Director Kessel provide information regarding how current tax revenues at the Theater Project, and projected revenues in the year 2000. Finance Director Kessel stated the total tax revenue at the Theater Project will remain the same, however, the tax capacity will increase. He inquired if Council Member Stigney was requesting information regarding the tax capacity. Council Member Stigney stated he would like to know the effect of the change. Finance Director Kessel stated the total dollars that come in to the City will be the same, and there will be no impact, other than possibly lowering the rate. He stated the County has provided information, which indicates residential properties would see an approximate 2 percent decrease, and commercial and industrial properties would see an approximate 10 percent decrease in what they are paying in taxes, in pay 2000, versus pay 1999. He advised however, there will be no additional dollars coming into the City as a result of this. City Administrator Whiting suggested staff could indicate what the Theater Project is likely to pay in taxes. Finance Director Kessel stated staff could provide the amount of tax the Theater Project generates. He reiterated, however, there will be no additional dollars coming into the City. He pointed out that there was a Building Permit fee increase that did come to the City, but that occurred quite some time ago. Council Member Marty stated the tax at the Theater Project would probably be less this year. Finance Director Kessel stated last year, it was undeveloped properties, and there would not have been significant taxes collected, and this is the first year the project itself will come into play. Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 34 Council Member Stigney stated he was somewhat unclear on this issue, in that there is 20 percent of that tax money which comes to the City in one form or another, and he is asking what the dollar value of that is. Finance Director Kessel stated if Council Member Stigney wanted to know what taxes that parcel has generated this year versus last year, that information can be provided. Council Member Stigney stated this was what he was requesting. He explained he would like this information as compared to that of an average $115,000 home. City Administrator Whiting advised staff could research the value of the property, relative to the tax base, and provide some numbers on the overall tax base of the City. He stated they can then provide information regarding the current tax base, and the projected tax base of 2000, and compare the rates, and provide a specific write down of the Theater Project, in terms of what they actually pay in taxes. Mayor Coughlin stated it was the consensus of the Council to direct staff to post a special meeting for 4:30, the following Monday, as per open meeting law. H. Resolution Appointing City Voting Delegate and Alternate for Congress of Cities Policy Adoption Voting at NCC Conference. Mayor Coughlin stated this consideration was in regard to the National Congress of Cities Conference that Council Member Thomason and City Administrator Whiting will be attending. He explained the resolution grants voting rights to Council Member Thomason for the remainder of her stay at that convention, and for City Administrator Whiting to act as alternate, if Council Member Thomason is not available. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Approve Resolution No. 5388, a Resolution Appointing City of Mounds View Voting Delegates for policy Adoption Voting at the Congress of Cities Conference, Los Angeles, California, December 4, 1999. Ayes—5 Nays—0 Motion carried. I. Airport Commission Appointment. Mayor Coughlin presented the Council with his memorandum, which indicated he was seeking Council approval of the appointments of James Harrelson, Woodlawn Drive, and Sharon Croon, Eastwood Road, to the newly created Airport Commission. The memorandum further indicated these appointments would each be for two-year terms, ending on December 31, 2001. Mayor Coughlin stated Mr. Harrelson was present, and was welcome to address the Council, if so desired. Mr. Harrelson stated he was available to answer any questions the Council may have regarding his qualifications for this position. He stated he was a former pilot, and a resident of Mounds View, for the last two and a half years. He indicated he is the manager of the Woodlawn Terrace Apartments, and previously was the manager of an apartment complex located directly north of Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 35 the airport, therefore, if there is any question regarding whether or not he is in favor of airport noise, his response would be a resounding "no." Mayor Coughlin stated he had spoken with Mr. Harrelson regarding many different topics, and found him to be very reasonable and knowledgeable, both as a pilot, and also as someone who has experienced the negative side of the airplanes, which is the noise. He stated he enthusiastically supports Mr. Harrelson as one of his appointees. Council Member Stigney stated from what he had just heard, Mr. Harrelson appeared to be a very good individual to have on the Airport Commission. He indicated that Sharon Croon would also be a very good advocate, as she resides on the north end of his block, which is the closest street to the airport, and the noise she hears is approximately 10 blocks closer to the airport than what he hears. He stated he also fully supported Sharon Croon, and believes she will do a great job. Mayor Coughlin stated he had also spoken to Mrs. Croon on several occasions, regarding various issues, and found her to be a delightful person to speak with, as well. He indicated Mrs. Croon was very knowledgeable in many areas, including airport noise. MOTION/SECOND: Thomason/Stigney. To Approve the Appointment of James Harrelson and Sharon Croon to the Newly Created Airport Commission. Ayes—5 Nays—4 Motion carried. J. Cable Broadcast Policies of Meetings. Mayor Coughlin inquired if, in light of the time, the Council would consent to continue this Item for consideration at the next meeting of the City Council. The Council agreed. 11. Next Council Work Session: Monday, December 6, 1999—6:00 P.M. Next Council Meeting: Monday, November 22, 1999—7:00 P.M. Next Public Hearing: Monday, November 22, 1999—6:00 P.M. 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Coughlin adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Transcribed and recorded by: Trish Pearson TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. l 7, i 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: 13782 through 13793 in the amount of$ 30,594.82 101696 through 101772 in the amount of$ 113,822.18 TOTAL AMOUNT OF CLAIMS PRESENTED: $ 144,417.00 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 11/23/99 by the vote ayes nayes. Mayor Clerk-Administrator Date: 11/18/1999 Time: 16:14:37 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 13782 Jerry Gjerdahl Payroll Advance 250.00 Total for Chk 13782 250.00* 13785 ICMA Retirement Trust ICMA 11/18 4,119.67 Total for Chk 13785 4,119.67* 13786 Edward Jones Money Market 150.00 Total for Chk 13786 150.00* 13787 Minnesota Benefit Asso MN benefits for Nov 745.48 Total for Chk 13787 745.48* 13788 Minnesota Child Suppor child support for 1118 690.90 Total for Chk 13788 690.90* 13789 MINNESOTA STATE RETIRE St retirement 11/18 432.69 Total for Chk 13789 432.69* • 13790 Public Employees Insur Health ins for Dec 13,854.21 Total for Chk 13790 13,854.21* 13791 Public Employees Retir PERA for 11/18 10,217.87 Total for Chk 13791 10,217.87* 13792 Sunrise United Methodi Sunris for Nov 14.00 Total for Chk 13792 14.00* 13793 Western Bank savings 11/18 120.00 Total for Chk 13793 120.00* 101696 Spots, Inc. Meter Refund 41.04 Total for Chk 101696 41.04* 101697 Earl Welle Meter Refund 90.00 Total for Chk 101697 90.00* Date: 11/18/1999 Time: 16:14:37 Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 2 City of Mounds View FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount 101698 Ronald Johnson Meter Refund-8295 Red Oa 30.00 Total for Chk 101698 30.00* 101699 Able Hose & Rubber, In Suction Hose 4823 112.68 Total for Chk 101699 112.68* 101700 Ace Solid Waste, Inc. Rubbish Pickup-Bridges 4901 351.97 Total for Chk 101700 351.97* 101701 Airtouch Police Cell Phones 4200 166.63 Total for Chk 101701 166.63* 101702 AmeriPride Linen & App Towels 416022.79 Total for Chk 101702 22.79* 101703 American Office Produc Refill Sheets, Clasp Env 4160 575.07 Total for Chk 101703 575.07* 101704 Bacon's Electric Golf Course Pump Project 4900 8,061.50 Total for Chk 101704 8,061.50* 101705 Batteries Plus GNBDTA7 4462 269.89 Total for Chk 101705 269.89* 101706 Beisswengers Hardware 4826 304.04 Total for Chk 101706 304.04* 101707 City of Blaine 2850 82nd Lane N.E. 4901 50.76 Total for Chk 101707 50.76* 101708 City of Blaine Fire Bond Levy Collectio 4750 40,075.50 Total for Chk 101708 40,075.50* 101709 Brinkman Russell, Inc. Phone Reimbursement 4100 96.25 Total for Chk 101709 96.25* 101710 Cascade Subscription S Golf Digest, Golf Word S 4901 163.82 Total for Chk 101710 163.82* 101711 Cemstone Products Co. Cement 4900 244.42 Total for Chk 101711 244.42* 101712 Cintas - 748 Uniform Rental 4900 385.97 Total for Chk 101712 385.97* 101713 Computer Learning Cent Word Classes 4160 880.00 Total for Chk 101713 880.00* 101714 Conseco Finance Vendor Lease Payment 4823 153.28 Total for Chk 101714 153.28* Date: 11/18/1999 Time: 16:14:37 Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 3 City of Mounds View FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount 101715 Cottens, Inc. Filters, Spark Plugs 4900 53.96 Total for Chk 101715 53.96* 101716 Crysteel Truck Equipme Plow Blade 4823 4,319.20 Total for Chk 101716 4,319.20* 101717 Cues, Inc. 4826 94.56 Total for Chk 101717 94.56* 101718 Cummins North Central, Choke Cable Assy. 4900 21.15 Total for Chk 101718 21.15* 101719 East Side Beverage Co. Beverages 4901 72.90 Total for Chk 101719 72.90* 101720 Elegant Thymes Caterin Rohr Dinner 6,404.92 Total for Chk 101720 6,404.92* 101721 Fisher Bjork Sheetmeta Roof Top Unit service 4350 136.00 Total for Chk 101721 136.00* 101722 Gopher State One-Call, 94 Calls 4826 164.50 Total for Chk 101722 164.50* 101723 W. W. Grainger Cordless Drill 4900 393.14 Total for Chk 101723 393.14* 101724 Greenman Technologies Tire Pickup 4460 13.60 Total for Chk 101724 13.60* 101725 Griggs, Cooper & Compa Beverages 4901 142.80 Total for Chk 101725 142.80* 101726 Hawkins Chemical Chlorine 4825 638.20 Total for Chk 101726 638.20* 101727 Hughes & Costello Prosecution Statement 4200 3,500.00 Total for Chk 101727 3,500.00* 101728 Insty Prints Comprehensive Plan Maps 4180 191.70 Total for Chk 101728 191.70* 101729 Kath Auto Parts & Mach Car Parts 4462 97.12 Total for Chk 101729 97.12* 101730 Kennedy & Graven Community Dev. matters 4650 7,249.16 Total for Chk 101730 7,249.16* 101731 League of Minnesota Ci Breakfast Meeting-12/02/ 4100 30.00 Total for Chk 101731 30.00* Date: 11/18/1999 Time: 16:14:37 Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 4 City of Mounds View FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount 101732 Lillie Suburban News Board Opening Ad 4110 6.83 Total for Chk 101732 6.83* 101733 Herbert Lundeen Pump Couplers 4460 34.18 Total for Chk 101733 34.18* 101734 M.T.I. Distributing Co Sprayer Nozzles 4900 168.97 Total for Chk 101734 168.97* 101735 Masys Corporation Enfors Maintenance 4200 623.69 Total for Chk 101735 623.69* 101736 Metrocall State Display Service 4200 18.05 Total for Chk 101736 18.05* 101737 Midwest Coca/Cola Beverages 4901 176.74 Total for Chk 101737 176.74* 101738 Midwest Landscapes Trees 4470 2,158.00 Total for Chk 101738 2,158.00* 101739 Minnegasco Natural Gas 4901 8.91 Total for Chk 101739 8.91* 101740 Mita Financial Service Copier Payment 4200 205.98 Total for Chk 101740 205.98* 101741 Mounds View, City of 6991 Pleasant View Dr. 4650 6.84 Total for Chk 101741 6.84* 101742 National Golf Foundati Membership 4901 90.00 Total for Chk 101742 90.00* 101743 New Brighton, City of Forestry Service 4380 4,932.00 Total for Chk 101743 4,932.00* 101744 North Metro Mayors Ass Dinner Board Meeting 4100 31.14 Total for Chk 101744 31.14* 101745 North Star Turf, Inc. Gasket 4900 6.45 Total for Chk 101745 6.45* 101746 Northern Tool & Equipm Couplers 4901 28.68 Total for Chk 101746 28.68* 101747 Northern Sanitary Supp Sales Tax on Inv.#445351 4350 7.02 Total for Chk 101747 7.02* 101748 Northern States Power 8290 Coral Sea-Sign 4900 422.46 Total for Chk 101748 422.46* Date: 11/18/1999 Time: 16:14:37 Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 5 City of Mounds View FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount 101749 Oakstone Legal & Busin Public Employment Law En 4200 250.75 Total for Chk 101749 250.75* 101750 Office Depot Computer Paper 4200 28.31 Total for Chk 101750 28.31* 101751 Perfect "10" Car Wash Car Washes 4200 14.80 Total for Chk 101751 14.80* 101752 Print Central City Directory 4160 705.56 Total for Chk 101752 705.56* 101753 Ramsey County Radio Service 4200 16,720.19 Total for Chk 101753 16,720.19* 101754 Roberts Beverage Servi Beverage Service 539.25 Total for Chk 101754 539.25* 101755 S.R.E. Security Alarm Security Signs, Stickers 4901 246.70 Total for Chk 101755 246.70* 101756 Scantron Service Group Maintenance Agreement 4820 241.31 Total for Chk 101756 241.31* 101757 Shred-It Shredding 4200 49.95 Total for Chk 101757 49.95* 101758 Spring Lake Park Fire Fire Inspection Services 4210 4,976.24 Total for Chk 101758 4,976.24* 101759 Star Tribune Payroll, Utility Billing 4160 247.00 Total for Chk 101759 247.00* 101760 Surplus Services Breaker, Paving, Pneumat 4472 125.00 Total for Chk 101760 125.00* 101761 Sun Newspapers Economic Dev.Coordinator 4160 183.60 Total for Chk 101761 183.60* 101762 Sysco Food Services of Cups, Towels, Hot Dogs, 4901 202.42 Total for Chk 101762 202.42* 101763 The Tape Company Sleeves 4350 290.00 Total for Chk 101763 290.00* 101764 Time Saver Planning Comm.Mtg. 11/03 4180 189.75 Total for Chk 101764 189.75* 101765 Titleist Drawer Golf Merchandise 4901 57.19 Total for Chk 101765 57.19* Date: 11/18/1999 Time: 16:14:37 Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 6 City of Mounds View FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount 101766 U. S. West 784-3055 4160 2,074.88 Total for Chk 101766 2,074.88* 101767 U. S. West Communicati 780-1908 4360 20.50 Total for Chk 101767 20.50* 101768 U. S. West Communicati Listen Only Voice Mail 4200 55.38 Total for Chk 101768 55.38* 101769 U. S. West Subscriber Information 4200 3.60 Total for Chk 101769 3.60* 101770 U. S. Postal Service Postage for Postage Mach 4160 2,000.00 Total for Chk 101770 2,000.00* 101771 Viking Electric EMT Conduit 4823 48.34 Total for Chk 101771 48.34* 101772 Wager's, Inc Maintenance Contract 4465 27.00 Total for Chk 101772 27.00* Grand Total 144,417.00* NiimisimiimmENN.mmimim.....iimiiii Item No. 7 .B Staff Report No. Meeting Date: November 22, 1999 Type of Business: Consent City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor & City Council From: James Ericson, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Set a Public Hearing for 7:05 pm, Monday, December 13, 1999, to Consider Resolution 5387, a Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit and Development Review for the Sunrise United Methodist Church at 7687 Long Lake Road. Date of Report: November 18, 1999 Background: The Church is planning an expansion of their existing 13,000 square-foot facility to add additional office space, a kitchen area, multi-purpose space and an expanded Sunday school area. The worship area will be expanded and reoriented to accommodate more seating, increasing from the existing 275 to the proposed 368. The total area of expansion will be approximately 7,500 square feet. This item was discussed at the Planning Commission on November 17, 1999, who directed staff to prepare a resolution recommending approval of this request. The Planning Commission will take action on this request on December 1, 1999. Discussion: Staff has reviewed in detail the specific CUP requirements relating to Churches and found them to be sufficiently addressed and satisfactory. In addition,the general CUP requirements and adverse effects criteria, which need to be addressed for any conditional use permit request, were also found to be sufficiently addressed and satisfactory. There are 98 parking stalls present on the site currently which satisfies the current requirements of one space per every four seats. With the expansion to 368 seats, the new requirement would be 92 stalls, which is still less than what exists currently. There are no plans to alter the parking lot. There does not appear to be any outstanding issues with this proposal and it is expected that the Planning Commission will forward a resolution recommending approval of this request. Recommendation: Set a Public Hearing for 7:05 pm, Monday, December 13, 1999, to Consider Resolution 5387, a Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit and Development Review for the Sunrise United Methodist Church at 7687 Long Lake Road. James Ericson, Planner N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDE V\DE VCASES\574-99\SUNRISE.CC 1 TmmommmmlimmlINNEMMINNII Item No. 7 C Staff Report No. Meeting Date: November 22, 1999 Type of Business: CONSENT City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor & City Council From: James Ericson, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Set a Public Hearing for 7:10 pm, Monday, December 13, 1999, for the First Reading (Introduction) of Ordinance 642, an Ordinance Amending Title 1100 of the Mounds View Municipal Code (Zoning Code) Chapters 1104, 1107 and 1121 Relating to Driveways and Curb Cuts. Date of Report: November 18, 1999 Background: Ordinance 642 (attached) is proposed to make the Zoning Code consistent with Chapter 902 which was recently amended with the Council's adoption of Ordinance 640. In addition to resolving inconsistencies, this ordinance makes changes to driveway and curb cut widths by zoning district. According to Minnesota Statutes, a public hearing is required for this ordinance as it amends the City's Zoning Code. Discussion: After much discussion at many meetings, the Planning Commission on November 17, 1999, directed staff to draft a resolution recommending approval of this ordinance and to forward said ordinance to the Council for a public hearing and adoption. While staff and the Planning Commission feel the ordinance is in its final and most appropriate iteration, staff would certainly consider any suggested changes from the Council prior to the first reading or members of the community at the public hearing. This ordinance has been forwarded to Kennedy& Graven for their review to ensure it is in the proper form. Staff will be present at the Council's meeting on November 22 if there are questions about this. Recommendation: Set the public hearing as stated above. James Ericson, Planner N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\SPECPROJ\SP074-99\MEMO.CC I ORDINANCE 642 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 1100, CHAPTERS 1104, 1107 AND 1121 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO DRIVEWAYS AND CURB CUTS THE COUNCIL OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Title 1100, Chapter 1104 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to general zoning provisions shall be amended by the addition of the italicized and double- underlined language and the deletion of the stricketrthrough language in Section 1104.01, Subdivision 4 to read as follows: Subd. 4. Minimum Setbacks for Accessory Buildings, Driveways and Parking Areas: a. Accessory Buildings (detached from a principal building): (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) (1) R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5 and R-O: (a) front: no accessory building shall be located between the front of the principal building and the front lot line. (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) (b) side: five feet (5') except the minimum setback shall be thirty feet(30') from any lot line abutting a public street. (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) (c) rear, including street frontages at the rear of through lots: five feet(5'). (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) (2) All other districts: (a) front: no accessory building shall be located between the front of the principal building and the front lot line. (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) (b) side: same as principal building. (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) (c) rear: same as principal building, except accessory buildings having four hundred (400) square feet or less and not abutting property in a residential district or a street, may have a minimum rear setback of ten feet (10'). (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) Ordinance 642 Page 2 b. Driveways: (1) Driveways shall have a minimum setback of five feet (5')from any lot line, except as permitted in Section 1104.01, Subd. 41,Walt and Section 1121.15, Subd. 2 of this Title. Driveways shall be permitted to cross a required setback area in order to establish access between the lot and a public street. Where a driveway would encroach into an easement, the property owner shall obtain an encroachment permit if required by the City prior to construction of the driveway. Drive aisles and driveways which are within the boundaries of a parking area shall conform to the setbacks required for parking areas. (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) (2) Driveways in existence as of the date of enactment of Ordinance 620 and which do not conform to the provisions of this subsection, may continue subject to the provisions of Section 902.02. Subdivision 2 . . • o• , . .,.. • +(bj-ofthis-Title. (Ord. 620, 7-27-98) c. Parking Areas: (1) R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-O: (a) residential uses: Parkin. lots and drivew. s shall be set back five feet (5'), except in the R-1 and R-2 districts, parking areas and driveways shall be permitted with a setback of one foot (1')provided the owner(s) of the abutting lot(s) indicates their permission on a form acceptable to the City. Where a parking area would encroach into an easement, the property owner shall obtain approval for an encroachment permit if required by the appropriate authority prior to construction of the driveway. . .• . ., _ . . ..; . . (Ord. 524, 2-22-93; Ord. 590, 11-25-96; Ord. 620, 7-27-98) (b) non-residential uses: Parking lots and driveways shall be set back five feet (5') except where non-residential uses abut property in a residential district, the setback for parking areas from the common property line shall be as follows: (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) [I]. for sites having two and one-half (2.5 ) acres or less: twenty feet (20') (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) [ii]. for sites having more than two and one-half(2.5) acres: thirty feet (30') (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) Ordinance 642 Page 3 (2) B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4 (parking areas and loading docks): (a) front: thirty feet (30') (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) (b) side and rear: five feet (5'), except where a non-residential use abuts a property in a residential district, the setback for parking areas from the common property line shall be as stated in Section 1104.01 subdivision 4c(1)(b). (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) (3) I-1 (parking areas and loading docks): (a) front: forty feet (40') (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) (b) side and rear: five feet (5'), except where a non-residential use abuts a property in a residential district, the setback for parking areas from the common property line shall be as stated in Section 1104.01 subdivision 4c(1)(b). (Ord. 524, 2-22-93; Ord. 590, 11-25-96) (4) Parking areas in existence as of the date of enactment of Ordinance 620 and which do not conform to the provisions of this subsection, may continue subject to the provisions of Section 1123.02 subdivision lb. (Ord. 620, 7-27-98) SECTION 2. Title 1100, Chapter 1107 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to zero lot line subdivisions shall be amended by the addition of the italicized and double-underlined language and the deletion of the stricken-through language in Section 1107.07, Subdivision 3 to read as follows: Subd. 3. Specific Requirements for Resulting Dwelling Units: a. Area Requirements: Six thousand two hundred fifty(6,250) square feet. b. Lot Width: Fifty feet (50') per dwelling unit. c. Setback Requirements: (1) Front Yard: Thirty feet (30'). (2) Rear Yard: Thirty feet (30'). (3) Side Yard (where applicable): (a) Ten feet(10'). (b) Thirty feet(30') on street side of corner lot. Ordinance 642 Page 4 d. Drivewa Widths: The width o the drivewa servicin, one dwellin' unit shall not exceed the width o that dwellin. unit's •ara:e. When located side-b -side drivewa s shall maintain a minimum our- oot 4' separation unless the a ected.ro.er owners have filed a right of way and maintenance agreement with Ramse Coun according to the provisions of Section 1121.15 Subd 2 o this Title ertaininv to 'oint driveway e. Curb Cut Width: The width o a curb cut servicing one dwelling unit shall not exceed eighteen feet(20'). In the event o a common or 'oint drivew i4 servicin• both units the width of'the curb cut shall not exceed thirty-two eet 36' . SECTION 3. Title 1100, Chapter 1121 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to off street parking requirements shall be amended by the addition of the italicized and double- underlined language and the deletion of the stricken through language in Section 1121.09, to read as follows: 1121.09: STALL,AISLE AND DRIVEWAY DESIGN: Subd. 1. Parking Space Size: Each parking space shall not be less than nine feet (9')wide and eighteen feet (18')in length exclusive of access aisles, and each space shall be served adequately by access aisles. Subd. 2. Within Structures: The off-street parking requirements may be furnished by providing a space so designed within the principal building or one attached thereto; however, unless provisions are made, no building permit shall be issued to convert said space into a dwelling unit or living area until other adequate provisions are made to comply with the required off-street parking provisions of this Title. Subd. 3. Circulation: Except in the case of single-family, two-family and townhouse dwellings, parking areas shall be designed so that circulation between parking bays or aisles occurs within the designated parking lot and does not depend upon a public street or alley. Except in the case of single-family, two-family and townhouse dwellings, parking area design which requires backing into the public street is prohibited. Subd. 4. Dimensions: a. In the R-1 zonin• district the combined width or drivew• and attached•arkin areas shall not exceed thin - the eet 35' or the width o the .ara.e .lis an additional twelve feet(127 whichever is greater. b Except in the case of single-family, two-family and townhouse dwellings, parking areas and their aisles shall be developed in compliance with the following standards: Ordinance 642 Page 5 Wall to Interlock to Wall to Interlock Interlock Wall Angle Minimum Minimum Minimum Dimension A Dimension B Dimension C 45° 44.8' 43.0' 47.0' 60° 52.5' 51.0' 54.0' 75° 61.3' 61.0' 62.0' 90° 63.0' 63.0' 63.0' WALL A B ZNGLE G ., V • Parallel Parking: 22 feet in Length Subd. 5. Curb Cuts and Driveway Openings: a. No curb cut access shall be located less than fifty feet(50') from the intersection of two (2) or more street rights of way. This distance shall be measured from the intersection of lot lines. b. Curb Cut Widths. Widths o curb cuts shall be as ollows sub'ect to re•uirements o subdivision 5e hereof. . . . . , .. • .• , • • - • . -'. • . - 1 • .. • .. . . . . - . . . , . . R-2, R-3 and R-4 uses, subject to rcquirements-of subdivision 5c hercof, commercial uses Ordinance 642 Page 6 Typ e of °1;and l 2se Maximum dthff "urf Cut Sin•le Famil Residential(1?-1 Manufactured Homes (R-5) 24 Feet Zero Lot Line Subdivisions(R-2) 18 Feet Zero Lot Line Subdivisions (R-2) 36 Feet (with combined driveways,) Medium Density Residential(R-2 R-3 32 Feet High Density Residential Residential Office (R-O) Commercial. Industrial 32 Feet (B-1. B-2. B-3, B-4 I-1 Public Parks&Preservation Areas 32 Feet (PF. CRP) c. Curb cut openings shall be at a minimum of three feet (3') from the lot line in residential districts and five feet (5') from the lot line in business or industrial districts. d. Driveway access curb openings on a public street, except for single-family, two-family and townhouse dwellings, shall not be located less than forty feet (40')from one another. e. Each property elevation of any parking area shall be allowed one curb cut access for each one hundred twenty five feet (125') of street frontage. All property shall be entitled to at least one curb cut. Single-family uses and zero lot line subdivided lots' shall be limited to one curb cut access per property unless, upon application for a variance of this restriction, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals finds that it is in the interest of public safety to waive such. Medium density residential (2 to 6 units) may have two (2) curb cuts; provided, . . . . . • a • . , • . . • + + • . •• neither curb cut exceeds twenty feet (20') in width. f Curb cuts in existence as of 10/11/99 that do not conform to this subdivision may remain in existence unless deemed by the Director o Public Works to be a dan•er or public safety hazard Notices to abandon a curb cut may be appealed in writing to the City Council(Ord 640 10/11/99,2, Subd. 6. Grade Elevation: The grade elevation of any parking area shall not exceed five percent i Re er to Section 1107.03 o this Title or more in ormation re.ardin• Zero Lot Line Subdivisions. Ordinance 642 Page 7 (5%). (1988 Code §40.07). Subd. 7. Surfacing: All areas, as allowed in Subdivision 1104.01(4) of this Title, to be utilized for parking space and driveways shall be surfaced with a permanent, improved surface material as defined in Section 1102.02 of this Chapter, suitable to control dust, drainage and erosion, meeting the requirements of Section 902.053 of this Code except as follows: A gravel surface material meeting the specifications of Section 902.053, Subd. 5 of this Code may be used for parking areas in an R-1 or R-2 District not to exceed three hundred (300) square feet or, if to be used as a parking surface for an RV, the minimum area that would encompasses the wheel-base area of one(1) recreational vehicle. Plans for surfacing and drainage of driveways and stalls for five(5) or more vehicles shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development for review, and the final drainage plan must receive the Director of Public Works/City Engineer's written approval. (Ord. 524, 2-22-93; Ord. 620, 7-27-98; Ord. 640. 10/11/99.) Subd. 8. Striping: Except for single-family, two-family and townhouses, all parking stalls shall be marked with yellow painted lines not less than four inches (4") wide. Subd. 9. Lighting: Any lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking area shall be so arranged so to reflect the light away from adjoining property, abutting residential uses and public rights of way and be in compliance with Section 1103.09 of this Title. Subd. 10. Signs: No sign shall be so located as to restrict the sight lines and orderly operation and traffic movement within any parking lot. All signing must conform to the Mounds View Sign Code'. Subd. 11. Curbing and Landscaping: Except for single-family and two-family developments. •• •. • . • i . . . ' , all open off-street parking shall have a perimeter curb barrier around the entire parking lot. The specifications and location of this curb barrier shall comply with Section 902.04 and with the setback requirements for parking areas stated in Section 1104.01, subdivision 4. Grass, plantings or surfacing materials shall be provided in all areas bordering the parking area. (Ord. 590, 11/26/96: Ord. 640. 10/11/99.) Subd. 12. Required Screening: All open, nonresidential, off-street parking areas of five (5) or more spaces shall be screened and landscaped from abutting or surrounding residential districts in compliance with subdivision 1103.08(6) of this Title. (1988 Code §40.07) 1 See Chapter 1008 of this Code. Ordinance 642 Page 8 SECTION 4. This ordinance takes effect 30 days after its publication in the official City newspaper. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of , 1999. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of 1999. Dan Coughlin, Mayor Attest: Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Robert C. Long, City Attorney CAOFFICE\WPWIN\WPDocs\oRDINANC\642.0RD RESOLUTION NO. 5390 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER WHEREAS, well-trained peace officers are better able to assure their own safety and the safety and constitutional rights of our citizens; and, WHEREAS, maintaining proficiency in high-liability peace officer activities, including confrontation management, use of force and lawful searches and arrests, is a prudent safeguard against expensive litigation and civil lawsuits; and, WHEREAS, adequate training facilities for unique peace officer skills can be most economically and efficiently provided through the cooperative efforts of several neighboring jurisdictions; and, WHEREAS, funds have been provided in the 1998 Minnesota State budget for a feasibility study on the development of a consolidated law enforcement center in the northeast metropolitan Twin Cities area; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council direct and authorize the Chief of Police to participate with representatives from other governmental jurisdictions in helping to plan and coordinate the development of such a facility. Adopted this day of November, 1999. ATTEST Charles S. Whiting, City Administrator Dan Coughlin, Mayor (SEAL) NOV 19 '99 06:35PM WOLD ARCHITECTS P.2/4 305 S'r. PETER S•I•Rrrv.T Sr. PAUL, MN 55102 /D / 651.227,7773 No: 651.223.5646 25 SouI'H (TROVE AVENUE SUITE 500 ELGIN, IL 60120 847.608.2600 ••"': •_ -.:=� : November 22, 1999 FAx 847.608.2654 WWW.WOLDAE.COM City Council Members MAIL^t''.woLDAL9.COM City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View,Minnesota 55112 • Re: Mounds View Community Center—Locker/Shower Remodel Commission No.: 99098 Dear City Council Members: On November 18, 1999 at 2:00 p.m.,we received bids for the Locker/Shower Remodel at the Mounds View Community Center. A total of eight bids were received(see enclosed Bid Tabulation)and represent an acceptable bid range for this project. The low bid from Lund Martin Construction,Inc. is within your budget. Two alternates for athletic lockers were bid with this project to identify the cost,quality and time schedule for delivery of the lockers. After discussing options with Terri Blattenbauer,we recommend the following: Base Bid $ 86,300 The base bid contract is all general construction including mechanical and electrical work. Recommendation: Accept this Base Bid Alternate No. 1: Republic,Art Metal and Penco Athletic Lockers $ 8,770 These lockers are durable,high quality lockers, delivery is 22 weeks from approval of shop drawings. Recommendation: Reject this Alternate Alternate No.2: DeBourgh Athletic Lockers S 11,800 These lockers are premium quality all welded lockers,delivery is 9 weeks from approval of shop drawings. Recommendation: Accept this Alternate 444 Opport¢Riq Employer NOV 19 '99 06:36PM WOLD ARCHITECTS P.3/4 Letter to City Council Members Page Two We recommend you award this project to Lund Martin Construction,inc.as follows: Base Bid $ 86,300 Alternate No.2 $ 11.800 Totai Contract Award $ 98,100 Lund Martin Construction,Inc. is a reputable contractor. We have contacted them and they have told us they are ready to start this project upon approval by the City Council. Sincerely, WOLD ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS e,Vatoit"%aliithA;;) Craig Anding,PE Associate Enclosure cc: Mike Ulrich,City of Mounds View Terri Blattenbauer,Mounds View Community Center John McNamara cj1990941nov99 .___._.... IliglD NOV 19 '99 06:36PM7..............._ WOLD ARCHITECTS P.4/4 MOUNDS VIEW COMMUNITY CENTER LOCKER/SHOWER REMODEL .. .. Comm. No.: 99098 Date: November 18, 1999 Time: 2:00 p.m. • BIDDER'S NAME BID ADDENDUM BASE BID ALTERNATES REMARKS SECURITY RECEIVED 1 2 • CM Construction 1221.5 NicogetAve.So. Yes No.1 $93,000 $9,200 $12,400 Burnsville,MN 55337 TO(612)895-8223 Fax:(612)895-8183 BNM Construction,Inc. 9766 Pierce St.NE Yes No.1 $98,890 $11,500 $14,600 Maine,MN 55434 Tel:(612)780.4535 Fax:(612)792.0864 Parkos Construction 1010 Soutb Robert St Yes No.1 $94,800 $9,400 No Bid West St.Paul,MN 55118 Tel:(651)455-0031 F8x7(651)450.7740 Merrimac Construction 14533 NE Highway 65 Yes No.1 5105,761 59,655 $13,030 Ham Lake,MN 55304 Tel;(612)434-6857 Fax:(612)434-6585 Met-Con Companies 10640 Lyndale Ave.Suite 4 Yes No.1 $87,900 $9,800 No Bid Bloomington,MN 55420 Tel:(612)884-6250 Fax;(612)884-8766 Ebert Construction 23350 Co.Road 10 Yes No.1 $88,690 $9,150 $13,000 Corcoran,MN 55357 Tet(612)498-7844 Fax:(612)498-9951 Lund Martin Construction 3023 Randolph St.NE Yes No.1 586,300 $8,770 $11,800 Minneapolis,MN 55418 Tel:(612)782.2250 Fax:(612)782-2267 Cates Construction 2400 Cates Ranch Drive Yes No.1 $97,000 $8,681 $11,715 Hamel,MN 55340 Tel;(612)478-8961 Fax:(612)478.6794 , 1 i JO .6 ORDINANCE NO. 5392 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW County of Ramsey State of Minnesota An Ordinance adopting the 1999 Long Term Financial Plan The City Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby ordain: SECTION I. The 1999 Long Term Financial Plan was presented in August 1999 and was available for public inspection in the Office of the City Administrator. SECTION II. The 1999 Long Term Financial Plan is hereby adopted. SECTION III. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after the date of its publication. Introduced and read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on November 22, 1999. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 13th day of December, 1999. ATTEST: MAYOR (SEAL) CITY ADMINISTRATOR APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY I Item No. 7E 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: November 22, 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. HVAC East Bethel Heating & Air, Inc. —New Faircon Service -New Home Energy Center-New Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested. /D A Item No. Type of Business: PH WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; CB:Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mayor and City Council From: Givonna Reed Item Title/Subject: Tobacco License Application for Tobacco Empire at 2563 '/2 Highway 10 Date of Report: November 22, 1999 On October 18th, 1999 I received a telephone inquiry from "Alex" regarding the application process for a new tobacco license. He indicated that he was calling on behalf of Abdul Wraidt who did not speak very good English. Within a couple hours I was visited by "John" who indicated that he was Alex's cousin and that he would be taking over the application process on behalf of his mother. When John submitted the application for a new tobacco license in the name of Nayfha Wraidt he explained that the insurance company named on the Certification of Compliance [with the]Minnesota Workers' Compensation Law , Morse Agency, Inc., had given him "some papers" but no actual insurance policy number. On October 22nd I called Morse Agency, Inc. to verify insurance coverage. I was informed by Dorie of Morse Agency, Inc. that, contrary to what was indicated on the license application, there was no insurance policy because a premium had never been paid. The Certification of Compliance [with the]Minnesota Workers' Compensation Law clearly states regarding insurance policy numbers that "This information is required by law, and licensing and permit to operate a business may not be issued or renewed if it is not provided and/or falsely reported. Furthermore, if this information is not provided or falsely stated, it may result in a $2,000 assessed against the applicant nt bythe Commissioner of the Department penalty g pp of Labor and Industry." In addition, on October 26th, 1999 the Chief of Police informed me that he was unable to confirm the existence of the applicant. Staff Recommendation: Deny application based on untrue statements and the inability to confirm information. U:\givonnar\COUNCIL\Staff Reports\Licenses\Tobacco\Tobacco Empire,Nayfha Wraidt, 2563.5 Hwy 10.doc 1 Created by Givonna Reed CITY Cr OUNDD S CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2401 HIGHWAY 10 MOUNDS VIEW,MN 55112 f G LICENSE APPLICATION FORM Date of Application 101 ( 1t s• Business Name h ct C r. `, :Ihir r r e Phone Business Address .2-573 1/2. WPC 11447 j Lt5 / filo um'5'I//PCU Riti Ss//Z Owtlners/Corporate Officers/Associates/Partners (name and title:) f l oPhck (A)(cci -E• 0 ut7nev o-6 cryoga L1 1,i Have you ever had a license revoked? 1 0 If yes,attach explanation. References: Cities where previously or currently license for same activity(name of City and year(s) licensed) C.214)44-. ,4 Lt) S-Lore +;n /4vi6._ 14�4-1 f o 19c cc 119(4 ,:, kt.c4 c A i/ t ci Cap L'r cd .6Li5r4cS. Applications for the following licenses must complete the applicable section on the reverse side of this form: ► Bowling Alleys ► Gasoline Stations Automobile Sales ► 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 /I/Cti 0\ (.1J rct`YCO- (Please print) Date of Birth 111111111111111111t/ Applicant's Signature A, U, • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW LICENSE APPLICATION FORM PAGE TWO Bowling Alleys Only: Number of Lanes Dance Halls Only: How long in operation at given address Gasoline Stations Only: Number of pumps Number and capacity of gasoline storage tanks Cigarette and Tobacco Product: Over the Counter Sales nu eU --1.4 e.cu-A-01. ,CK' .e Vending (number of machines) Restaurants Only: Occupancy Load Number of Hours open per day Kennels Only: Check one: Commercial Residential a.. . _ • Number of Dogs Number of Cats OFFICE USE ONLY Receipt Number 37 t 1 Date !0 (34.( 9 Q Fee I 5D.06 New X Police Chief: Approval Renewal Denied Council Approval `-` • CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE MINNESOTA WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW Minnesota Statute, Section 176.182 requires every state and local licensing agency to withhold the issuance or renewal of a license or permit to operate a business or engage in an activity in Minnesota until the applicant presents acceptable evidence of compliance with the workers' compensation insurance coverage requirement of Chapter 176. The information required is:the name of the insurance company,the policy number, and dates of coverage or the permit to self insure. This information will be collected by the licensing agent and retained in their files. This information is required by law, and licensing and permit to operate a business may not be issued or renewed if it is not provided and/or falsely reported. Furthermore, if this information is not provided or falsely stated, it may result in a$2,000 penalty assessed against the applicant by the Commissioner of the Department of Labor and Industry. Insurance Company Name: Mo/?SF 1)C Cfro C Y YLC (NOT the insurance agent) Policy Number: Date of Coverage: /0/l 9 To (Cl/r 9/ri o • (OR) I am n t required to have workers' compensation liability coverage because: ((Y I have no employees ( ) I am self insured (iinclude permit to self-insure) ( ) I have no employees who are covered by the workers' compensation law(these include: Spouse,Parents, Children and certain farm employees) I certify that the information provided above is accurate and complete and the a valid workers' compensation policy will be kept in effect at all times as required by law. • Print Full Name: IVa PA a. Lor,'`�4. Doing Btusinfms As: l cp li c L n 3-1-n,r P. Business Adder: 2 5 5 3 9Zw est- trf U s / O City, State, Zip: 04t (A V I -co/ r,u 24411) 55// (12(4- 1 —gci4( Z. Phone: —' Signature: N:IUSERSICARLSSACKUPILYNNETTEILICENSES1wORKERSC.FRM lob City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mayor and members of the City Council From: Bruce A. Kessel, Finance Director Item Title/Subject: NSP request for changes in implementation of franchise fee on electric and natural gas sales Date of Report: November 18, 1999 Jim Strommen from Kennedy& Graven and City staff have been contacted by NSP relating to the recently enacted franchise fee on electric and natural gas sales within Mounds View. There are several issues that have been raised including: 1. Y2K issues. My understanding is that NSP has instituted a policy of not making any programming changes to its systems until after the middle of January. Their reasoning is that while they feel that their systems are Y2K compliant, they do not want to change any program code until after the first of the year since any changes could hamper their Y2K preparedness. Also, they wish to reserve technology personnel to fix any Y2K problems that are encountered on January 1 and as such, do not want to make commitments to change systems early in the year 2000. 2. Method of implementation/deregulation. In recent years, federal laws have been passed to deregulate electric and natural gas. Various states have also undertaken deregulation. Deregulation is in the early stages in Minnesota, however there are some larger customers who have received authority to purchase energy from alternative sources. As such, NSP is concerned that if any user in Mounds View receives such authority,NSP will be at a competitive disadvantage since it would have to charge the City's franchise fee while a competitor would not. The impact on the City of the competitor being awarded the contract is that the City would not receive its franchise fee on such energy sales. (Note in some cases, the alternative supplier would use NSP infrastructure and would pay NSP for such use, however, such a fee is a small fraction of the total billings and as such, the City's franchise fee would be on only the infrastructure charge). Options Attached is one option that NSP has proposed to implement the franchise fee. As you will note, the percentage of the bill varies, however, the total franchise fee generated would still equal the 4% specified in the franchise ordinance. We have also requested Fee Estimate reports using a 4% across the board fee and expect to have such reports prior to the Council meeting. There has also been discussions about leaving the franchise fee at 2.5% in January and then increasing it to 4% in February, or another option to a rate somewhat higher than 4% for the rest of the year so that the average rate for the year 2000 equaled 4%. Jim Strommen from Kennedy & Graven as well as representatives from NSP will be in attendance at Monday's meeting to expand upon these issues. Strommen� James M. From: Gutkowski,Joyce[joyce.gutkowskinspco.comj Sent: Friday, November 12, 1999 3.03 PM To: 'jstrommen tar kenriedy-graven.com Cc: Bagley, Harold J Subject: Mounds View Fee Proposal Book2.xis Harold didn't realize I was here.as I'm normally I'm out oh Fridays. and therefore indicated our proposal for Mounds View fees would not be available until Monday. However, it is now completed and attached. The proposal shows a gas and electric fee structure which generates 4%overall based on NSP gas or electric revenues. Rather than collecting 4%of billed revenues from customers, NSP is proposing unit charges by class. a method which will survive restructuring of the industry. Because of a temporary hold on all substantive programming changes to the billing system due to Y2K during December, NSP sees no possibility being able to implement this new kWh/therm unit charge fee structure in Mounds View by January 1st. We also feel switching customers from 2.5%to 4%and then to unit charges February 1st would cause havoc and confusion for customers,the City and NSP. Harold is still hoping you are available for a conference call Monday afternoon at 2 PM or later to review this proposal. ccBook2.xls» 1 IOb_J bn/9n•J enn_I nineinniin. u.auuw ...uu... uu. . -..-. City of Moundsview - Gas Franchise Fee Estimate Information Based on Year Ending September 1999 NSP FRANCHISE PERCENT BASED ON CUSTOMER GAS FEE OP GAS FEE CLASS , ACCOUNTS n TERMS . REVENUES REVENUES , REVENUES PER THERM Residential 3,738 3.452,316 51,962.558 579,403 4.0% 50.023 Comm.Firm Non Demand 227 1,746,481 5823.251 534,970 4 2% 50.020 Comm Firm Demand 2 215,510 591.017 $1,078 1.2% S0 005 Small Interruptible 50.005 Med& Lg Interruptible $0.005 Firm Transportation 50.005 Interruptible 7'ransp. 50 005 Total 3,967 5,416,307 52.876.826 5115,450- d 0% .. W Residential 100 190 therms 20 33 Monthly 8111 $1608 $22.31 530.46 $54.42 597.54 Franchise Fee $0.46 $0 76 51.15 $2 30 54.37 Percent of Bill 2.9% 3.4% 3.8% 4 2% 4.5% Commercial Pum Non Demand Therms 280 450 700 1.500 2,125 Monthly Bill 5138 37 5210.67 5326.50 $671.08 $940.27 Franchise Pee $5.60 $9.00 $14.00 530.00 $42.60 Percent of Bill 41% 4.3% d.3% 4,5% 4.5% Commercial Firm Demand Therms 7.000 7,500 10.000 15.000 50,000 Monthly Bill 52.567.34 $2.740.00 53,603.34 55.391.10 517,328.68 Franchise pee $35.00 537 50 550.00 575.00 5250.00 Patt;eht of Bill I A-4 1.4% 4.4% 1.4°4. 1 4% Smell.Medium.&Larde Interruptible Therms 7.200 20.000 37,000 60.000 1.500,000 Monthly Bill 62,250.80 $6.030.00 611.049.25 514,588.40 5352.530 00 Franchise Fee $36.00 $100.00 $185 00 $300.00 57.500 00 Percent of Bill 1.6% 1.7% 1 7% 2.1% 23% Data Source. Load Research Database Monthly bill includes Distribution.Base Cost.Customer Charge,and CIP CltyfeelMoundsVie APee.xls 11/12/99 1CbJ bf1/bf1'.1 Clf1-1 fI'alLCflOa. 117AW1111 • IA711tl7V_WCJJ A17CI RR_CI_II S City of MoundsvieW- Electric Franchise Fee Estimate Information Based on Year Ending September 1999 NSP FRANCHISE PERCENT BASED ON CUSTOMER ELECTRIC PEE OF EIEC FEE CLASS ACCOUNTS kWh _ REVENUES . REVENUES REVENUES PER kWh Flesident;al 5.056 36.388,810 52,893.286 $131.000 4.5% $0 0036 ��� Sm C&I-Non-Derr+ 236 2,684,425 5207.934 $9,864 4.6% Sm C&I-Demand 93 13,706.800 5821,763 534.267 4.2% 50.0025 Large C&I 33 530.073.386 51.603.732 545,110 2.8% 50.0015 Public Street Ltg 12 338.789 551,217 52,033 4.0% 50.0050 Muni Pumping-N/D 3 14.805 51,451 353 3.7% 50.0036 Muni Pumping-Dern 1- 28,566 32.363 $71 3.0% 50.0025 Total i _ 5,434 83,235,581 _ 55,581.746 5222.198 4.0% Typical Monthly Bills by Customer Class Residential Without Sbace Heating 750 1,000 1.500 Kilowatt-Hours 250 500 Monthly Bill $22.08 $39 47 $56 88 $74.26 $109.04 Franchise Fee $0.90 $1.80 $2.70 $3.60 $5.40 Percent of Bill 4.1% 4.6% 4 7% 4 8% 5.0% Residet,tial With Sbace Heatirta Kilowatt-Hours 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3.000 Monthly Bill $66.21 $96.97 $127.73 5158.49 5189.25 Franchise Fee $3.60 $5.40 $7.20 $9 00 $10.80 ° Percent of Bill 5.4% 5 6% 5 6% 5.7% 5.7% Sm C&I-N/D Kilowatt-Hours 500 1,500 2,000 2,500 3.000 Monthly Bill $41.81 $110.87 $145.39 $179.92 $214.45 Franchise Fee $1.80 $5.40 $7.20 $9 00 $10.80 ° Percent of Bill 4.3% 4 9% 5 0% 5.0% 5.0% $m&Large C&I Demand 1,000 Kilowatts 25 95 100 500 Kilowatt-Hours 2,000 40,000 10,000 200,000 650.000 Monthly Bill $282.09 $2,039.86 $1,125.30 $10,377 02 526.977.50 Franchise Fee $5.00 $100.00 $15.00 $300.00 $975 00 Percent of Bill 1.8% 4.9% 1.3% 2.9% 3,6% Data Source: Load Research Database GNFeB1MounciaVie«Arsa ils 11/12/99 T.Bteuckman lab-J wen•..1 enn-i MIER/REZl9+ N3AVa9 7 43N81-W0Jd 0011 66-91-11 NOV 19 '99 06:35PM WOLD ARCHITECTS P.2/4 305 S'r. PETER STREP.T ST. PAUL, MN 55102 651.227.7773 riot 651.223.5646 25 SOUTH GROVE AVENUE SuiTE 500 ELGIN, H. 60120 847.608.2600 November 22, 1999 FAx 847.608.2654 i WWW.WOLAAE.COM • MAIL@'WOLOAE.COM — - City Council Members City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View,Minnesota 55112 Re: Mounds View Community Center—Locker/Shower Remodel Commission No.: 99098 Dear City Council Members: On November 18, 1999 at 2:00 p.m.,we received bids for the Locker/Shower Remodel at the Mounds View Community Center. A total of eight bids were received(see enclosed Bid Tabulation)and represent an acceptable bid range for this project. The low bid from Lund Martin Construction,Inc. is within your budget. Two alternates for athletic lockers were bid with this project to identify the cost,quality and time schedule for delivery of the lockers. After discussing options with Terri Blattenbauer,we recommend the following: Base Bid $ 86,300 The base bid contract is all general construction including mechanical and electrical work. Recommendation: Accept this Base Bid Alternate No. 1: Republic,Art Metal and Penco Athletic Lockers $ 8,770 These lockers are durable,high quality lockers,delivery is 22 weeks from approval of shop drawings. Recommendation: Reject this Alternate Alternate No.2: DeBourgh Athletic Lockers S 11,800 These lockers are premium quality all welded lockers,delivery is 9 weeks from approval of shop drawings. Recommendation: Accept this Alternate Equal Opportunity Employer NOV 19 '99 06:36PM WOLD ARCHITECTS P.4/4 MOUNDS VIEW COMMUNITY CENTER LOCKER/SHOWER REMODEL Comm. No.: 99098 Date: November 18, 1999 Time: 2:00 p.m. r BIDDER'S NAME BID ADDENDUM BASE BID ALTERNATES REMARKS SECURITY RECEIVED 1 2 CM Construction 12215 Nicotlet Ave.So. Yes No.1 $93,000 $9,200 $12,400 Burnsville,MN 55337 Tel:(612)895-8223 Fax:(612)895-8183 I BNM Construction,Inc. 9766 Pierce St.NE Yes No.1 $98,890 $11,500 $14,600 Blaine,MN 55434 Tel:(612)780.4536 Fax:(612)792.0864 Parkes Construction •1010 South Robert St, Yes No.1 $94,800 $9,400 No Bid West St.Paul,MN 55118 Tel:(661)455-0031 Fax:(651)450.7740 ^ Merrimac Construction 14535 NE Highway 85 Yes No.1 $105,761 $9,655 $13,030 Ham Lake,MN 55304 Tel,(612)434-8857 Fax:(612)434-6565 Met-Con Companies 10640 Lyndale Ave.Suite 4 Yes No.1 $87,900 $9,800 No Bid Bloomington,MN 55420 Tel:(812)8844250 Fax:(612)884-8766 Ebert Construction 23350 Co.Road 10 Yes No.1 $88,690 $9,150 $13,000 Co eoran,MN 65357 Tet:(812)498-7844 Fax;(612)498-9951 I Lund Martin Construction 3023 Randolph St.NE Yes No.1 566,300 $8,770 $11,800 Minneapolis,MN 55418 Tel:(612)782.2250 Fax:(612)782-2267 ` Cates Construction 2400 Cates Ranch Drive Yes No.1 $97,000 $8,681 $11,715 Hamel,MN 55340 Tel;(612)4784961 Fax:(612)478.6794 J AIMA %O Q ORDINANCE NO. 645 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW County of Ramsey State of Minnesota An Ordinance adopting the 1999 Long Term Financial Plan The City Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby ordain: SECTION I. The 1999 Long Term Financial Plan was presented in August 1999 and was available for public inspection in the Office of the City Administrator. SECTION II. The 1999 Long Term Financial Plan is hereby adopted. SECTION III. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after the date of its publication. Introduced and read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on November 22, 1999. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 13th day of December, 1999. ATTEST: MAYOR (SEAL) CITY ADMINISTRATOR APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY Item No. /Q E Staff Report No. Meeting Date: 11/22/99 Type of Business: CB WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mayor and City Council Members From: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Ordinance No. 644 an Ordinance Amendment to Allow Billboards by Conditional Use Permit. Date of Report: November 18, 1999 Background: The City Council has asked that the City staff and the Planning Commission review the issue of whether the City should allow billboards on the golf course and nearby city-owned property as a way to provide additional revenue for the golf course and city. Community Development Department staff then determined that current city codes did not permit any signage in CRP and PF zoning districts and new billboards are not allowed in any zoning district in Mounds View. The City Council then directed staff and the Planning Commission to prepare and consider ordinance amendments to allow signage in CRP and PF zoning districts to clean up nonconforming existing signs within those districts and to allow billboards. The Planning Commission recommended and the City Council has given first reading approval to Ordinance No. 637. Ordinance No. 637 allows and sets standards for signs in the CRP and PF zoning districts. Second reading and adoption of this ordinance has been delayed based on concerns expressed by the City Attorney that language in this ordinance may be inconsistent with an ordinance allowing billboards because it restricts signs to those that relate to the business or activity occurring on the site. Community Development Department staff has drafted on ordinance amendment(Ordinance No. 644)that would allow billboards on city-owned property along 118 and 35W by conditional use permit. In developing this proposed ordinance, staff incorporated input from the billboard industry. The ordinance also sets size, setback,height and other standards that billboards must meet.As part of the review of this ordinance the City Attorney was asked to provide an opinion on whether there were deed restrictions on the golf course property which would prohibit billboards,whether there are any spot zoning issues presented by the proposed ordinance,and state requirements.A copy of the City Attorney's opinion issued is attached. The City Attorney has subsequently advised staff that the City cannot restrict billboards to city-owned property only and that the state restricts permit issuance to commercially and industrially zoned properties. The Planning Commission has considered the draft ordinance to allow billboards and has passed the attached Resolution No. 597-99 recommending City Council denial of the proposed ordinance. This City of Mounds View Staff Report November 18, 1999 Page 2 resolution was reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's office. The Planning Commission findings and the basis for their recommended denial are as follows: 1. Large billboard signs are not appropriate uses of property within CRP Conservation Recreational Preservation and PF Public Facilities zoning districts. These districts are intended to provide recreational opportunities, open space and protect the natural environment where possible. Large advertising signs are not consistent with that intent and are more appropriate to commercial and industrial zoning districts. 2. Large billboard signs can be visually distractive and may detract from the neighborhood and promote a negative image for the community. 3. The City Attorney has advised City staff that the City cannot limit billboards to city-owned properties only. 4. A permit will be required from the State of Minnesota to locate billboards along state and federal highways. State statutes restrict such signs to commercial and industrial zoning districts only. The contemplated sites for additional billboards are not zoned commercial or industrial. The Planning Commission, as the City's advisory commission on land use matters, confined their review to the land use impacts of the proposed ordinance and did not consider the economic factors. The consideration of economic factors is the role of the City Council. Necessary Actions: The City Council needs to determine how to proceed with this issue. If the City Council wishes to proceed with the proposed ordinance, one course of action would be to discuss the proposed ordinance and get further advice from the City Attorney about ways to deal with his concern about the issue of restricting billboards to city-owned properties. The City Council could give first reading approval to the ordinance and direct staff to make any amendments to the ordinance that the City Council deems necessary. The City Council also needs to determine if a public hearing should be held on the proposed ordinance. Second reading and adoption could then be scheduled at a future meeting. This matter is also scheduled for further discussion at the December 6, 1999 City Council work session. The City Council could also postpone action on the ordinance until golf course budget and other economic factor discussions are complete. If the City Council does not wish to proceed with the ordinance, it should deny first reading approval. Second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 637,the ordinance that allows and set standards for signs in CRP and PF zoning districts, should be scheduled for a future meeting. t( t Rick Jopke, Co unity Development Director N:\DATA\USERS\Rickj\SHARE\112299 Billboard Staff Report.doc 470 Pillsbury Center trr 'c en i lecly 200 South Sixth Strcet Minneapolis MN 55402 (612)337-9300 telephone (Travel) (612)337-9310 ftx em A RT. t3 e E l7 http.//www kcnnedy-graven.aom ROBERT'C.LONG Attorney at Law Di'ect Dial(612)337.9202 email.rtong@kxnncdy-graven.com October 19, 1999 • __LE D U. . Mr.Rick Jopke Community Development Director City of Mounds View 2401 Highwayl0 Mounds View,MN 55112-1429 Re: Placement of Billboards at The Bridges Golf Course Dear Rick: I am writing in response to your request for an opinion regarding the placement of billboards or advertising devices at The Bridges Golf Course in the City of Mounds view. In reviewing this matter, it should be noted that the following assumptions were made: 1. Possible deed restrictions'as to the use of the real property underlying the golf course were reviewed only as to the main parcel acquired from.the State of Minnesota. Such excess "takings" land originally acquired for the construction of Highway 10 was transferred by quit claim deed pursuant to statutory authority to the City in 1988. 2- Due to cost issues in reviewing this matter, none of the other parcels of land which make up The Bridges Golf Course were reviewed for deed restrictions or any other implications as to this opinion 3. No opinion is provided as to the applicability of any bond document covenants or restrictions as to the financing for the construction of The Bridges Golf Course. Bond counsel should be consulted concerning these issues before the City enters into any agreement concerning the use of the The Bridges Golf Course for billboard or advertising placement. ISSUES The following issues were reviewed as to the placement of advertising devices or billboards at the golf course: 5PD•153046 1CG400.1 981-d 10/ZO'd 9Z1-1 OIE81EEZ19+ N3AV119 V da3NN3N-Ward W80 88-O2-0t Mr. Rick 3opke October 19, 1999 Page 2 1. Does the deed for the golf course property contain any restrictions which would prohibit the placement of advertising devices or billboards at The Bridges Golf Course? 2. Does the placement of advertising devices or billboards at the golf course constitute illegal"spot zoning"or raise any other zoning implications? 3. Is the placement of advertising devices or billboards permitted along the Minnesota State Trunk Highway system? The discussion and opinions as to the above noted issues follows. SHORT ANSWERS 1. Probably not. Placing a billboard or other advertising structure on the involved property would not appear to contravene the public purpose use restriction because doing so could be construed as a supporting element of the public purpose use. However,if the billboard is used to advertise and promote a business other than the golf course or other government function,then it may be argued that this is more of a commercial use rather than a public purpose use. The only way to be certain on this issue would be to seek a new Attorney General's opinion on this specific question. 2 Probably not. There are no facts to suggest that allowing a billboard on the involved property (or on other properties within a particular district) would totally or substantially diminish the value of the golf course property or abutting properties. This may depend,however,on the characteristics and location of the billboard. 3. Possibly, if the property is zoned for "business, industrial, or commercial activities" If the property where an advertising device is to be placed meets the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 173 and the City Code, the advertising device would appear to be permitted. FACTS The state of Minnesota (State) acquired a parcel of land for trunk highway purposes. The property is mostly wetland and floodplain and is located within a conservancy, recreation, and protection district. After deciding that it had no need for the property, the State by special legislation transferred the property to the city of Mounds View (City) pursuant to a quit claim deed. That deed contains a provision that the property must be used for a public purpose; otherwise, the property would immediately revert back to the state. The city is currently using the property as a golf course and is interested in placing a billboard or other advertising structure thereon. ANALYSIS I. Deed Restriction—Public Purpose spt i68aro 981-d 10/E0'd 921-1 01581EEZ19+ N3AV119 I AG3NNEN-Wold 9t:BO BB-0Z-01 Mr.Rick Sopke October 19, 1999 Page 3 The deed for a portion of The Bridges Golf Course property states that the property must be used for a public purpose. The question arises as to whether placing a billboard or other advertising structure on the involved property would contravene the express deed restriction that it be used for a public purpose. Opinions of the Minnesota attorney general have touched on the issue as to what constitutes a "public purpose" in a municipal golf course setting. The attorney general has stated that a city cannot outright tease a municipal golf course to a private entity "as long as there still exists a municipal need for the course." Op. Att'y Gen. 469a-9 (September 9, 1957). However, the attorney general has suggested that a public purpose might be found to exist in situations where such use is incidental to the primary public use. Op. Att'y Gen. 59-B-11 (April 23, 1957). In order to be certain on this issue, the City could request an opinion of the Minnesota attorney general as to the ability of the City to place billboards at The Bridges to ensure that the City is operating within the previous opinions of the attorney general, as well as the "public purpose" provision mandated by the authorizing statute and the deed from the State. In addition, whether an action of a local government serves a valid public purpose has received considerable attention in the context of condemnation law. "Perhaps the most complete and often cited statement of the factors to be considered in determining whether a valid public purpose is present is . . ." [W]hat is a'public purpose' . . . is not capable of a precise definition, but the courts generally construe it to mean such an activity as will serve as a benefit to the community as a body and which, at the same time, is directly related to the functions of government." Mi t e_ota , Evrn• ,.:c 025 2 Ntitin. 177, 184-85,89 N.W.2d 635. 43 319, 338 (Minn. 1984) (citing Visina v. Freeman, (1958)). A local government's decision that an action serves the public purpose is given great deference. See ji$eau v. Metropolitan Sports Facility Commission, 270 N.W.2d 749, 754-55 (Minn. 1978). A legislative determination of public purpose will only be overruled if it is manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable. les LE. Short Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 269 N.W.2d 331.337 (1978). Placing a billboard on the golf course property would serve the purpose of promoting the business and attracting customers. That generally leads toan increase in customers who use the golf course or buy goods sold thereon, which in turn leads to increased profits. Assuming the golf course itself constitutes a public purpose, allowing a billboard for the purpose of advertising or promoting the golf course would be considered a supporting element of the public purpose use. The same would hold true for advertising another government function. The end result in either case would be a benefit to the community. If the billboard were utilized to advertise or promote businesses other than the golf course, then one could argue the billboard has less of a supporting element to the golf course and the only public purpose would be to raise revenues.If the raising of revenue was determined to not be a public purpose, the deed restriction may require transfer of the property back to the state of Minnesota.My office has found no case involving the same or similar situation. sni-i6saro 982-i 20/'0'd 9Z1-1 01E82EE219+ N3AV89 Z AO3NN3N-mid 2P:80 88-02-01 • 470 Pillsbury Center i 1<f'1111€tIV 200 South Sixth Street J Minneapolis MN 55402 " ' ' (612)337-9300 telephone 1!'11-'_i l 9 (612) ;37-9310 fax c FI A -. e p http:/fwuw.kcnnedy-grtven.com IT. Spot Zoning Spot zoning has not been substantially addressed by Minnesota courts. In fact,there are only ten Minnesota cases' that mention spot zoning, and most of those cases do not provide much guidance or a well-developed rule. See, e.g;, _o _a icat1'„ ' e.erti In • v t • Steele, 506 N.W.2d 670 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993): Glen Paul Court Neighborhood Ass'n, 437 N.W.2d 52 (Minn. 1989); Larson v. Washington County, 387 N.W.2d 902 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). Having said that, "ts]pot zoning is the reclassification of a small area of land in a manner that is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, for the benefit of the property owner, and to the detriment of others."2A+i co CoM v. Citv_�g - 3d8 N.W.2d 66, 73 n.6 (1984) (citing Ter v. Tsuddlesten, 641 S.W.2d 569 (Tex. Ct. App. 1982)). Said another way, spot zoning applies to zoning changes on a small parcel of land, establishing a use classification inconsistent with surrounding uses and dramatically reducing the value for uses specified in the zoning ordinance of either the rezoned plot or abutting property. See State by Rochester Ass'n of Seighborhoods v.City of Rochester,268 N.W.2d 885. 891 (Minn. 1978)(citations omitted). One can prove a case of spot zoning by showing the zoning amendment caused (1) a total or substantial diminution of value of the property affected thereby or (2) created an island of nonconforming use. la Alexander v. City of Mb:meat1o4 E, 267 Minn. 155, 160, 125 N.W.2d 583, 586 (1963). That rule was followed fifteen years later in State by Rochester Ass'n of Neighborhoods v. City of Rochester, 268 N.W.2d 885, 891-92 (Minn. 1978). The usual presumption of validity attaching to zoning amendments as legislative acts applies, and the burden of demonstrating spot zoning rests with the one attacking the ordinance. fid., In the present case, there is no information to show whether allowing billboards or other • advertising structures (collectively billboards) in the district that includes the golf course, would affect the value of the golf course property or abutting properties. One consideration may include the characteristics of the billboard. A billboard that is considered an eyesore may have the effect of reducing the value of uses allowed on abutting properties. Another consideration may involve the location of the billboard. Even if a billboard did affect the value of the properties, it may not totally or substantially diminish that value, a requirement for spot zoning. The typical scenario associated with spot zoning involves rezoning residential property to allow for commercial or industrial uses. The One other case references spot zoning but that case had been overruled. See Pastel v. Glen Court Neighborhood Ass'n,424 N.W.2d 305 (Minn. Ct.App. 1988). Other courts in defining spot zoning have developed miscellaneous variations. Sees e.g., Watersttadt v. Board of Commissioners. 454 P. 2d d45 (Kan. 1969) ("Spot zoning signifies a carving out of one or more properties located in a given use district and reclassifying them in a different use distnct."). SIR-10870 581-1 10/90'd 5Z1-1 O1E62EEZ19+ N3AV>i9 t A03NN3)-W0Jd LV:60 66-02-01 Mr.Rick Jopke October 19, 1999 Page 5 increase in noise, traffic, and potential odorous emissions have a direct and substantial negative effect on the value of abutting properties. Here, the connection is tenuous, but even if the connection did exist, one would question the degree such an effect would have on property values. To constitute spot zoning, the effect must be total and substantial. Under these circumstances,spot zoning would be difficult to prove. Another way to prove spot zoning is to show the rezoning created an island of nonconforming use. Allowing the billboard for only one property—the golf course--may create an island of nonconforming use sufficient to prove spot zoning. If other properties within the district are allowed to have billboards, or if other zoning districts, such as public facilities districts, are allowed to have billboards, such as through a conditional use permit process, then spot zoning may be harder to prove,especially if those properties are located near the golf course property. M. Statutory RestitetiOns3 The placement of advertising devices or billboards along a state trunk highway, such as Highway 10, also must be consistent with Minnesota statutes. Minnesota Statutes § 173.08 provides in part that no advertising device except those expressly permitted by exceptionshall be erected or of maintained in an area adjacent to a state trunk highway. for One such exception placement an advertising device adjacent to a trunk highway provides that placement is permitted for "advertising devices which are located, or which arc to be located, in business areas and which comply, or will comply when erected, with the provisions of§ 173.01 to 173.27." Minn. Stat. § 173.08, subd. 1(h). A "business area" as used in the statute is defined to be "any part of an adjacent area which is (a) zoned for business,Ddustrial,_orc ercial act'wtt •ties under the authority of any law of this state or any political subdivision thereof, or (b) not so zoned, but which constitutes an unzoned commercial or industrial area as herein defined." Minn. Stat. § 173.02, subd. 9(emphasis added). Thus, it would appear that if the zoning for The Bridges Golf Course under the City's zoning code is that of business. industrial or commercial, placement of billboards would be permitted adjacent to State Trunk Highway No. 10. If The Bridges Golf Course is not zoned business, industrial or commercial, placement of advertising devices or billboards would not appear to be permitted along State Trunk Highway No. 10. I have enclosed a copy of Chapter 173 regarding advertising devices for your reference. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 173 also has provisions requiring the issuance of permits in certain situations. The Placement of billboards would also be subject to any such permitting requirements. slx.iassro 981-d 20/90'd 9Z1-1 OIE61EEZ19+ N3AYb9 ! AG3NN3N-WOAd BP:BO 86-0Z-01 Mr.Rick Jopke October 19, 1999 Page 6 Please feel free to contact me regarding the above opinions and supporting discussion. Sincerely, KENNEDY&GRAVEN, CHARTERED Robert C. Long Mounds View City Attorn RCL:sms Enclosures cc: Chuck Whiting SJR.f68870 982-d 10/20'd 9Z1-1 OIEBIEEZI9+ MVO V Aa3NN3X-Wold 8t:80 88-0Z-01 RESOLUTION NO. 597-99 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 644; AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1008 (SIGNS AND BILLBOARDS) OF THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO BILLBOARDS; PLANNING CASE NO. SP-071-99. WHEREAS, the Mounds View Municipal Code does not allow billboards in the City; and WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has asked the Planning Commission to review possible ordinance changes to allow billboard signs in certain areas of the City; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered Ordinance No. 644 and made the following findings relating to the land use impact of allowing additional billboards in Mounds View: 1. Large billboard signs are not appropriate uses of property within CRP Conservation Recreational Preservation and PF Public Facilities zoning districts. These districts are intended to provide recreational opportunities, open space and protect the natural environment where possible. Large advertising signs are not consistent with that intent and are more appropriate to commercial and industrial zoning districts. 2. Large billboard signs can be visually distractive and may detract from the neighborhood and promote a negative image for the community. 3. The City Attorney has advised City staff that the City cannot limit billboards to city-owned properties only. 4. A permit will be required from the State of Minnesota to locate billboards along state and federal highways. State statutes restrict such signs to commercial and industrial zoning districts only. The contemplated sites for additional billboards are not zoned commercial or industrial. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends that the City Council not approve Ordinance No. 644, an ordinance amending Chapter 1008 (Signs and Billboards) of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to billboards based on the above findings. 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 17th day of November, 1999. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson Attest: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director ORDINANCE NO. 644 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1008 (SIGNS AND BILLBOARDS) OF THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO BILLBOARDS; PLANNING CASE SP-071-99 THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1: Section 1008.08 of the Mounds View Municipal Code is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and italicized and deletions struck out and italicized, respectively, to read as follows: Subd. 1. General Standards; Paragraph I(1):No ground sign(except temporary signs, portable signs or banners), or signboard shall approach at any point nearer than three feet(3')to any building unless such sign is placed parallel to the side of the building, nor shall any such sign be placed within six feet(6') of the side of any lot nor nearer than fifteen feet(15')to any street line where there is no established or customary building line nor within twenty five feet(25') of any street corner right-of-way. Whenever the established or customary uniform building line upon the street where such ground sign is to be erected is more than fifteen feet(15') from the street or property line,then such sign shall not approach nearer to the street than the established or customary uniform building line. Subd. 5. Signs Along Freeways: Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, signs located on property adjacent to any freeway within the Municipality(including Interstate Highway 35W) shall be business signs advertising businesses being conducted on the premises on which the signs are located. No "traveling" or changing-message signs shall be located so as to face any freeway or be visible from the freeway. The provisions of this subdivision,however, shall not be construed to render illegal or nonconforming any signs which are legally located along any such freeway at the effective date herein.-44y Subd. 10. Billboards: A permit shall not be issued for any new billboard or advertising . . . • . . . . . ,• • . „ OPS . , billboard or sign in existence. unless it complies with the following requirements: a. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:A conditional use permit(CUP) must be obtained in accordance the procedures found in Section 1125.01 Subdivision 3 of the Mounds View Municipal Code. Any conditional use permit issued for a billboard shall automatically expire when the lease agreement for the billboard expires. Such CUP shall be null-and-void if the applicant fails to obtain any required permit from the State of Minnesota. b. LOCATION: The billboard must be located along or north of 118 and must be located on City-owned property. The applicant must have an approved lease agreement with the City. The billboard shall be oriented towards 118 and/or I35W Billboards must be located at least 250 feet from residentially zoned property. Billboards may be located adjacent to the right-of-way of a street or highway, but no part thereof shall extend over such right-of-way. c. MINIMUM SPACING: Billboards must be at least 1500 feet apart. Spacing between signs shall be measured by projecting the nearest points of the signs to the property line of the right-of-way from which they are intended to be read and measuring the distance in a straight line between the projected points. Required spacing shall apply only to billboards on the same side of the same roadway. d. MAXIMUM SIGN AREA: The maximum gross surface display area of the sign cannot exceed 700 square feet per side except that any rectangular billboard may contain temporary extensions, cutouts, or top lettering which occupy a total area not in excess of twenty-five (25)percent of the area of the basic billboard and form an integral part of the design thereof No such temporary extension, cut out, or top lettering may project more than six (6)feet from the top, eighteen (18) inches from either side or fifteen (15) inches from the bottom of the basic rectangular advertising message. The area of an extension, cutout, or top lettering shall be deemed to be the area of the smallest rectangle into which such extension, cutout, or top lettering will fit. e. ORIENTATION OF SIGN FACES: Billboards may have no more than two (2) sign faces. Sign faces must be back-to-back with sign faces parallel or angled All billboards with their faces back-to-back and parallel shall have no greater distance than eight(8)feet between the faces. All billboards with faces at an angle shall have no greater angle than thirty-five (35) degrees. f MAXIMUM SIGN HEIGHT: The maximum allowable height of billboards shall be thirty-five (35) feet. The height shall be measured from the grade at the base of the sign or from the surface of the roadway whichever is higher. g. OBSTRUCTION:No billboard may be located in such a manner as to obscure or otherwise interfere with the effectiveness of an official traffic sign, signal, or device, or obstruct or interfere with a drivers view of approaching, merging, or intersecting traffic. Any billboard legally existing on the effective date of this ordinance may continue to be maintained in its present form and size but not expanded This does not preclude the periodic change of the message or advertisement presented on the billboard Any billboard destroyed by an act of God may be rebuilt within thirty (30) days if the construction of same would comply with this subdivision. SECTION 2: The title of Section 1008.11 of the Mounds View Municipal Code is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and italicized and deletions struck-out-and italicized, respectively,to read as follows: 1008.11: SIGNS AND BILLBOARDS: SIGN VARIANCES: SECTION 3. This Ordinance goes into effect thirty(30) days after its publication in the official City newspaper. 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 on this day of , 1999. Dan Coughlin, Mayor ATTEST: Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\SPECPROJ\644.0RD.DOC Item No. /O /i Staff Report No. Meeting Date: November 29,1999 Type of Business: C. B. 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: Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Resolution No. 5391 Approving TH 10 Jurisdictional Transfer Date of Report: November 18, 1999 MnDot is seeking to complete the jurisdictional transfer of TH 10 to Ramsey County on or about January 1, 2000. In completing this transfer, MnDot will give the County $1.218 million dollars to perform pavement rehab, install new signal controllers and improve some safety concerns at intersections. This project is expected to begin and be completed in the year 2001. Staff had a discussion with representatives from Ramsey County and expressed concerns regarding the current signing which is causing some confusion. MnDot and the County are working to resolve the issue with additional signing. The road will remain Hwy 10, the TH will be removed and the name will essentially be Hwy 10. The County part of the name will not necessarily be utilized. Address changes will not be necessary, is what I was told. For Council's consideration is Resolution No. 5391. Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works RECOMMENDATION: Council approve Resolution No. 5391, Approving TH 10 Jurisdictional Transfer N:\DATA\USERS\Joanb\SHARE\TH 10 Juridictional Transfer.doc /0 1/ RESOLUTION NO. 5391 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA JURISDICTIONAL TRANSFER OF T.H. 10 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mounds View, concurs with the jurisdictional transfer of Minnesota TH 10 to Ramsey County and; WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation and Ramsey County have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding which provides for the consolidation of roadway jurisdictions in Ramsey County and; WHEREAS, the memorandum of Understanding includes a consolidation plan, prepared in conjunction with municipalities of Ramsey County and; WHEREAS, the consolidation plan provides for the turnback of State Trunk Highway 10 from County Road H (C.S.A.H.9) to the west Ramsey County line to Ramsey County and; WHEREAS, Ramsey County intends to accept the jurisdictional change on or about January 1, 2000, and will place the 2.3 mile segment on the County State Aid Highway system. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mounds View concurs with the establishment and designation of the turnback segment of State Trunk Highway 10 from County Road H (C.S.A.H.9)to the west Ramsey County line as a County State Aid Highway (CSAH) in Ramsey County under provisions of Minnesota Law, subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Transportation of the State of Minnesota and; BE IN FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward two certified copies of the resolution to the Commissioner of Transportation of the State of Minnesota, and upon his approval of the designation of the said roadway or portion thereof, that the same be constructed, improved and maintained as a County State Aid Highway in Ramsey County, to be numbered and known as County State Aid Highway 10. Adopted this 29th day of November, 1999 ATTESTED: Mayor, Dan Coughlin Clerk/Administrator, Charles Whiting N:\DATA\USERS\Joanb\SHARE\Resolution 5391.doc r Item No. /a d Staff Report No. Meeting Date: 11/22/99 Type of Business: CB WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mayor and City Council Members From: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Discussion of Fee Increases for Year 2000 Date of Report: November 18, 1999 BACKGROUND At the November 1, 1999 work session and the November 15, 1999 City Council meeting staff discussed proposed year 2000 fee increases with the City Council for various permits issued by the Community Development Department. Fees have not been changed since 1998. Attached is a list of fees that are proposed to be changed effective January 1, 2000. A number of the fees are proposed to be changed to reflect typical project values as suggested by the Uniform Building Code. Others are being adjusted to better cover City review costs. The City Council also discussed options for implementing additional plan check fees. Community Development Department staff indicated some concerns that this increase could result in a substantial increase in permit fees paid by homeowners and/or their contractors. It could discourage property owners from improving their property. There currently are no plan check fees charged for projects under$10,000. The plan check fee would be equal to 65%of the building permit amount. Alternative strategies considered would be to lower the threshold from$10,000 to $5,000 , implement the fee increase over a two or three year period instead of all at once and to charge plan check fees based on the type of project. The City Council directed staff to bring forward a proposal to charge a plan check fee based on the amount of plan review that is actually required. After further discussion with Connie Forsythe,the plan check fee alternative that makes the most sense to staff would be to charge the plan check fee only on projects that require a substantial amount of staff review. These would include all commercial projects, all residential permits for new dwellings,house additions, garages, garage additions, decks, large sheds, and major remodeling where structural alterations are proposed. Roofing, siding,window replacement, driveways, fences, and similar projects don't require a plan review and therefore will not require a plan check fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolution No. 5382 amending the City of Mounds View Schedule of Fees and Charges. r-14 Rick Jopke, Com unity Development Director N:\DATA\USERS\Rickj\SHARE\112299 fee report.doc RESOLUTION NO. 5382 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW'S UNIFORM SCHEDULE OF FEES AND CHARGES, EXHIBIT A ATTACHED WHEREAS, all the fees and charges of the City of Mounds View are listed in a uniform schedule; and WHEREAS, revisions and updates are necessary to the Fee Schedule last adopted in 1998 to reflect City costs and the State of Minnesota UBC, 1999 Building Data; and WHEREAS, the proposed fees are consistent and comparable to the Uniform Building Code and other Metropolitan cities; and WHEREAS, the 1998 Fee Schedule will now be known as the 2000 Fee Schedule; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby approve the revisions to the Uniform Fee Schedule and Charges attached hereto and referred to as Exhibit A. All other fees not shown on Exhibit A shall remain the same. Adopted this 15th day of November, 1999. Dan Coughlin, Mayor (SEAL) Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk-Administrator Exhibit A Revisions to 1998 Fee Schedule City of Mounds View Y ? u4`.CYw3.,�„ C:..;� gid. B Tow) Accessory Building(Shed) (Per square foot to determine value) Cement Floor $7.50 $8.50 Wood Floor $5.00 $6.00 Addition* (Per square foot to determine value) First Floor* $60.54 $63.55 Second Floor* $42.80 $44.49 Air Conditioning (Per square foot to determine value) Residential $2.58 Delete from schedule Commercial $3.10 Delete from schedule Basement* (Per square foot to determine value) Unfinished* $12.04 $12.86 Semi-Finished* $16.21 $17.24 (Per square foot to determine value) Basic Floor Area* $60.54 $63.53 Deck (Per square foot to determine value) Residential $6.00 $7.20 Mobile Home $5.00 $6.00 Windows (Use Existing $15 for first window/door $20 for first window/door Rough Opening but Changing plus $2 for each additional plus $2.50 for each additional Window Frames) window/door(plus $.50 window/door(plus $.50 surcharge) surcharge) Additions when calculating valuations for new construction: Fireplace Brick Single Flue(flat value) $2,000 $2,400 Brick Double (flat value) $2,500 $3,000 Free Standing Wood (flat $1,000 $1,200 value) Heatilator gas $2,000 $2,400 Exhibit A Resolution No. 5382 Page 2 of 4 Garage (Per square foot to determine value) Attached* $18.49 $19.35 Detached* $15.00 $15.75 Car Port* $12.38 $13.16 Incinerators Delete from schedule Gas Piping (Residential) $15.00 per unit $20.00 per unit Porch (Per square foot to determine value) Screen Only $20.20 $21.22 Three Season(wood frame/ $40.36 $42.58 windows/doors-NO HEAT) Four Season* $60.54 $63.55 Reshingling Residential (Tear Off) Use Valuation Table $50 for first 1,000 square feet plus $3 for each additional 100 square feet or fraction thereof. ($.50 Surcharge) Residential (Overlay) Use Valuation Table $40 for first 1,000 square feet plus $2 for each additional 100 square feet or fraction thereof. ($.50 Surcharge) Commercial Use Valuation Table Use Valuation Table. Residing/Stucco Residential Use Valuation Table $50 for first 1,000 square feet plus $3 for each additional 100 square feet. ($.50 Surcharge) Soffit/Fascia, add: --- $.30 per lineal foot. (Minimum permit fee $23.50, $.50 Surcharge) Commercial Use Valuation Table Use Valuation Table. Exhibit A Resolution No. 5382 Page 3 of 4 Driveway/Sidewalk/Patio/ Parking Lot Residential Use Valuation Table Concrete/Asphalt/Brick: $40 for first 1,000 square feet plus $2 for each additional 100 square feet or fraction thereof. (No Surcharge) Gravel: $20 for first 1,000 square feet plus $1 for each additional 100 square feet or fraction thereof. (No Surcharge) Commercial Use Valuation Table Use Valuation Table (No Surcharge) Telecommunications Antenna $750 (plus .50 surcharge) 7 percent of yearly rent to city(plus .50 surcharge) Planning Commission Mailed $10 per year $54 per year Agendas Planning Commission Mailed $20 per year $144 per year Minutes Storm Water Management PUD Not Specified $1,996 per acre Sewer Availability Charge $1,050 per unit $1,100 per unit (determined (SAC) by MCES) Sewer Connection/Repair $25 plus $.50 surcharge $25 (No Surcharge is Permit Required) Plan Check Fee 65 percent of permit fee 65 percent of permit fee for valuations over for all commercial permits $10,000; 65 percent for and for residential permits all commercial permits for new dwellings, dwelling additions, garages, garage additions, decks, sheds over 216 square feet, and major major remodeling. Exhibit A Resolution No. 5382 Page 4 of 4 *Fees as Revised by the State of Minnesota UBC, 1999 Building Data. All other building-related permit fees/charges contained in Exhibit A were reviewed by the Building Official and were adjusted to better reflect actual cost of construction. Item No. /Q /( Staff Report No. Meeting Date: 11/22/99 Type of Business: CB WK: Work Session;PH•Public Hearing; CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mayor and City Council Members From: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Update on Filling Vacant Positions in the Community Development Department Date of Report: November 18, 1999 Background: As you are aware there are two vacant positions in the Community Development Department. These are the Housing/Code Enforcement Inspector and the Economic Development Coordinator positions. Staff has advertised and interviewed candidates for each of these positions.At the City Council meeting on Monday, staff will update the City Council on the status our recruitment efforts and if ready ask the City council to approve the hiring of candidates for one or both of these positions. Rick Jopke, Community Development Director N:\DATA\USERS\Rickj\SHARE\112299 Hiring Report.doc