HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2007/02/12
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
MOUNDS VIEW CITY HALL
Monday, February 12, 2007
7:00 p.m.
REVISED AS OF FEBRUARY 12, 2007 @ 6:30 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Flaherty, Hull, Mueller
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC INPUT:
Citizens may speak to issues not on tonight’s agenda. Before speaking, please give your
full name and address for the minutes. Also, please limit your comments to three minutes
and sign in on the sign-in sheet located on the podium.
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. Resolution 7015 Appointing John Kroeger and Darren Peterson to the Parks and
Recreation and Forestry Commission and Appointing Jerry Kunz Chairperson
B. Consideration of Resolution 6956 Approving a Minor Subdivision (Lot Line
Adjustment) between 8409 and 8413 Groveland Road; Planning Case MI06-001
C. Consideration of Resolution 7013 Approving a Minor Subdivision of 8184 Eastwood
Road; Planning Case MI06-001
D. Resolution 7018 Approving the Sufficiency of Petition in Opposition to the 2007-
2008 Street and utility Improvement Project.
E. Resolution 7014 Ordering the 2007-2008 Street and Utility Improvement Project
and Authorizing the Preparation of Plans and Specifications
F. Resolution 7019, a Resolution Establishing a One Year Moratorium on the
Installation, Erection, Construction, Replacement, Modification or Improvement of
Static or Changing Electronic, Digital, Video, Display Signs or Billboards, and
Flashing, Motion, Animated, Changeable Copy and Illuminated Signs in all Zoning
Districts.
G. Ordinance 784, an Emergency Ordinance Establishing a One Year Moratorium on
the Installation, Erection, Construction, Replacement, Modification or Improvement
of Static or Changing Electronic, Digital, Video, Display Signs or Billboards and
Flashing, Motion, Animated, Changeable Copy and Illuminated Signs in All Zoning
Districts
8. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Licenses for Approval
B. Resolution 7016, Appoint Planning Commission Chairperson
C. Resolution 7017 Purchase of a Replacement Investigator Police Car
City Council Agenda
Feb 12, 2007
Page 2
9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. October 9, 2007, City Council Minutes.
B. January 8, 2007, City Council Minutes
C. January 22, 2007, City Council Minutes
11. REPORTS
A. Reports of Mayor and Council
B. Reports of Staff
1. Police Department Quarterly Report
2. Noise Wall Legislation Update
3. Bethlehem Baptist Church
4. Final Draft of the Town Hall Meeting Agenda for April 14, 2007.
5. Community Development Update
C. Reports of City Attorney
12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, March 5, 2007 @ 7pm.
Next Council Meeting: Monday, February 26, 2007 @7pm
Item No. 7A
Meeting Date: February 12, 2007
Type of Business: CB
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
City Administrator Review _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 7015 Appointing John Kroeger and
Darren Peterson to the Parks and Recreation and
Forestry Commission and Appointing Jerry Kunz
Chairperson
Background:
As per City Charter, the Parks and Recreation and Forestry Commission is
comprised of a maximum of seven (7) Commission seats. Two of these seats
expired on December 31, 2006.
The City’s Code states:
405.02: MEMBERSHIP; OATH; COMPENSATION:
Subd. 1. Appointment of Members: The Commission shall consist of seven (7)
members appointed by the City Council and based on the recommendation of the
Parks and Recreation Commission, from the applications submitted. Based upon
the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Commission, the City Council
shall appoint a chairperson.
(1988 Code §34.02; Ord. 627, 2-8-99; Ord. 707, 10-28-02; Ord. 714, 5-12-03;
Ord. 741, 6-
28-04)
Discussion:
The two seats that expired on December 31, 2006 were held by John Kroeger,
who is the current chairperson for the Commission, and Shari Kunza.
The City advertised for application to fill the vacant seats in the City’s official
newspaper on November 22 and November 29. The City also included an
advertisement on the City’s web site and message board. A deadline of
December 15, 2006 was set for submittal of applications.
On December 13, 2006 John Kroeger submitted an application for re-
appointment to the Parks and Recreation and Forestry Commission. This is
attached for City Council’s consideration. This was the only application received
to fill the two vacant seats.
The City re-advertised to fill the remaining seat and set a new deadline of
January 19, 2007. On January 25, 2007 the Parks and Recreation and Forestry
Commission reviewed two applications that were submitted by Darren Peterson
and Gabi Kulp. These applications are attached for the City Council’s review.
On January 25, 2007 the Parks and Recreation and Forestry Commission made
a motion to recommend approval of the appointment of Darren Peterson to the
Commission. The Commission had also previously made a motion to appoint
Jerry Kunz as Chairperson to the Commission.
Recommendation:
It is recommended the City Council review and consider the attached
applications submitted by John Kroeger, Darren Peterson, and Gabi Kulp.
Staff also recommends that the City Council recognize the Parks and Recreation
and Forestry Commission motion of recommendation by approving the re-
appointment of John Kroeger and appointment of Darren Peterson to the Parks
and Recreation Commission.
Staff also recommends that the City Council recognize the Parks and Recreation
and Forestry Commission motion to appoint Jerry Kunz as Chairperson to the
Parks and Recreation and Forestry Commission.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
RESOLUTION 7015
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPOINTING JOHN KROEGER AND DARREN PETERSON TO THE PARKS
AND RECREATION AND FORESTRY COMMISSION AND APPOINTING
JERRY KUNZ AS CHAIRPERSON
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Parks and Recreation and Forestry
Commission consists of members appointed by the Mayor with the approval of
the majority of the City Council; and,
WHEREAS, there are currently two vacant seats to fill; and
WHEREAS, the City has received one application by John Kroeger
for re-appointment to the Commission for the two vacant seats; and
WHEREAS, the City re-advertised for applications to fill the one
remaining seat; and
WHEREAS, the City received two applications for the remaining
seat; and
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation and Forestry Commission
made a motion recommending John Kroeger’s re-appointment to the Parks and
Recreation and Forestry Commission, and Darren Peterson’s appointment to the
Parks and Recreation and Forestry Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation and Forestry Commission
made a motion recommending the appointment of Jerry Kunz as Chairperson to
the Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
1. The Mayor and the City Council do hereby approve the following Mounds
View residents to serve on the Parks and Recreation and Forestry
Commission:
Name Term Expiration
John Kroeger December 31, 2009
Darren Peterson December 31, 2009
2. The Mayor and the City Council do hereby approve Jerry Kunz to serve as
Chairperson on the Parks and Recreation and Forestry Commission.
Adopted this 12th day of February 2007.
(ATTEST) ____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
(SEAL)
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item No: 7B
Meeting Date: Feb 12, 2007
Type of Business: Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Minor Subdivision of 8409 and 8413
Groveland Road; Planning Case MI06-001
Introduction:
Tony & Cherie Hoffman are property owners of adjacent lots located at 8409 and 8413
Groveland Road. The two lots are a combined 33,105 square feet (3/4ths of an acre) one of
which is improved with a home constructed in 1994 and the other, created from a minor
subdivision approved in 2003, is unimproved. The proposed subdivision is essentially a lot
line adjustment—no new lots will be created. The requested adjustment would shift the
common lot line between 8409 and 8413 Groveland Road five feet further south onto 8409
Groveland. (Both lots are owned by the Hoffmans.) The applicants have submitted a
certificate of survey which shows the original lot line and proposed lot line between Parcels A
and B.
The basis for the request is due to the fact that the Hoffmans would like to construct a new
home on the “vacant” lot and their proposed floor plan necessitates an additional five feet of
space to satisfy setback requirements.
Discussion:
A minor subdivision is ordinarily a division of land less than two acres in area in which no
more than one additional lot is created. Lot line adjustments such as the request submitted
by the Hoffmans are also considered a Minor Subdivision even though no lots are created
with this request.
The lots are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and the Comprehensive Plan designates
this area for low density residential. The minimum lot width for interior residential parcels is
75 feet and the minimum lot area is 11,000 square feet. Blow is a table which shows the
dimensions for Parcels A and B before and as a result of the proposed adjustment:
Area / Width Before Area / Width After
Parcel A 16,988.4 / 80 feet 15,996.8 / 75 feet
Parcel B 16,117.2 / 75 feet 17,059.2 / 80 feet
Park Dedication Requirements.
Subdivisions of land are subject to park dedication requirements. The Hoffmans paid a park
dedication fee in 2003 as a condition of the previous minor subdivision approval, consistent
with Chapter 1204 of the City Code. No further or additional park dedication fee would be
necessary.
Hoffman Subdivision Report
Feb 12, 2007
Page 2
Easements.
With every subdivision of land, the City requires that drainage and utility easements be
dedicated around the perimeter of the lot. A new five-foot easement area on either side of
the new lot line will be dedicated as shown on the submitted certificate of survey. The
previous subdivision dedicated a five foot easement that would remain on south side of 8413
Groveland Road resulting in a ten foot easement. The previous five foot easement can only
be eliminated by a vacation process which would necessitate an ordinance and additional
cost to the Hoffmans, who have elected to allow the easement to remain in place.
Public Notice.
No public notice is required for a minor subdivision, however staff typically alerts the residents
regardless when a new lot is to be created. In this case, because there will be no change or
impact to any neighboring property owner, notices were determined unnecessary.
Summary.
The proposed lot line adjustment repositions a lot line established in 2003 to allow for
additional setback flexibility on Parcel B. No new lots will be created as a result of this
subdivision and all minimum requirements and Code issues are satisfied with this request.
Recommendation:
Because the lot line adjustment satisfies all code requirements, Staff is recommending
approval of Resolution 852-06, a resolution approving a minor subdivision between 8409 and
8413 Groveland Road, with stipulations.
_____________________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
Attachments:
1. Planning Application
2. Zoning Map
3. Aerial Map
4. Photographic Documentation
5. Certificate of Survey
6. Resolution 852-06
7. Resolution 6956
Zoning Map
Aerial Map
Photographic Documentation
From this vantage point, you can see the existing homes at 8419 Groveland
Road (left) and 8409 Groveland Road (right). The vacant lot, 8413 Groveland
Road, is situated between the two homes. The driveway shown serves 8419
Groveland Road.
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 852-06
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION (LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT) BETWEEN 8409 AND 8413 GROVELAND ROAD REQUESTED BY
TONY AND CHERYL HOFFMAN; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. MI06-001
WHEREAS, Property owners Tony and Cheryl Hoffman (the Applicants) have
requested approval of a minor subdivision of contiguous lots located at 8409 Groveland
Road and 8413 Groveland Road, properties zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, legally-
described as follows:
The South 75 feet of the North 150 feet Lot 1, Block 1, Dalberg’s Sunnyside Estates
and
The South 80 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Dalberg’s Sunnyside Estates
WHEREAS, the Applicants propose to shift the common lot line between 8409 and
8413 Groveland Road south five (5) feet to create an 80-foot wide buildable lot (Parcel B)
fronting Groveland Road; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Applicants’ request for a
minor subdivision and has determined that it is in conformance with Chapters 1104, 1201,
and 1202 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Applicants’ request for a minor
subdivision is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and,
WHEREAS, as a result of an approved subdivision in 2003, the applicants have
already paid a park dedication fee in accordance with Section 1204.04, Subd. 4 of the
Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
recommends approval of the minor subdivision (lot line adjustment) of 8409 and 8413
Groveland Road subject to the following stipulations:
1. The Applicants arrange to have the Certificate of Survey revised as follows:
a. Remove the shed as shown between Parcels B and C.
b. Add the following notation to the garage structure on Parcel B: “To be
demolished.”
c. Remove “Proposed Split Line” notation from Parcel C.
d. Remove “Proposed Drainage and Utility Easement” notation from Parcel C.
Resolution 852-06
Page 2
2. The Applicants shall arrange to have a Title Commitment prepared and submitted
prior to the approval of the subdivision by the City Council.
3. The Applicants shall remove the existing garage from 8413 Groveland Road within
one year from the date of Council approval.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs
staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 18th day of October, 2006.
__________________________________________
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
______________________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
(SEAL)
RESOLUTION NO. 6956
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR SUBDIVISION (LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT)
BETWEEN 8409 AND 8413 GROVELAND ROAD REQUESTED BY TONY AND
CHERYL HOFFMAN; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. MI06-001
WHEREAS, Property owners Tony and Cheryl Hoffman (the Applicants) have
requested approval of a minor subdivision of contiguous lots located at 8409 Groveland
Road and 8413 Groveland Road, properties zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, legally-
described as follows:
The South 75 feet of the North 150 feet Lot 1, Block 1, Dalberg’s Sunnyside Estates
and
The South 80 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Dalberg’s Sunnyside Estates
WHEREAS, the Applicants propose to shift the common lot line between 8409 and
8413 Groveland Road south five (5) feet to create an 80-foot wide buildable lot (Parcel B)
fronting Groveland Road; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Applicants’ request for a
minor subdivision and, having determined that it is in conformance with the Comprehensive
Plan and Chapters 1104, 1201, and 1202 of the Municipal Code, recommended approval to
the Mounds View City Council; and,
WHEREAS, the municipal attorney representing the City of Mounds View has reviewed
the documentation associated with the request and has prepared an opinion in response.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council approves
the minor subdivision (lot line adjustment) of 8409 and 8413 Groveland Road requested by
the Applicants subject to the following stipulations:
1. The Applicants shall execute new drainage and utility easement documents and
arrange for their recordation along with the revised deeds and City Council
resolution of approval within 60 days of the date of said approval and furnish the
City with proof of recordation. Failure to do so shall render this approval null and
void.
Adopted this 12th day of February, 2007.
__________________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk / Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No: 7C
Meeting Date: Feb 12, 2007
Type of Business: Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and Mounds View City Council
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Minor Subdivision of 8184 Eastwood
Road; Planning Case MI06-002
Introduction:
Abiding Savior Lutheran Church is the owner of the single family dwelling located at 8184
Eastwood Road and they have submitted a minor subdivision request to split the home and
16,025 square feet from the parcel leaving a flag-shaped parcel that would be absorbed into
the Church’s land at the corner of Red Oak Drive and Ardan Avenue. While the Church has
made clear its desire to develop a senior residential facility on the property, the subdivided
area from 8184 Eastwood Road is desired to be annexed to the Church property regardless
of whether or not the development moves forward. If the development is not approved, the
land subdivided from 8184 Eastwood Road would simply be more greenspace for the Church.
Abiding Savior has submitted a certificate of survey which illustrates the proposed subdivision
of 8184 Eastwood Road and has submitted the necessary title commitment which has been
forwarded to the City Attorney for review.
Discussion:
A minor subdivision is a division of land less than two acres in area in which no more than
one additional lot is created. The lot at 8184 Eastwood Road is zoned R-1, Single Family
Residential, and the Comprehensive Plan designates this area for low density residential.
The minimum lot width for interior residential parcels is 75 feet and the minimum lot area is
11,000 square feet. After the proposed subdivision, the house would be situated on a 16,025
square foot lot with 90.54 feet of frontage on Eastwood Road, both consistent with City Code.
The parcel created by the subdivision would not be considered a buildable lot as it would not
comply with the minimum street frontage requirement.
The Church indicates that the created parcel of land would be enjoined to the Church property
as soon as possible after subdivision approval to allow for the subsequent disposition of the
house. Church representatives have indicated that the reason the lot was not split cleanly in
two (instead maintaining the 10.72 foot wide strip to Eastwood Road) was to preserve a the
row of mature pine trees in that strip. There is a shed which is shown to be straddling the
proposed lot line—this building would need to be moved or removed if it has not been
addressed already. Aside from the above, all setbacks and minimum requirements are
satisfied with this request.
Abiding Savior Subdivision Report
Feb 12, 2007
Page 2
Previous Meetings.
The Planning Commission considered this request at their meeting on January 10, 2007 and
again on January 24, 2007. W hile not advertised as a public hearing, many members of the
neighborhood attended to voice their opinions regarding the proposed subdivision. The
neighbors understood that the subdivision request was separate from a proposed
redevelopment of the property for a housing project, yet remained opposed to the subdivision
from a “precedent-setting” standpoint and because it would be one step closer toward
achieving the Church’s development vision. Action on the request was tabled on January
10th with direction given to the Church to clarify their intent regarding the subdivided land
referred to as Parcel A on the certificate of survey. On Friday, January 12, 2007, staff
received correspondence from Jerry Kunz, Abiding Savior’s Resource and Development
Commission’s Vice-Chairman, which reiterates their intent to subdivide 8184 Eastwood Road
and enjoin the created lot to the Church’s property, regardless of the outcome of the housing
development application. In response to this and lacking any inconsistency upon which to
base a recommendation of denial, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution
recommending approval of the minor subdivision. Their resolution is attached for the
Council’s reference.
Park Dedication Requirements.
All subdivisions of land are subject to park dedication fee requirements. For subdivisions
which have no impact upon the park system (such as a lot line adjustment) the City Council
will ordinarily waive any dedication fee. In this case, the minor subdivision requested by the
Church in and of itself would not likely cause any additional impact to the park system thus it
would follow that no dedication fee would be applied to the requested subdivision. If, on the
other hand, the potential exists for greater intensification of the subject area, the Council may,
at their discretion, impose a dedication fee. For most minor subdivisions, the dedication fee
imposed is usually five percent of the county assessed land value of the lot created. For
major subdivisions and projects which significantly intensify the existing development density,
up to a ten percent dedication fee may be imposed by the Council. Any subsequent housing
redevelopment application would be subject to a park dedication fee.
Easements.
With every subdivision of land, the City requires that drainage and utility easements be
dedicated around the perimeter of the lot. In this case, if the City were to approve the
subdivision, easements would be required for Parcel B as follows:
The north and south 5.0 feet and the east and west 10.0 feet of Parcel B
While easements may not be recorded via certificate of survey, staff would request that the
easements as described above be added to the certificate of survey with a notation that the
easements as shown will be dedicated separately by the property owner.
Abiding Savior Subdivision Report
Feb 12, 2007
Page 3
Public Notice.
No public notice is required for a minor subdivision, however staff did send notices to
residents for the Planning Commission meeting and made phone calls to remind the residents
about the City Council meeting.
Deadline for Action.
This application was accepted on December 26, 2006 and in accordance with MN Statute
15.99, a decision will need to be made within 60 days of application acceptance. The
deadline for action for this request is February 24, 2007. If no action is taken by the City
Council on February 12, 2007, staff will send a letter to the Church indicating that the City
would be exercising its right for additional time to consider their request.
Summary.
The proposed minor subdivision or 8184 Eastwood Road is requested to create additional
land which would be combined with the Abiding Savior property at 8211 Red Oak Drive. The
remaining single family lot on Eastwood Road (Parcel B) would be consistent with all setbacks
and subdivision code requirements.
Recommendation:
Discuss the request submitted by Abiding Savior Church to subdivide the parcel located at
8184 Eastwood Road. The following options may be considered:
1. Based on the Planning Commission’s recommendation, approve the requested minor
subdivision application subject to revising the certificate of survey to show the
proposed easements on Parcel B and correcting for the location of the shed, either by
removing it from the property altogether or moving it fully onto Parcel B consistent with
the setback requirements. A resolution of approval with stipulations as noted has been
prepared for the Council’s action.
2. Deny the minor subdivision request due to the creation of a non-conforming flag-
shaped lot. The City Council may take the position that if Parcel B is to be added to
the church property, the church property should be included in the subdivision which
would necessitate a MAJOR subdivision and a platting of the land. If the City Council
elects to move forward with this option, a resolution will be available for action.
3. Table action pending receipt of additional information deemed necessary before a
decision can be determined. If a tabling motion is supported, staff or the applicant will
need to be directed to prepare or submit the information requested and a notice would
need to be sent to the applicant indicating that the City would be exercising its right for
additional time within which to review and consider the subdivision request.
_____________________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
Zoning Map
Abiding Savior
Church
Lot proposed to
be subdivided
Aerial Map
8184 Eastwood Road
Photographic Documentation
Certificate of Survey
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 858-07
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION OF 8184
EASTWOOD ROAD REQUESTED BY ABIDING SAVIOR CHURCH;
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. MI06-002
WHEREAS, Property owner Abiding Savior Church, located at 8211 Red Oak Drive,
(the Applicant) has requested approval of a minor subdivision of 8184 Eastwood Road,
property zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, legally-described as follows:
The North 101.25 Feet of the South 810 Feet of the East 528 Feet of the
West 1,584 Feet of the Northeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 30,
Range 23, subject to easements for road and utility purposes.
WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to split off the existing home and 16,025 square
feet (Parcel B) from the above described parcel to create a presently non-buildable 34,900
square foot lot (Parcel A) with 10.72 feet of access onto Eastwood Road; and,
WHEREAS, while proposed Parcel B satisfies all City Code requirements, Parcel A
would be non-conforming as a buildable lot in that it would not satisfy the minimum street
frontage requirement of 75 feet; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Applicant’s request for a
minor subdivision and has determined that the requested subdivision pertaining to Parcel B is
in conformance with Chapters 1104, 1201, and 1202 of the Municipal Code; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
recommends approval of the minor subdivision 8184 Eastwood Road subject to the following
stipulations:
1. The Applicant shall arrange to have the Certificate of Survey revised to illustrate
the following proposed drainage and utility easement areas:
The north and south 5.0 feet and the east and west 10.0 feet of Parcel B
And shall arrange to add the following language to the Certificate of Survey:
The proposed drainage and utility easements shown on Parcel B will be dedicated by a
separate document and recorded by the Property Owner with Ramsey County.
Resolution 858-07
Page 2
2. The Applicant shall arrange to bring the existing shed from 8184 Eastwood Road
into compliance with setback and zoning requirements based on the proposed new
lot line.
3. The applicant shall arrange to immediately combine Parcel A with the existing 6.31
acre Church property at 8211 Red Oak Drive. No construction activity shall be
permitted on Parcel A
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED that the Applicant shall have 60
days from final approval to file proper documentation with Ramsey County, including new
deeds, easement documents and lot combination agreement, and furnish proof of such
recording to the City showing evidence of such recording. If such action is not accomplished
by the date so indicated, this minor subdivision approval shall be considered null and void.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED that no park dedication fee shall be
imposed on this subdivision due to there being no increase in density or no further
intensification of the land usage.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this minor
subdivision in no way shall be construed as tacit or implicit approval or endorsement of any
subsequent development application.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the
minutes.
Adopted this 24th day of January, 2007.
__________________________________________
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
______________________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
(SEAL)
RESOLUTION NO. 7013
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR SUBDIVISION OF 8184 EASTWOOD ROAD
REQUESTED BY ABIDING SAVIOR LUTHERAN CHURCH;
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. MI06-002
WHEREAS, Property owner Abiding Savior Lutheran Church, located at 8211 Red
Oak Drive, (the Applicant) has requested approval of a minor subdivision of 8184 Eastwood
Road, property zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, legally-described as follows:
The North 101.25 Feet of the South 810 Feet of the East 528 Feet of the
West 1,584 Feet of the Northeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 30,
Range 23, subject to easements for road and utility purposes.
WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to split off the existing home and 16,025 square
feet (Parcel B) from the above described parcel to create a presently non-buildable 34,900
square foot lot (Parcel A) with 10.72 feet of access onto Eastwood Road; and,
WHEREAS, while proposed Parcel B satisfies all City Code requirements, Parcel A
would be non-conforming as a buildable lot in that it would not satisfy the minimum street
frontage requirement of 75 feet; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Applicant’s request for a
minor subdivision and based on the Applicant’s desire to combine Parcel A with the rest of the
Church property and having determined that the requested subdivision pertaining to Parcel B
is in conformance with Chapters 1104, 1201, and 1202 of the Municipal Code, has
recommended approval of the subdivision request to the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council approves
the minor subdivision of 8184 Eastwood Road subject to the following stipulations:
1. The Applicant shall arrange to have the Certificate of Survey revised to illustrate
the following proposed drainage and utility easement areas:
The north and south 5.0 feet and the east and west 10.0 feet of Parcel B
And shall arrange to add the following language to the Certificate of Survey:
The proposed drainage and utility easements shown on Parcel B will be dedicated by a
separate document and recorded by the Property Owner with Ramsey County.
Resolution 7013
Page 2
2. The Applicant shall arrange to move or remove the existing shed at 8184 Eastwood
Road to be in compliance with setback and zoning requirements based on the
proposed new lot line.
3. The applicant shall arrange to immediately combine Parcel A with the existing 6.31
acre Church property at 8211 Red Oak Drive. No construction activity shall be
permitted on Parcel A.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED that the Applicant shall have 60
days from final Council approval to file proper documentation with Ramsey County, including
new deeds, easement documents and lot combination agreement, and furnish proof of such
recording to the City showing evidence of such recording. If such action is not accomplished
by the date so indicated, this minor subdivision approval shall be considered null and void.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED that no park dedication fee shall be
imposed on this subdivision due to there being no increase in density or no further
intensification of the land usage.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that approval of this minor
subdivision in no way shall be construed as tacit or implicit approval or endorsement of any
subsequent development application.
Adopted this 12th day of February, 2007.
__________________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk / Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No: 7D
Meeting Date: 02/12/07
Type of Business: CB
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 7018 Approving the Sufficiency of Petition in Opposition
to the 2007-08 Street Improvement Project.
Background:
On Friday, February 9, 2007, staff proceeded with determining the validity of the petition
against the 2007-08 Street Improvement Project submitted by Mary Lou, Anna, and Ella
Schovanec.
The petition contains the signatures of 169 households within the designated street
improvement area. The project area contains a total of 328 units (properties) that were
to be included in the project and assessed for the improvements. Based upon a
number more than 50%, 165 properties would need to sign the petition for it to be
sufficient.
In order to validate the petition, staff printed the owner information for all of the parcels
within the street improvement project area from the Ramsey County property records.
Based on this list, staff was able to verify that 169 of the 212 signatures on the petition
represented individual property owners. Two property owners have subsequently
withdrawn their names (in writing) to bring the total to 167 signatures.
Staff was unable to verify three additional signatures as the current property owners,
based on County records that were current as of 1/17/07. It is probable that the people
who signed the petition are in fact the property owners, but due to a recent purchase of
the property have not yet been recorded in the public property records. One objection
to the street improvement project (sent separately via fax) was rejected because it was
not in the petition format and did not specifically reference the street improvement
project number.
Discussion:
If time allowed, follow-up on verification of the three property owners that have a
discrepancy with County records could be done by requesting a copy of the current
property deed from these petitioners. However, the short time period has not allowed
for this detail of verification. If these signatures end up determining the sufficiency of
the petition (based on withdrawals), it is recommended that a determination of
sufficiency be delayed until complete verification of these parcels can be made.
The 167 signatures verified represent 51% of the 328 households that are included in
the project area.
Based on this information, the petition is sufficient, as it contains more than 50% of the
affected households within the 2007-08 Street Improvement Project area.
Consequently, in accordance with the Charter:
“ . . . the Council shall not make such improvement at the expense of
the property benefited, unless, in the meantime, there be filed with the
Council a petition asking that the improvement be made, signed by
property owners proposed to be assessed for such improvement at least
equal in number to those who signed the petition against the
improvement; in which event the Council may disregard the petition
against the improvement.”
Also, per subdivision 4 of Section 8.04 of the City Charter, “When a proposed
improvement is disallowed under the foregoing subdivisions, the Council shall not vote on
the same improvement within a period of one year after the public hearing on said
improvement. “
The Council has several options for moving forward, but if the petition is found to be
sufficient, construction will not occur in 2007. The Council will need to meet in work session
to discuss options for moving forward.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution 7018 approving
the sufficiency of petition in opposition to the 2007-08 Street Improvement Project,
ending project consideration as proposed. Further, that the Council schedule this item
for further discussion on the process for a street improvement program.
CHAPTER 8
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Section 8.01. Power to Make Improvements and Levy Assessments. The City may make any
type of public improvement not forbidden by law and levy special assessments to pay all or any part of
the cost of such improvements as are of a local character. The total assessments for any local
improvement may not exceed the cost of the improvement, including all costs and expenses connected
therewith, with interest. No assessment shall exceed the benefits to the property.
Section 8.02. Effective Charter Provisions. Local improvements (the term "local
improvement" shall mean a public improvement financed partly or wholly from special assessments)
shall be carried out exclusively under the provisions of this Charter.
Section 8.03. Local Improvement Ordinances and Regulations. Within 90 days after this
Charter goes into effect, the Council shall enact suitable ordinance(s) governing local improvements
and special assessments. The ordinance(s) shall provide a complete working code covering the
determination of assessments and assessment Districts, public hearings, appeals from a collection of
assessments, penalties for delinquency in making payments, financing of said assessments, and the
certifying of unpaid assessments for collection by the proper county officer. Said ordinance(s) shall
also provide for installment payments and notices to be given thereof, appellate procedure, re-
assessment, if necessary, and all other matters appropriate to the subject of local improvements and
assessments. After the adoption of such ordinance(s) providing for local improvements, all procedures
in compliance therewith shall conform to the regulations as set forth in such ordinance(s) and as
otherwise contained in this Charter.
Section 8.04. Procedure.
Subdivision 1. All improvements to be paid for by special assessments against the benefited
property shall be instituted by either, (1) the petition of at least twenty-five percent in number of the
benefited property owners together with a resolution adopted by an affirmative vote of the majority of
all of the Council, or, (2) a resolution adopted by a four-fifths affirmative vote of all of the Council.
The Council resolution shall state the nature and scope of the proposed improvement, and shall provide
means to obtain a cost estimate which shall set forth the cost of the improvement both in unit price and
in total thereof. Upon receipt of such estimate, the Council shall by resolution set a date for a public
hearing on the proposed improvement, setting forth therein the time, place and purpose of such hearing.
Such resolution shall be described in the City Newsletter and published twice at least one week apart in
the official newspaper of the City no less than two weeks prior to the date of said hearing, and in
addition thereto, a copy of such resolution including estimated unit prices and estimated total price
thereof shall be mailed to each benefited property owner at owner's last known address at least two
weeks prior to the date of said hearing. Failure to give mailed notice, or any defects in the notice, shall
not invalidate the proceedings. At such hearing the City Council shall receive any written and oral
statements, and hear any petitioners for or against the proposed improvement. A period of sixty days
shall elapse after the public hearing before any further action shall be taken by the Council on the
proposed improvement. If within such sixty day period, a petition against such improvement be filed
with the Council, signed by a majority of the owners proposed to be assessed for the improvement, or,
when the improvement has been petitioned for, signed by a number of the owners proposed to be
assessed for such improvement at least equal to the number of those who petitioned for the
improvement, the Council shall not make such improvement at the expense of the property benefited,
unless, in the meantime, there be filed with the Council a petition asking that the improvement be
made, signed by property owners proposed to be assessed for such improvement at least equal in
number to those who signed the petition against the improvement; in which event the Council may
disregard the petition against the improvement. Any person whose name appears on a petition to the
Council for a local improvement, or on a petition to the Council against a local improvement, may
withdraw their name by a statement in writing filed with the Council before such petition is presented
to the Council.
Subdivision 2. Regardless of the provisions in Subdivision 1, when less than 100 percent of the
estimated cost of a proposed local improvement is to be paid for by special assessment, within the sixty
day period after a public hearing has been held on the proposed improvement, a petition may be filed
with the Council, signed by a majority of the number of electors who voted for Mayor in the last regular
municipal election, protesting against either the improvement, or the assessment formula, or both. In
this event, the Council shall not proceed with the improvement, as proposed.
Subdivision 3. When a proposed improvement is allowed under the foregoing subdivisions the
Council may proceed at anytime between sixty days and one year after the public hearing on the
improvement. However, no contract shall be let in the event that the current proposed contract exceeds
the estimated cost by more than ten percent.
Subdivision 4. When a proposed improvement is disallowed under the foregoing subdivisions,
the Council shall not vote on the same improvement within a period of one year after the public hearing
on said improvement.
Section 8.05. Assessments for Services. The Council may provide by ordinance that the cost of
City services to streets, sidewalks, or other public or private property may be assessed against property
benefited and may be collected in the same manner as special assessments. Such costs shall not be
deemed to be "special assessments" for the purposes set forth in Section 8.03 of this chapter.
RESOLUTION 7018
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING THE SUFFICIENCY OF PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO THE 20007-08
STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, Section 8 of the Mounds View City Charter provides that the City Council
has held a public hearing in regard to the proposed 2007-08 Street Improvement Project;
and,
WHEREAS, at such hearing the City Council received written and oral statements,
and heard petitioners for or against the proposed improvement; and,
WHEREAS, a period of sixty days was commenced after the public hearing and
before any further action shall be taken by the Council on the proposed improvement; and,
WHEREAS, within such sixty day period, a petition against such improvement was
filed with the Council, signed by a majority of the owners proposed to be assessed for the
improvement; and,
WHEREAS, said petition in opposition to the project has been examined and
determined sufficient by the City Clerk/Administrator, being that the project area contains
a total of 328 units that were to be included in the project and assessed for the
improvements, and 167 verified properties have expressed opposition to the project via
the petition now.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Mounds
View hereby finds the petition in opposition to the 2007-08 Street Improvement project
to be sufficient; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Council shall not make such improvement at the
expense of the property benefited, and shall not take a vote on the same improvement
within a period of one year after the public hearing on said improvement unless, as
provided by City Charter, actions are taken that would allow the project to occur.
Adopted this 12th day of February, 2007.
___________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No. 7E
Meeting Date: February 12, 2007
Type of Business: CB
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
City Administrator Review _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 7014 Ordering the 2007-2008 Street and
Utility Improvement Project and Authorizing the
Preparation of Plans and Specifications
Background:
On May 22, 2006 the City Council approved Resolution 6823 authorizing the
preparation of a Preliminary Feasibility Report and the selection of a consultant
for the 2007-2008 Street and Utility Improvement Project.
On June 26, 2006, the City Council authorized several items to be studied as part
of the Feasibility Report authorized on May 22, 2006 for the Street and Utility
Improvement Program.
On November 6, 2006, a DRAFT Preliminary Feasibility Report for the 2007-
2008 Street and Utility Improvement Project was submitted for the City Council’s
review.
On November 13, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution 6959 setting a
Public Improvement Hearing date for 7:10 pm on December 11, 2006 at the
Mounds View City Hall and authorizing the City Administrator to mail and publish
notice of said hearing and improvements as required by law.
On November 21, 2006 a Public Informational Meeting was conducted to present
the draft report on the 2007-2008 Street and Utility Improvement Project. There
are several issues that were discussed at the November 21st Public Informational
Meeting and noted on the Feedback Forms that were submitted.
Curb Style - surmountable versus barrier style curbs
Hillview Road – Narrowing of Hillview Road form 42’ to 28’ and adding a sidewalk
Elimination of the access of Hillview Road and Fairchild Avenue
Hillview Park Parking Improvements
Grouping of Mailboxes
Deferral Option
Rain Gardens / Infiltration Basins
Phasing of this project
On December 4, 2006 the City conducted a work session in which these items
were discussed with the City Council. The City Council gave direction on several
of these items.
On December 11, 2006 the City Council held a public hearing and approved
Resolution 6982 approving the Feasibility Report for the 2007-2008 Street and
Utility Improvement Project.
On January 2, 2007 the City conducted a work session in which several design
issues were discussed with the City Council. The City Council gave direction on
several of these items.
On January 25, 2007 Staff provided the City Council with a memorandum entitled
2007-2008 Street and Utility Project Update. This memorandum included
information pertaining to curbs, schedule, petition, and water quality i.e.
raingardens.
On February 5, 2007 the City conducted a work session in which several design
issues were discussed with the City Council. The City Council had questions on
some design item and provided direction on several other items. Information in
response to the questions the City Council posed on February 5, 2007 will be
provided in a separate memorandum report.
Discussion:
Design Issues and Considerations if the Project Proceeds
Should this project proceed, the next action the City Council should consider is to
order the project and authorize the preparation of construction plans and
specifications. To ensure this project stays on schedule and to ensure that the
construction plans and specifications reflect the expectations of the City Council,
it is recommended that all design issues be resolved when the preparation of the
construction plans and specification is authorized.
The following is a list of design issues that have been identified. Also included is
Staff’s interpretation of the general consensus (majority of opinion) of how the
Council would like to address these design issues - based on previous
discussions. Please note that this does not mean that official action was taken on
these items or that there was complete agreement on them.
Curb Material – concrete versus bituminous curbs
Interpreted general consensus: Concrete
Curb Style - surmountable versus barrier style curbs
Interpreted general consensus: Barrier
Hillview Road – Narrowing of Hillview Road
Interpreted general consensus: Reconstruct Hillview Road to its current width
Elimination of the access of Hillview Road and Fairchild Avenue
Interpreted general consensus: Eliminate access as indicated in the County
Road 10 Corridor Redevelopment and Revitalization Plan
Hillview Park Parking Improvements
Interpreted general consensus: Include in project utilizing MSA funding and to
look into the possibility of increasing the number of parking stalls.
Grouping of Mail boxes
Interpreted general consensus: Group mailboxes as currently required by code
Rain Gardens / Infiltration Basins Incentive
Interpreted general consensus: Provide incentive to residents that elect to have a
Rain Garden or Infiltration Basin in the boulevard adjacent to their property. The
amount of the reduction of their assessment would be based on the storm water
quality portion of their assessment – based on the draft report the maximum
amount would be approximately $358 per residential property. Staff to develop
an incentive policy and / or plan.
Phasing of this project
Interpreted general consensus: Have the contractor submit their recommended
phasing plan. This would give the contractor the greatest flexibility, which could
translate into better bid prices.
Order the Project – Should the Council wish to proceed with this project, the
next step in the public improvement process is to order the project.
Authorize Plans and Specifications – The next step in the engineering process
is to order the preparation of construction plans and specifications.
Easement Preparation Activities - The installation of water quality and storm
water runoff reduction devices such as raingardens may require additional
temporary construction easements and permanent easements. There may also
be cases whereby the property owner may request that a raingarden, planned to
be constructed in the boulevard area adjacent to their property, be expanded
from the boulevard area into their property. To do so would require a temporary
construction and permanent easement. To ensure that the project stays on
schedule, easement preparation activities will need to commence as soon as
plans indicate to what extent they will be needed. For this reason, Staff is
requesting authorization to initiate these activities at this time. Such activities will
include: discussions with property owners, necessary appraisals, boundary
sketches, legal descriptions, and drafting of the legal easement documents.
Proposed Project Schedule
Should this project proceed, the following is the tentative schedule:
February 12, 2007 Council Orders Project / Authorizes Preparation of
Plans and Specifications
April 23, 2007 Council Approved Plans and Specifications / Set Bid
Date
May 24, 2007 Bids Received
June 25, 2007 Assessment Hearing / Award Construction Contract
July 12, 2007 Neighborhood Preconstruction Meeting
July 16, 2007 Construction Begins
Recommendation:
It is recommended the City Council approve a resolution to order the 2007-2008
Street and Utility Improvement Project and authorize the preparation of plans and
specifications.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
RESOLUTION 7014
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDERING THE 2007-2008 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS
WHEREAS, on May 22, 2006 the City Council approved Resolution 6823
authorizing the preparation of a Preliminary Feasibility Report and the selection
of a consultant for the 2007-2008 Street and Utility Improvement Project; and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 2006 the City Council held a public hearing
and approved Resolution 6982 approving the Feasibility Report for the 2007-
2008 Street and Utility Improvement Project; and
WHEREAS, should the Council wish to proceed with this project, the next
step in the public improvement process is to order the project; and
WHEREAS, should the Council wish to proceed, the next step in the
engineering process is to order the preparation of construction plans and
specifications; and
WHEREAS, the installation of water quality and storm water runoff
reduction devices such as raingardens may require additional temporary
construction easements and permanent easements; and
WHEREAS, the financing for this project is proposed to be derived from a
combination of several sources, including, but not limited to: the City of Mounds
View Utility Franchise Fee, Municipal State Aid (MSA), Tax Increment Financing,
and assessments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
1. Said improvements are hereby ordered and shall hereafter be
known and referred to as the 2007-2008 Street and Utility
Improvement Project.
2. Said ordering of the improvements shall be valid until December
11, 2007 - a period of one year from the date of the Public Hearing.
3. That the preparation of the construction plans and specifications for
the 2007-2008 Street and Utility Improvement Project is hereby
authorized.
4. The cost of said improvements shall be funded by a combination of
several sources, including. but not limited to: the City of Mounds
View Utility Franchise Fee, Municipal State Aid (MSA), Tax
Increment Financing, and assessments.
5. All activities associated with the preparation of temporary
construction easements and permanent easement agreements are
hereby authorized. These activities may include discussions with
property owners, necessary appraisals, boundary sketches, legal
descriptions, and drafting the legal easement documents.
Adopted this 12th day of February 2007
(ATTEST) ____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
(SEAL)
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item No: 08A
Meeting Date: February 12, 2007
Type of Business: CA
City Administrator’s Review: _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Barb Benesch, Administrative Assistant
Item Title/Subject: CONTRACTOR LICENSES FOR APPROVAL
Please consider the following contractor licenses for approval. All contractor licenses will
expire on December 31, 2007. All applicants have submitted appropriate fees and proof of
insurance. Those companies that are “new” include applicants that have never been licensed
with the City or they may have been licensed with the City in the past, but were not licensed in
2006. Those companies renewing their license were licensed, at a minimum, in the year 2006.
The type of license they are applying for follows the company name.
Aero Mobile Home Service HVAC New
A Aaron’s Plumbing & Heating HVAC New
Imaginality, Inc. Sign Installation New
Install This Sign & Awning Co., Inc. Sign Installation New
MP Nexlevel, LLC Excavating Renewal
R. J. Ryan General (Commercial) New
Snell Mechanical HVAC New
T.A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc. Asphalt Renewal
Top-All Roofing, Inc. General (Commercial) New
Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested.
Item No: 8B
Meeting Date: Feb 12, 2007
Type of Business: Consent
Administrator Review : ____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Reappoint Gary Stevenson as Planning Commission
Chairperson
Introduction:
Pursuant to the Planning Commission’s Bylaws (attached for Council review) and the City
Code, the Planning Commission is to elect a Chairperson annually. The Planning
Commission’s selection is then forwarded on to the City Council for their approval, consistent
with Chapter 401 of the City Code.
Discussion:
At the Planning Commission’s January 10, 2007 meeting, the Planning Commission elected
Gary Stevenson to continue serving as its chairperson, with Commissioner Jean Miller to
serve as Vice Chairperson. The election was unanimous.
Recommendation:
Resolution 7016 has been prepared for City Council action which accepts the nomination
and appointment of Gary Stevenson to serve as the Chairperson for the Mounds View
Planning and Zoning Commission with jean Miller to serve in the event of the chair’s
absence.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
RESOLUTION NO. 7016
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPOINTING GARY STEVENSON TO SERVE AS THE MOUNDS
VIEW PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CHAIRPERSON FOR THE YEAR
2007
WHEREAS, Chapter 401 of the Mounds View Municipal Code indicates that the City
Council shall appoint a Chairperson for the Planning and Zoning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws indicate that a
Chairperson be elected annually; and,
WHEREAS, on January 10, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission elected
Gary Stevenson to continue in his role as Chairperson for the Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Council does
hereby appoint Gary Stevenson to serve as the Chairperson for the Mounds View Planning
and Zoning Commission for the year 2007.
Adopted this 12th day of February, 2007.
_______________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No. 8C
Meeting Date: Feb 12, 2007
Type of Business: Consent Agenda
Administrator Review: _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Mike Sommer, Police Chief
Item Title/Subject: Purchase of one Replacement Police Car for 2007
Date of Report: February 12, 2007
NATURE OF REPORT: The police department budgeted $19,000 for the
replacement of an investigator car (1997 Dodge Intrepid) for 2007. Car Truck City
was awarded the state bid for the Chevrolet Impala (non police package.) The
Chevrolet Impala is being sold at $17,140.45 including registration, tax and
license. This cost does not include necessary equipment and set up and
expenses, which have been budgeted separately. In order to take advantage of
the state bid price for this vehicle the order is due by March 1st.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval for the replacement police
car under the state bid through Car Truck City for the 2007 Chevrolet Impala at
an estimated total cost of $17,140.45 for the one vehicle including tax,
registration and license.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________
Mike Sommer
Police Chief
RESOLUTION 7017
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REPLACEMENT OF AN INVESTIGATOR
POLICE CAR
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Police Department planned and budgeted for replacement of one
Investigator car in 2007, and;
WHEREAS, the replacement cost of one investigator car to replace the current 1997 Dodge
Intrepid Investigator car was budgeted for 2007 at an estimated cost of $19,000, plus equipment
and set up, and;
WHEREAS, Car Truck City was awarded the state bid for the 2007 Chevrolet Impala (non-police
package) at a cost of $17,140 (including tax and license.)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council for the City of Mounds View
authorizes the purchase of one 2007 Chevrolet Impala under the state bid at a cost of
$17,140.45, including tax, registration, and license fees.
Adopted this 12th day of February 2007.
____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST: ____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Minutes reviewed and corrected by Kurt Ulrich (City Clerk/Administrator) and Jim Ericson (Community Deve Director)
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL 1
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3
4
Regular Meeting 5
October 9, 2006 6
Mounds View City Hall 7
2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 8
7:00 P.M. 9
10
11
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 12
13
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 14
15
3. ROLL CALL: Mayor Marty, Councilmember Stigney, Councilmember Gunn, 16
Councilmember Flaherty, and Councilmember Thomas 17
18
NOT PRESENT: None. 19
20
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 21
22
A. Monday, October 9, 2006 City Council Agenda 23
24
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To Approve the Monday, October 9, 2006 agenda as 25
presented. 26
27
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 28
29
5. PUBLIC INPUT 30
31
None. 32
33
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS 34
35
None. 36
37
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS 38
39
A. 7:05 pm Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6945 Approving a 40
Conditional Use Permit for an Oversize Garage at 2925 County Road H2. 41
42
Planning Associate Heller explained that the current owner has a small garage that he would like 43
to demolish or move to allow the building of a new garage. She stated he is requesting a garage 44
Mounds View City Council October 9, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 2
that would be 24 feet by 48 feet, which would be constructed to comply with the five-foot 1
setback as required in the City code. She added that the current garage is non-complying. 2
3
Planning Associate Heller explained the dimensions of the property and neighboring properties. 4
She stated the new garage would benefit the neighborhood and would be consistent with the 5
comprehensive plan. 6
7
Planning Associate Heller stated the additional storage would be used for several cars, which are 8
currently stored in the driveway. She noted that letters were sent to neighboring properties and 9
no comments were received. She stated Staff recommends approval. 10
11
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. 12
13
Hearing no comment, Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. 14
15
Councilmember Stigney asked if a new driveway would be built to accommodate the newer 16
garage. Planning Associate Heller replied it would. 17
18
Councilmember Flaherty asked about the height of the garage. Planning Associate Heller replied 19
it would fall within the 15-foot height limit. 20
21
Councilmember Thomas asked if the Council believes it is acceptable to hear the requests, 22
particularly given the discussion at the last Council meeting regarding oversized garages. She 23
noted there are many requests for such structures. 24
25
Mayor Marty stated it was his understanding that the issue of oversized garages was referred 26
back to Staff and the Planning Commission, but the present policy is still currently in effect. He 27
noted that such issues are still governed by current ordinances and codes. 28
29
Community Development Director Ericson explained that the Planning Commission discussed 30
the issue of oversize garages at their last meeting and will discuss it further at the next meeting. 31
He stated the Planning Commission would make a determination about whether the current 32
regulations are suitable and if there should be a resident task force regarding oversize accessory 33
buildings. 34
35
Councilmember Thomas stated it would be helpful to bring in a consultant to discuss driveway 36
and other surfaces at the same time. 37
38
Councilmember Flaherty asked at what point the Council should ask for an architectural 39
rendering of the garage to ensure it is consistent with the property and neighborhood. Director 40
Ericson explained that the applicant must submit a floor plan, site plan, and layout for the 41
proposed garage. He stated Staff does not always get a good sense of what the garage will look 42
like nor are there requirements guiding the look of the garages. He explained that the code states 43
that the accessory buildings must be consistent with the principal structures, but beyond the 44
actual size limit, there are no regulations. 45
Mounds View City Council October 9, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 3
1
Mayor Marty stated he visited the property and relayed that the existing garage is quite small. He 2
stated he understands the resident’s desire for a larger garage. He said he read the Planning 3
Commission’s review of the oversize garage issues and that the Commission touched on all the 4
points. 5
6
Councilmember Thomas noted that the new garage would bring the building into compliance 7
with setbacks and other code regulations. 8
9
Councilmember Gunn asked if the old garage would be demolished. Planning Associate Heller 10
stated the applicant has not determined whether it will be moved and used as a storage shed or 11
demolished. 12
13
Councilmember Flaherty noted that if the current garage would be moved, it would then be in 14
compliance. 15
16
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/THOMAS. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6945 17
Approving a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversize Garage at 2925 County Road H2. 18
19
Councilmember Stigney stated the Planning Commission should look at overall issues regarding 20
oversize garages and accessory buildings. 21
22
Mayor Marty asked about the square footage of the current garage. Planning Associate Heller 23
replied that it is 224 square feet. 24
25
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 26
27
B. Public Hearing to Consider Resolution 6942 Adopting a Special Assessment 28
Levy for Delinquent Public Utility Accounts 29
30
Finance Director Beer stated legal notice of the hearing was published on September 20, 2006, 31
and that on September 19, 2006, legal notices were sent to the delinquent property owners. He 32
stated the accounts subject to the assessment were delinquent two quarters as of August 31, 2006. 33
34
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. 35
36
Hearing no comment, Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. 37
38
Councilmember Flaherty explained these are the utility bills that are sent to residents quarterly. 39
He stated it is the residents’ obligation to pay the bills. 40
41
Mayor Marty stated that historically the City shut off water, which created hardships, and the 42
policy was changed to the assessment method a couple years ago. He stated if the bills are not 43
paid, they are then assessed against the property. 44
45
Mounds View City Council October 9, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 4
Mayor Marty noted that several properties, which have been delinquent in the past, are not on the 1
current list of delinquencies. 2
3
MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6942 4
Adopting a Special Assessment Levy for Delinquent Public Utility Accounts. 5
6
Ayes - -- 5 Nays - -- 0 Motion carried. 7
8
C. 7:15 pm Public Hearing to Consider Resolution 6943 Adopting a Special 9
Assessment Levy for Diseased Tree Removals 10
11
Finance Director Beer explained that a legal notice of the hearing was published in the 12
September 20, 2006 edition of the New Brighton-Mounds View Bulletin. He said individual 13
notices of the meeting were sent to the affected property owners on September 19, 2006. 14
15
Finance Director Beer stated that the property owners could pay the amount due by 4:30 p.m. on 16
October 9 in order to avoid the $30 administrative fee. He said that after the roll was submitted, 17
property owners would be assessed the administrative fee. 18
19
Finance Director Beer explained that property owners must prepay the assessment between 20
October 10, 2006 and November 10, 2006 without paying additional interest, but after that, an 21
interest rate of 6.0% would accrue from November 10, 2006 through the payment date. 22
23
Finance Director Beer stated it is a 3-year assessment. He stated Staff recommends opening a 24
public hearing for public comment. 25
26
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. 27
28
Hearing no comment, Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. 29
30
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GUNN. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6943 31
Adopting a Special Assessment Levy for Diseased Tree Removals. 32
33
Mayor Marty explained that the assessments are fairly routine. 34
35
Ayes - -- 5 Nays - -- 0 Motion carried. 36
37
D. Public Hearing to receive Public Input to Consider Resolution 6944 Adopting 38
a Special Assessment Levy for Charges abating a nuisance condition at 5200-39
02 Raymond Avenue 40
41
Finance Director Beer explained that a legal notice of the public hearing was published in the 42
September 20, 2006 edition of the New Brighton-Mounds View Bulletin and an individual notice 43
was sent to the affected property owner and previous property owners on September 19, 2006. 44
He noted that the Council denied an appeal of the charges on August 28, 2006. 45
Mounds View City Council October 9, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 5
1
Finance Director Beer said the owner must prepay between October 10, 2006 and November 10, 2
2006 to avoid paying additional interest. He added that after November 10, 2006 interest at the 3
rate of 6.0% will accrue from November 10, 2006 through the payment date. 4
5
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:24 p.m. 6
7
Hearing no comment, Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. 8
9
Councilmember Thomas stated the property owner is focusing on recovering the fines from the 10
original property owner. Finance Director Beer stated both property owners were noticed and the 11
hope is both owners can work out the payment of the fees. 12
13
Mayor Marty asked if the property had been sold and closed. He asked how the City could assess 14
the fee if there is a new owner. Finance Director Beer replied that the fee is assessed against the 15
property, not the owner, and assessing the current owner is the only way to recover the costs. He 16
stated it is the City’s hope the pervious and new owners can work out the issue. 17
18
Mayor Marty stated the previous owner said he had been burned by his renter and expressed his 19
opinion that the new owner could be burned by the previous owner. He stated that regardless of 20
the owner, the City did incur the cost. 21
22
Finance Director Beer stated an attempt was made to contact the new owner through the title 23
company, but no contact could be made. 24
25
MOTION/SECOND: MARTY/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6944 26
Adopting a Special Assessment Levy for Charges abating a nuisance condition at 5200-02 27
Raymond Avenue. 28
29
Ayes - -- 5 Nays - -- 0 Motion carried. 30
31
E. 7:25 pm Public Hearing, First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 780, 32
an Ordinance Approving Modifications to the Official City Wetland Zoning 33
District Maps 34
35
Director Ericson explained that this item would bring forward an updated series of map 36
illustrating the City’s wetlands based on City code that was adopted in 1982 designating wetlands 37
as protected areas. 38
39
Director Ericson stated that the maps provide the City the ability to oversee the 100-foot buffer 40
zone around wetlands. He stated that the maps were authorized by the Council and are much 41
more current. 42
43
Mounds View City Council October 9, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 6
Director Ericson stated that moving forward, there have been numerous examples where the 1
wetlands mapped in 1982 are not consistent with current wetlands. He stated it could create 2
problems with residents and developers. 3
4
Director Ericson said that the old maps could not be updated electronically, but the current series 5
of maps are easily changed and modified to better represent current wetlands. He pointed out 6
several areas of change in four different areas. Director Ericson explained that he is more than 7
happy to print maps for residents illustrating their properties. 8
9
Director Ericson explained the four primary changes. He said in the northwest corner of the City, 10
there is a very small wetland completely in Spring Lake Park and a 100-foot buffer extends into 11
Mounds View. He asked if the City would like to enforce a setback on a wetland that is not 12
within the City property. 13
14
Director Ericson noted on the north side of Section 6 there is a wetland area that was identified in 15
the east half of the section along Long Lake Road. He stated that the area has been wet for a 16
significant time, there is evidence of wetland characteristics, however the wetland is new on the 17
current map. He pointed out the new wetland on the map. 18
19
Director Ericson stated there are a couple of lots on the corner of Spring Lake Road and County 20
Road 10 that have been set aside under a Storm Water Easement. He stated the wetland is a 21
storm water pond and has undertaken several criteria of a wetland and has now been classified as 22
one. He also noted a drainage ditch along County Road 10 that has been designated as protected, 23
but said he was not sure that the intent of the code was to buffer drainage ditches. 24
25
Director Ericson stated the other wetland that was added was Spring Lake. He stated it is not a 26
wetland, it is a lake, which was how it was shown in the original map. He stated the Council has 27
some latitude to determine if the lake should be designated as a wetland on the maps. 28
29
Director Ericson explained that there are two to three areas where drainage ditches in the County 30
Road 10 corridor were listed as protected wetlands and again asked if it was the original intent of 31
the code to buffer such areas. 32
33
Director Ericson stated that the code was originally intended to protect the significant wetlands. 34
He said the Council acted proactively by adopting such regulations in 1982. He stated a notice 35
was mailed to all property owners adjoining the wetlands, as such residents may not be familiar 36
with the 100-foot buffer area. 37
38
Director Ericson explained that the buffer area was created to establish an area in which the City 39
could review what was built in the area. He stated that it allows the City to review any 40
construction in the buffer area. He explained that development up to the edge of the wetland 41
often causes degradation. He stated some property owners might question the boundaries and 42
buffer areas. He recommended the Council continue the public hearing through the next meeting 43
so all residents can have a chance to review the maps and ordinance. 44
45
Mounds View City Council October 9, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 7
Director Ericson explained the process for the ordinance and said no action would take place at 1
present. He said the intent is not to cause any confusion or consternation among the residents. 2
He stated the City wants to ensure that awareness is raised about wetlands and the purpose the 3
regulations serve. 4
5
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. 6
7
Bob King, 7408 Silver Lake Road, asked if there are street addresses on the map. Director 8
Ericson stated there were not. Mr. King stated his concern is the houses in the wetland area. He 9
said street addresses are key to the maps. He also asked if there is a dispute about the wetland 10
boundary, how it will be handled. 11
12
Director Ericson replied that the map in front of the Council presently does not have addresses, 13
but the maps can easily include addresses. He stated it would be a good idea for the City if SEH 14
could physically verify what is on the maps if there are boundary questions from the residents. 15
He stated he would like to ensure the maps are as accurate as possible. Director Ericson stated 16
that if there are enough questions, the second reading could be deferred to ensure that such areas 17
are cleared up. 18
19
Mr. King stated that without knowing where his property is located on the map it is difficult to 20
determine where the wetland buffer falls. 21
22
Mayor Marty stated that the wetland and buffer zones have shrunk on a significant portion of 23
properties affected by wetlands and wetland buffers. 24
25
Mayor Marty asked about the cost of having the engineers physically survey the areas. Director 26
Ericson replied that depending on time, it could be between $50-75. He stated the cost should be 27
the City’s responsibility. Director Ericson encouraged Mr. King and others with questions to call 28
him at City Hall. 29
30
Mark Schnor, 2949 County Highway 10, stated that an area marked a wetland at Spring Lake 31
Road and County Road 10 is a drainage ditch holding pond. He stated there was a wetland 32
behind the property and the drainage ditch was put in front due to site constraints. He stated the 33
question is if a drainage ditch or pond should be considered a wetland. 34
35
Mr. Schnor explained that his home is within the 100-foot buffer of the drainage ditch. He said 36
his problem is with his home being so close, and being on PUD ground, whether he could 37
develop his land. He asked if the property value is affected by the designation of the holding 38
pond as a wetland. 39
40
Director Ericson stated the area was not previously wetland and was created as part of the 41
adjoining development. He stated the area is considered a wetland by the Rice Creek Watershed 42
District and asked if the City would like to consider it a wetland as well. He stated his concern is 43
also whether or not to consider drainage ditches and pond wetlands. He stated the designation 44
does not prohibit development, but means it is subject to a review process. 45
Mounds View City Council October 9, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 8
1
Mayor Marty stated he spoke to the Schnors about their question and concern. He stated he 2
would have no problem striking drainage ditches and ponds from the wetland map. 3
4
Mike Read, 2208 Lois Drive, stated when he moved into his house in 1988, the map indicated an 5
area near his home was a drainage ditch and is now listed as a wetland. He stated it was named a 6
drainage ditch when he moved in. Mayor Marty explained that Mr. Read has gone through 7
several review processes regarding the drainage ditch and its wetland designation. 8
9
Lori Mitchell, 2479 Park View Terrace, stated her property abuts the Silver View Pond. She 10
stated that she received the letter and asked if the new wetland map would currently affect her 11
property. Mayor Marty stated Ms. Mitchell has some land, a trail, and a lawn, which should 12
provide sufficient buffer. 13
14
Ms. Mitchell asked if the new map would affect her dog kennel on the edge of the buffer zone. 15
Mayor Marty stated any existing structures would probably be grandfathered in, but the new 16
wetland map may affect future development and construction. 17
18
Director Ericson reiterated that it is understood that Silver View Pond is a wetland and many do 19
not realize that there is a 100-foot buffer. He stated the desire of the City is to ensure that all 20
citizens are aware of the requirements and the wetland buffer restrictions. 21
22
Mayor Marty noted that Mounds View’s wetland codes are more stringent than many other cities. 23
He commended the past councils for preserving wetlands and controlling water runoff. He stated 24
the City was being proactive by placing such restrictions on wetlands. He explained the benefits 25
of wetlands in the City. He also noted the role of the City to be stewards of the earth and natural 26
resources by protecting the wetlands. 27
28
Councilmember Thomas suggested Director Ericson discuss the wetlands with the Rice Creek 29
Watershed District and ask why such areas are considered wetlands, particularly along the 30
County Road 10 Corridor. 31
32
Director Ericson explained that the City has aerial imaging going back to the 1930s. He said that 33
at one point, in the 1950s or 1960s, there is an obvious change in the photos. He stated that the 34
Rice Creek Watershed District does not have any specific requests as far as a buffer setback is 35
concerned. 36
37
Mayor Marty asked if Mr. Read’s property is in a wetland buffer. Mr. Read explained that when 38
he applied for the variance from the Watershed District, they measured 50 feet from the center of 39
his ditch and explained that he had to get a variance from the Rice Creek Watershed District to 40
build within their buffer zone. 41
42
Councilmember Thomas left at 8:01 p.m. 43
44
Mounds View City Council October 9, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 9
Mayor Marty agreed with Councilmember Thomas that Director Ericson should speak with the 1
Rice Creek Watershed District regarding their setback requirements, particularly regarding 2
drainage ditches and ponds. 3
4
Director Ericson asked the Council if Spring Lake should be considered wetland. He stated 5
historically the City has treated it as a lake, not a wetland, and has not required 100-foot buffers. 6
Mayor Marty stated he would consider the area a lake and that no action would be taken. 7
8
Mr. Schnor asked if the holding pond on Spring Lake Road was considered a wetland, how it 9
would affect the PUD. Director Ericson responded it would not affect any kind of redevelopment 10
scenario and it would still be considered a storm water holding pond. He stated the City controls 11
the holding pond so it could not be included in any redevelopment activity as a storm water 12
management pond. Mr. Schnor asked if his property would be grandfathered in. Director 13
Ericson stated it would be up to Mr. Schnor if he wanted to redevelop in the area. 14
15
Mr. Schnor asked how a wetland designation would affect property value. Director Ericson 16
replied that there is no clear answer, but it certainly would not decrease property value, but could 17
potentially increase it. 18
19
MOTION/SECOND: MARTY/FLAHERTY. To continue the public hearing until the next 20
Council meeting on October 23, 2006. 21
22
Ayes - -- 4 Nays - -- 0 Motion carried. 23
24
F. Informational Presentation regarding the upcoming referendum on the 25
Transportation Constitutional Amendment. Powerpoint Presentation by 26
Bruce Nustad, President, Twin Cities North Chamber of Commerce. 27
28
Mr. Nustad explained the role of the Twin Cities North Chamber of Commerce and gave the 29
Council some background about traffic issues plaguing the Twin Cities area. He stated that 30
transportation hassles are experienced daily, that they have been perceived as getting worse, and 31
are viewed as a State issue, which has created the “perfect political storm.” 32
33
Councilmember Thomas returned at 8:09 p.m. 34
35
Mr. Nustad explained that there have been transportation solutions in the past that have been 36
difficult to pass due to geopolitical issues. He explained that only 54% of the 6.5% vehicle sales 37
tax that raises about $6 billion dollars annually is dedicated to transit and highways. 38
39
Mr. Nustad explained that there is a ballot amendment which will do three things: 40
1. Dedicate all existing tax, 41
2. Phase in over 5 years, and 42
3. Create a balanced formula for using the funding. 43
44
Mr. Nustad stated it will be a constitutional amendment so, over a 5-year period, 40% of funds 45
Mounds View City Council October 9, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 10
will be dedicated to public transit assistance and no more than 60% dedicated to highway 1
purposes. He stated such language is the most controversial aspect of the proposed legislation. 2
3
Mr. Nustad noted how the funds would be allocated. He stated growth in general fund revenues 4
will more than replace the funds being moved for this project. 5
6
Mr. Nustad explained the deficiencies of the amendment. He said it would not be a “quick fix” 7
for needed amendments, would not eliminate the legislature’s ability to direct transportation 8
funding to different regions of the State, nor would it raise taxes. 9
10
Mr. Nustad explained the Minnesotans for Better Roads and Transit (MBRT) group and what 11
they do. He said the group is a broad coalition dedicated to improving transportation comprised 12
of more than 900 organizations and businesses. He stated the group was formed to support 13
passage of the Minnesota’s Transportation Amendment, and plans to spend $3-4 million 14
supporting the amendment. 15
16
Mr. Nustad noted there is no group opposing roads, but there is one legislator who believes the 17
language is too difficult for the average citizen to understand. 18
19
Mr. Nustad noted several organizations and groups who are members of MBRT. He stated there 20
is public consensus that new revenue is needed for transportation improvements and that 21
transportation taxes should be used for transportation. 22
23
Mr. Nustad went over fact vs. fiction regarding transportation and the current budget and 24
spending. He said that there is the perception that Minnesota’s Transportation Amendment will 25
result in budget cuts in other parts of the State budget. He explained that State revenues typically 26
grow by hundreds of millions of dollars (or billions) each year. He said that by phasing in the 27
amendment over five years, the impact on the growth in State revenue would only be $60 million 28
annually. 29
30
Mr. Nustad stated that some believe the State Constitution should not be changed to dedicate 31
taxes. He responded to the argument, saying that the Minnesota Constitution already dedicates 32
two taxes for transportation – gas tax and vehicle license tab fees. 33
34
Mr. Nustad said that Minnesota’s Transportation Amendment would not be easily passed because 35
the threshold for passing a constitutional amendment is a majority of all voters. He explained 36
that the absence of a vote is a “no” vote on the ballot. 37
38
Mr. Nustad also stated that a fictional belief is that Minnesota’s Transportation Amendment 39
would only take care of metro transit projects. He explained that State law already exists to 40
direct funding from motor vehicle sales tax to both roads and transit throughout the State and the 41
amendment will not change that. He stated that is the reason nearly 900 organizations support 42
the amendment. 43
44
Mr. Nustad thanked the Council for allowing him to discuss the issue. He encouraged the City to 45
Mounds View City Council October 9, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 11
discuss the issue with residents so they can make a solid, informed decision. 1
2
Mr. Nustad stated residents could call the 763-571-9781 or visit www.voteyesmn.org for more 3
information on the issue. 4
5
Councilmember Stigney asked how many formal presentations Mr. Nustad has given before 6
councils. Mr. Nustad replied that this is the first presentation. 7
8
Councilmember Stigney noted he does not support the public presentation supporting such a bill. 9
He stated he is not against a neutral presentation, but he is not supporting a particular stance on 10
the issue. Mr. Nustad stated he is before the Council to ask the Council to take a position. 11
12
Mayor Marty stated he spoke with the Council and City Administrator about the issue, and the 13
Council will not pass a resolution in support of the issue. He stated the decision should be up to 14
voters of the State of Minnesota. 15
16
Mayor Marty clarified that the tax is not a new tax, but funds would be diverted instead. Mr. 17
Nustad stated it is a current tax, not one that will add a new tax. 18
19
Councilmember Stigney stated the 40% will be diverted for transit, not for transportation. Mayor 20
Marty said that it is not a new tax on vehicles, but it will be diverted to a different budget. 21
22
Councilmember Flaherty asked whether Mr. Nustad has supporting evidence that the diversion of 23
funds would not result in an increase in taxes. Mr. Nustad stated he has reports from the 24
Department of Revenue that indicate the diversion will not cause an increase in taxes, but said 25
that nothing is certain. 26
27
Mayor Marty pointed out his concern that by putting vehicle taxes into transportation and transit, 28
other programs could suffer. 29
30
Councilmember Gunn thanked Mr. Nustad for bringing the information forward to help increase 31
voter awareness of the issue. 32
33
Councilmember Thomas stressed that a blank vote is counted as a “no” vote. She reminded 34
voters that if they do not vote “yes,” they are voting “no.” 35
36
Mayor Marty brought up the issue of the stop light on Silver Lake Road and that the County said 37
there are no funds for public transportation and roads. He noted the dilemma is Statewide. 38
39
G. Resolution 6946 Approving a Step Increase for Nate Behlen, Mounds View 40
Public Works Employee. 41
42
City Administrator Ulrich read the resolution. 43
44
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To adopt Resolution 6946 Approving a Step Increase 45
Mounds View City Council October 9, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 12
for Nate Behlen, Mounds View Public Works Employee. 1
2
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 3
4
H. Resolution 6947 Appointing Brett Brisbois to a Vacancy in the Water 5
Division of the Public Works Department 6
7
Director Lee stated that the City Council authorized the advertisement of the vacancy in the 8
Water Division that was created by appointing Mike Schnur as the Lead Utility Worker. Director 9
Lee explained that the City received 26 applications for the vacant water position. He said the 10
applicants were pointed and interviews were scheduled with four applicants. 11
12
Director Lee said that Staff has reviewed the credentials of the four applicants that were 13
interviewed and recommend Brett Brisbois for the position. 14
15
Director Lee pointed out that Mr. Brisbois received a certificate in Water Environmental Studies 16
from Saint Cloud Technical College, possesses a Minnesota Water Supply System Operators 17
Class D license, and has a Minnesota Wastewater Operators Class D license. He continued that 18
as a requirement for the position, Mr. Brisbois also possesses a Commercial Drivers License 19
(CDL). He added that Mr. Brisbois has a Minnesota Special Engineers Boilers License and 20
possesses the necessary computer and mechanical skills. 21
22
Director Lee recommended that Mr. Brisbois be hired in accordance with the 2004-2005 Labor 23
Agreement with the Public Works Collective Bargaining Unit. He said he would qualify for 24
Level A pay scale, which is currently established at $19.25 per hour. 25
26
MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6947 27
Appointing Brett Brisbois to a Vacancy in the Water Division of the Public Works Department. 28
29
Mayor Marty commented that the City is fortunate to have Mr. Brisbois on staff with his 30
qualifications, licenses, and skills. He asked if Mr. Brisbois would be using the position as a 31
stepping-stone to other places. Director Lee noted that the other places Mr. Brisboios worked 32
were as internships. 33
34
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 35
36
8. CONSENT AGENDA 37
38
Councilmember Stigney asked to remove Item D. 39
40
A. License for Approval 41
B. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, October 23, 2006 at 710pm to Consider 42
First Reading of Ordinance 782, an Ordinance Amending Section 7.10 of the 43
Mounds View City Charter Referring to City Indebtedness. 44
Mounds View City Council October 9, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 13
C. Resolution 6948 Approving the County Road 10 Pedestrian Crossing Options 1
Report 2
D. Resolution 6949 Approving the Preliminary Design of Landscape 3
Architecture Elements for the County Road 10 Trailway Corridor 4
5
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/GUNN. To Approve the Consent Agenda as amended. 6
7
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 8
9
D. Resolution 6949 Approving the Preliminary Design of Landscape 10
Architecture Elements for the County Road 10 Trailway Corridor 11
12
Councilmember Stigney stated his concern is that the Resolution does not specify the funding 13
source or cost. 14
15
Director Lee explained that within the capital improvement program that passed in August, the 16
trailway plans were approved and adopted. He shared the plan with the Council. 17
18
Councilmember Stigney stated his concern is that there are many areas in the plan that should be 19
considered further, rather than be voted upon in the Consent Agenda. He suggested the 20
Resolution be brought back for further discussion. 21
22
Councilmember Thomas explained that the Resolution does not approve spending money, and 23
that the plans will come back to the Council before any money is spent. She explained that the 24
Resolution approves various elements that will be included in the plan, not authorizing such 25
elements to be constructed. 26
27
Mayor Marty said his and Councilmember Stigney’s concern is that such projects do not go 28
forward without Council approval. 29
30
Director Lee pointed out for each segment, the feasibility report will come back to the Council. 31
In addition, the plans and specs would come back and the project would have to be ordered and 32
approved by the Council. 33
34
Councilmember Thomas stated the current Resolution is before the Council because it saves 35
money by approving all of the proposed elements that could potentially be used in the design. 36
37
Councilmember Gunn agreed with Councilmember Thomas that the Council is approving the 38
preliminary design. She suggested that the elements the City has so far be brought together for a 39
more comprehensive look at the trailway corridor. She said it is a big project and before the City 40
loses sight of the project, a discussion should be held. 41
42
Councilmember Stigney stated that each segment is made up of many individual elements and his 43
concern is approving all elements. He said he would like to look at each element before they are 44
installed and that his problem is with the vague language of the Resolution. 45
Mounds View City Council October 9, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 14
1
Councilmember Thomas stated that the Council would determine funding and specific elements 2
in the plans and specs, not in the current phase. 3
4
Director Lee suggested that the language be changed to “accept” rather than “approve.” 5
Councilmember Stigney stated he would accept the preliminary plan as long as there are approval 6
and discussion of all the elements that go into each segment. 7
8
Councilmember Flaherty stated he would accept the language change from “approve” to 9
“accept.” 10
11
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To adopt Resolution 6949 Accepting the Preliminary 12
Design of Landscape Architecture Elements for the County Road 10 Trailway Corridor, as 13
amended. 14
15
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 16
17
9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 18
19
Councilmember Gunn suggested the Council note their questions and discuss them with Finance 20
Director Beer at a later date. 21
22
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/MARTY. To approve the Just and Correct Claims as 23
Presented. 24
25
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 26
27
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 28
29
A. September 11, 2006 City Council Meeting Minutes 30
31
Mayor Marty noted he and Councilmember Gunn called in their changes to City Administrator 32
Ulrich. 33
34
MOTION/SECOND: MARTY/GUNN. To Approve the September, 2006 City Council meeting 35
minutes as corrected. 36
37
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 38
39
11. REPORTS 40
41
A. Reports of Mayor and Council 42
43
Mayor Marty pointed out that since the last Council meeting, there was a meeting at City Hall 44
about the stoplight at Silver Lake Road and County Road H. He stated Jan Weisner, Ken Heider, 45
Mounds View City Council October 9, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 15
Paul Good, City Administrator Ulrich, Director Lee, and County Staff were all in consensus that 1
the intersection needed and warranted a stoplight. He stated the County’s budget has been cut 2
and there is no funding available for such a stoplight. 3
4
Mayor Marty asked how all the stoplights in New Brighton were done and why the County could 5
not install one in Mounds View. He continued that the County indicated they had the budget 6
when such stoplights were installed. 7
8
Mayor Marty stated that Mounds View is trying to come up with a cooperative effort with the 9
City of New Brighton and the County also donating funds to the project. He noted that Mounds 10
View has the City of New Brighton’s cooperation. 11
12
Mayor Marty noted the Candidate’s Forum video was much better than the original broadcast and 13
the rebroadcast will be on Channel 16. He noted that Communications Coordinator Blackford 14
would attempt to get the Candidate’s speeches broadcast on Channel 16 as well. 15
16
Mayor Marty noted that election day is coming up. 17
18
Councilmember Gunn noted that on October 27th Pinewood would be celebrating their 50th 19
anniversary. She noted the activities planned for the week. 20
21
Councilmember Stigney stated regarding the broadcast of the Forum, there were problems using 22
the equipment. He stated that the City discussed posting an operator’s checklist and asked if it 23
had been removed. He asked City Administrator Ulrich to reestablish the checklist. 24
25
Councilmember Stigney stated that both the Chamber of Commerce and School Board have been 26
using the City to vote for various issues. He stated he would like the City to draft a policy 27
regulating the use of the City’s cable service to ask for votes. City Administrator Ulrich stated it 28
would be discussed at a future work session. 29
30
B. Reports of Staff 31
32
1. Public Works Director’s Report on Greenwood Drive 33
34
Director Lee reported that the City received a request to dead-end Greenwood Drive. He 35
explained that traffic counts were taken in two locations on Greenwood Drive, north of County 36
Road I and south of Sherwood. He noted the counts on each end and said both counts were 37
extremely low. He stated there does not seem to be an overabundance of vehicles using the road. 38
39
Director Lee stated Staff examined cul-de-sac requirements using the standard radiuses of 45 feet 40
and 60 feet in width. He showed the Council the impact on the properties in the area of putting 41
in a cul-de-sac on Greenwood Drive. He said in order to install a standard sized cul-de-sac, the 42
Council would have to acquire several properties. He stated that there would be a significant 43
impact on the properties that would have to be acquired. 44
45
Mounds View City Council October 9, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 16
Director Lee stated the City estimated that 5,000 square feet would have to be acquired, equaling 1
just under $12,000. He stated the City asked the Fire Chief and Police Chief about support for 2
such a cul-de-sac. He stated the Fire Chief did not support the cul-de-sac. He added that the City 3
has not heard from other residents along Greenwood Drive, but the resident across the street did 4
support the cul-de-sac. He suggested if the Council would like to go forward with the cul-de-sac, 5
a survey of residents should be done. 6
7
Director Lee explained the costs of the cul-de-sac and that there may be other impacts that have 8
not yet been discussed, such as the postal service and school bus service. He stated Staff is 9
looking for direction about how to proceed. 10
11
Mayor Marty asked when the street is up for reconstruction. Director Lee stated it would be in 12
2007 or 2008. 13
14
Councilmember Flaherty stated the issue arose from a resident who was awaiting a response. He 15
stated the Council’s next move should be to do nothing. He said the major issue is safety and the 16
road feeds into a major artery so he would support going no further with the project. He stated 17
Mr. Johnson now has the answer to the question he raised at the last Council meeting. 18
19
Councilmember Thomas said her concern is with how many of the properties the City would 20
have to acquire to put in a cul-de-sac, and that she does not see a justifiable concern for the cul-21
de-sac. She stated she would not support such an action. 22
23
Director Lee stated the property owners have not been shown the plan. 24
25
Councilmember Gunn said most of the traffic is at the other end of the road. Director Lee 26
explained that the southern end had 422 vehicles a day, which is still very light, and the north end 27
had 132 vehicles. Director Lee indicated he was surprised at the difference in the traffic 28
numbers. He said a cul-de-sac could increase traffic. 29
30
Mayor Marty asked Director Lee to contact Mr. Johnson with the plans, show him the 31
information, and explain how the plan would impact the residents and properties. 32
33
Councilmember Thomas stated that most of the vehicles belong to residents in the area, based on 34
the counts. 35
36
Councilmember Gunn asked how the road would be blocked off. Director Lee explained how 37
the area would be changed and the removal of the concrete. 38
39
Director Lee noted that there would be an origin destination study on Red Oak Drive on 40
Wednesday to determine the percentage of vehicles that are cut-through traffic. 41
42
2. 2007 Budget Updates 43
44
Mayor Marty suggested contacting Finance Director Beer about the updates. 45
Mounds View City Council October 9, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 17
1
C. Reports of City Administrator 2
3
City Administrator Ulrich pointed out to the Council a sample of minutes that were done via web 4
streaming and suggested the Council review the minutes to determine if they would be willing to 5
allow the minutes to be created via a video or web streaming rather than live. 6
7
Mayor Marty stated his only concern is if there was a problem with the master copy of the video. 8
He said if a tape recorder could be used it would be worth considering. 9
10
Councilmember Stigney asked if it would be considered for the Planning Commission as well. 11
City Administrator Ulrich pointed out there was not a web streaming option for the Planning 12
Commission. 13
14
Mayor Marty said meeting minutes via web streaming would be tested for a single meeting on 15
the October 23, 2006. 16
17
The Council reached consensus to try the video minutes for the October 23, 2006. 18
19
12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, November 6, 2006, at 7 p.m. 20
Next Council Meeting: Monday, October 23, 2006, at 7 p.m. 21
22
13. ADJOURNMENT 23
24
The meeting was adjourned at 9:09 p.m. 25
26
Transcribed by: 27
28
Lauren McKay 29
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 30
Reviewed and corrected by Kurt Ulrich (City Administrator), Jim Ericson (Community D eve Director), and Carol Mueller (City Councilmember)
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL 1
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3
4
Regular Meeting 5
January 8, 2007 6
Mounds View City Hall 7
2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 8
7:23 P.M. 9
10
11
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 12
13
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 14
15
Mayor Marty welcomed the Cub Scouts from Troop 367. 16
17
One of the Scouts asked why Mayor Marty would want to be Mayor. 18
19
Mayor Marty explained that he wanted to help the City with its planning and making decisions to 20
help make a difference for the City. He then invited the Cub Scouts and/or their parents to come 21
to the meetings or contact Council at any time. 22
23
3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Hull, Flaherty, and Mueller 24
25
NOT PRESENT: None. 26
27
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 28
29
City Administrator Ulrich noted that Item 6A was removed from the Agenda and said that it is 30
anticipated that the item will be back on the Agenda on January 22, 2007. 31
32
A. Monday, January 8, 2007 City Council Agenda 33
34
MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Flaherty. To Approve the Monday, January 8, 2007 agenda as 35
presented. 36
37
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 38
39
5. PUBLIC INPUT 40
41
David Jahnke congratulated the new Council Members and said that the Scouts waited for 23 42
Minutes and that is rude and he feels that Council Meetings should start at 7:00 p.m. as planned. 43
44
Mounds View City Council January 8, 2007
Regular Meeting Page 2
Mr. Jahnke said that in a previous discussion with the Mayor the Mayor had commented that 1
Medtronic would cost the City more money some way and he could not figure out what the 2
Mayor meant so he is here to ask. 3
4
Mayor Marty asked what was being discussed at the time. 5
6
Mr. Jahnke did not remember but said he was concerned about it. He then asked the new 7
Council Members to watch every buck that is spent. 8
9
Mayor Marty indicated he would contact Mr. Jahnke to discuss the matter. 10
11
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUISNESS 12
13
A. Presentation by Kari Murlowski re: Alternative Wellness Center 14
15
This item was removed from the Agenda. 16
17
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS 18
19
A. Public Hearing to Consider Resolution 6991, a Conditional Use Permit for an 20
Oversize Garage at 8410 Knollwood Drive; Planning Case CU2006-010 21
22
Planning Associate Heller explained the Conditional Use Permit Application for an oversized 23
garage at 8410 Knollwood Drive. 24
25
Planning Associate Heller indicated that the Comp Plan encourages improvements to properties 26
and the CUP process requires the City to take a look at any potential impact to surrounding 27
properties. She then said that she feels this addition would be a benefit to this property owner 28
and the surrounding area. 29
30
Planning Associate Heller explained that a variance for a reduced side yard setback was approved 31
by the Planning Commission. She then explained that the addition to the garage would match the 32
existing structure and blend in well. 33
34
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing. 35
36
There were no public comments. 37
38
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing. 39
40
Council Member Flaherty asked if the Applicant discussed this project with the neighbor to the 41
south. 42
43
The Applicant indicated that he had discussed the garage expansion with the neighbor and the 44
neighbor did not have an issue with it. 45
Mounds View City Council January 8, 2007
Regular Meeting Page 3
1
Council Member Flaherty thanked the Applicant for wanting to keep the tree. 2
3
Council Member Mueller thanked the Applicant for saving the tree while still accomplishing the 4
expansion of the garage. 5
6
Mayor Marty said he called to talk to Community Development Director Ericson about this 7
application and said he commends the Applicant for keeping the tree. He then said that he is 8
concerned about the two-foot setback because he has been kind of a stickler about looking out for 9
decisions that may set a precedent. 10
11
Mayor Marty said that he was surprised that the Planning Commission approved the variance. 12
He then said that he would have no issue with a larger garage or moving it closer to the tree but 13
he would like to maintain the five-foot setback. 14
15
The Applicant explained that the neighbor has 20 feet so the reduced setback should not be of 16
concern. 17
18
Mayor Marty explained that if the new property owner would decide to put a privacy fence on the 19
property line then there would only be two feet between the fence and this garage. 20
21
Mayor Marty indicated that he would be more comfortable following Code and allowing the 22
expansion but requiring the five-foot setback to the property line. 23
24
Council Member Flaherty asked how much property is between the Applicant’s house and the 25
neighbor on the other side. He then said that the concern is for emergency access to the backyard 26
area, if necessary. 27
28
Council Member Hull said that the Planning Commission felt the tree was a hardship that 29
justified the two-foot setback. 30
31
Council Member Stigney asked if the plan could be amended to stay five feet from the lot line. 32
33
The Applicant indicated that he would not have enough room in the garage if he would have to 34
leave the five-foot setback. 35
36
MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Flaherty. To Approve Resolution 6991, Approving a Conditional 37
Use Permit for an Oversize Garage at 8410 Knollwood Drive. 38
39
Council Member Stigney said he agreed with a lot of the Mayor’s thinking about changing the 40
setbacks and lot lines. He then said that, since the Planning Commission has reviewed this and 41
felt that the tree location justifies hardship, he will reluctantly support this. He then said he is 42
disappointed that the Planning Commission did not take a harder look at requiring the Applicant 43
to maintain the five-foot setback. 44
45
Mounds View City Council January 8, 2007
Regular Meeting Page 4
Council Member Mueller said that there is a possibility that this property owner could purchase 1
additional property from the neighboring property in the future. She then said that she sees a 2
resident who takes care of his property and is attempting to expand the garage to store his boat 3
inside and she supports his request to expand the garage to protect his investment. 4
5
Planning Associate Heller indicated that the neighbor to the north is over 100 feet off the 6
property line. 7
8
Mayor Marty indicated that the question before Council is the oversized garage of 1,124 square 9
feet. He then said he has no issue with the resident wanting to improve the property to keep the 10
boat inside but he is concerned with the setback. He further said that he will reluctantly go along 11
with this, as it was the recommendation of the Planning Commission. 12
13
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 14
15
16
B. Public Hearing, Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 782, an 17
Ordinance Amending Section 7.10 of the Mounds View City Charter 18
Pertaining to Indebtedness 19
20
City Administrator Ulrich explained that the first reading of this Ordinance was on December 11, 21
2006. He then said that, if unanimously approved by Council, this Ordinance would go into 22
effect 90 days from the date of the approval. 23
24
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing. 25
26
There were no public comments. 27
28
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing. 29
30
Council Member Mueller indicated that she worked on this amendment and said she would be 31
able to provide comment and explanation, if necessary. She then asked whether she should 32
abstain from the vote. 33
34
Mayor Marty explained that a unanimous vote of Council is required for approval and he sees no 35
reason why it would be necessary to abstain since this is merely a language clarification. 36
37
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Flaherty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Ordinance 782, an 38
Ordinance Amending Section 7.10 of the Mounds View City Charter Pertaining to Indebtedness. 39
40
ROLL CALL: Marty/Stigney/Flaherty/Hull/Mueller 41
42
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 43
44
Mounds View City Council January 8, 2007
Regular Meeting Page 5
C. Resolution 6998, Resolution of Support for Sale of Fire Station 3, Located at 1
1314 109th Avenue NE in Blaine 2
3
Fire Chief Zikmund appeared before Council and asked for authorization to sell Old Fire Station 4
3 noting the appraisal price was $162,000 and there is a purchase agreement of $184,000 with the 5
Church and this would allow the City of Blaine to move forward with this purchase. He then 6
explained that Blaine will remove the building from the site, restore the site, and restore the curb 7
line. He further explained that the management team envisioned and recommended that the 8
proceeds of the sale would be used to finish the new station but it looks like that project will be 9
at or under budget so Staff recommends the proceeds be placed in the Capital Improvement 10
Fund. 11
12
Chief Zikmund noted this would also establish the sale price of Fire Station 5 that Blaine wants 13
to retain and the City will receive its prorated share of the proceeds for that sale. 14
15
Council Member Flaherty asked when payments for capital budgets are made. 16
17
Finance Director Beer indicated that they are generally made January 1 but a vehicle is ordered 18
and payment is not due until later this year so the payment has not yet been made. 19
20
Council Member Flaherty asked if the City’s share of the sale proceeds is something that interest 21
could be made on rather than having it go right to capital budgets. 22
23
Finance Director Beer indicated that the money will be invested for future capital improvements. 24
25
Mayor M arty asked about the junk yard fire asking if it was reimbursable from insurance. 26
27
Fire Chief Zikmund indicated that there were issues with the owner and he did not have 28
insurance but usually the property owner would be billed. 29
30
Council Member Mueller asked whether buildings are burned for practice. 31
32
Fire Chief Zikmund indicated that is done when conditions allow it. 33
34
MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Hull. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 6998, A 35
Resolution of Support for Sale of Fire Station 3 Located at 1314 109th Avenue NE in Blaine. 36
37
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 38
39
D. Resolution 6995, Approval of the TimeSaver Recording Secretary Contract 40
Addendum for 2007 41
42
City Administrator Ulrich indicated that this is the annual renewal from TimeSaver Secretarial 43
with a 3% cost of living adjustment for 2007. He then indicated that Staff had asked for a 44
Mounds View City Council January 8, 2007
Regular Meeting Page 6
discount for webstreaming Minutes but was informed that TimeSaver is providing Minutes to a 1
number of other cities via webstreaming and videotape and those cities do not receive a discount. 2
3
City Administrator Ulrich indicated that Staff recommends approval of the contract addendum as 4
Staff feels that this is the most cost effective way to provide Minute service to the City. 5
6
Council Member Flaherty asked how much was budgeted for this service. 7
8
Finance Director Beer indicated that he would have to look up the figure but said that this service 9
was within budget last year. 10
11
Council Member Flaherty indicated that he would reluctantly agree to this approval but said that 12
he would like to see Staff research the other options for next year. He then said that he is 13
disappointed that a discount was not offered to the City since there is not a live person at the 14
meetings. 15
16
Council Member Stigney commented that perhaps Staff should look into having a live person 17
come to the meetings since TimeSaver has said that it costs more to do Minutes by webstreaming 18
and video. 19
20
Mayor Marty said that he feels that it should be more economical to have someone transcribe the 21
Minutes from home than to have someone coming to the meeting. He then said that he would 22
like to consider tabling this to allow Staff to research whether someone can come to the meeting 23
if it is less expensive. 24
25
City Administrator Ulrich indicated that there was a quality issue and this has turned out to be 26
more cost effective to have the right person doing the Minutes because it saves Staff and Council 27
time. He then said that Staff would support this contract and agreed to ask TimeSaver for detail 28
as to why the costs would be different for webstreaming versus having a live person. 29
30
Mayor Marty said he thinks Ms. Lenzmeier has done a good job on the Minutes. He then said 31
that he would say that Minutes have been reduced by one-third with her ability to condense the 32
discussion without missing anything and that saves the City time and money. He also said that it 33
would save time in the future for anyone having to review the Minutes if they are shorter. 34
35
Mayor Marty indicated that he recalls the quality of the Minutes received when there was 36
someone attending the meeting and that was time consuming for Council and Staff. He then 37
asked Staff to follow up on why it would cost more to do the Minutes from webstreaming and 38
research whether there are other companies providing this service for consideration next year. 39
40
Council Member Stigney said he is speaking of TimeSaver who sets up the contract with his 41
comments and not Joan because Joan has always done excellent work. He then asked if the 42
contract specifies Minutes from webstreaming. 43
44
Mounds View City Council January 8, 2007
Regular Meeting Page 7
City Administrator Ulrich indicated that it would be the choice of the City to revert to having 1
someone attend the meetings or to continue to have Minutes transcribed by webstreaming. 2
3
Council Member Stigney asked if a DVD could be used. 4
5
City Administrator Ulrich indicated that either DVD or webstreaming is possible. 6
7
MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Mueller. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 6995, 8
Approval of the TimeSaver Recording Secretary Contract Addendum for 2007. 9
10
Finance Director Beer explained that having fewer pages of Minutes saves the City money since 11
the costs are calculated by the page. 12
13
Mayor Marty agreed that the number of pages is one-third to one-fourth of what the City 14
previously had. 15
16
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 17
18
E. Resolution 6996, Severance Package for Tim Pittman, Mounds View Public 19
Works Supervisor 20
21
City Administrator Ulrich read Resolution 6996, Severance Package for Tim Pittman. 22
23
City Administrator Ulrich added that Mr. Pittman was with the City for 24 years and will be 24
missed. 25
26
MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Flaherty. To Approve Resolution 6996, Severance Package for 27
Tim Pittman, Mounds View Public Works Supervisor. 28
29
Council Member Flaherty thanked Mr. Pittman for his service to the City and said that he has 30
been very professional and he thanked him for all the help provided to him since he has been on 31
Council. 32
33
Mayor Marty said that Mr. Pittman has been a contributing force for the City for a number of 34
years and he will be missed. 35
36
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 37
38
F. Resolution 6997, Step Increase for Sgt. Steve Menard, Mounds View Police 39
Department. 40
41
City Administrator Ulrich read Resolution 6997, Step Increase for Sgt. Steve Menard, Mounds 42
View Police Department. 43
44
Mounds View City Council January 8, 2007
Regular Meeting Page 8
MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Hull. To Approve Resolution 6997, Step Increase for Sgt. Steve 1
Menard, Mounds View Police Department. 2
3
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 4
5
6
G. Resolution 7001, Approving the Plans and Specifications and 7
Authorizing the Advertisement for Bids and Setting a Bid Date for 8
the County Road 10 Trailway Project: Segments 9 & 10 9
10
Public Works Director Lee provided information to Council concerning the County Road 10 11
Trail Project. He then noted that the plan includes pedestrian lighting and landscaping. 12
13
Council member Mueller asked whether the landscaping along the trail could be done by the 14
Scouts or by Public Works rather than the professional service. 15
16
Director Lee explained that the plantings are several acres in size and that would be very time 17
consuming and take Staff away from other essential tasks. 18
19
Council Member Mueller asked what the landscaping portion of the project is costing the City. 20
21
Director Lee explained that the Plans and Specifications were not broken out that way but then 22
listed the items that involved landscaping. 23
24
The Council discussed a portion of a trail on the east side of Long Lake Road that needs to be 25
relocated to match up with the new trail on County Road 10. 26
27
Director Lee explained that Public Works is not geared to be in the landscaping business and 28
recommended that this be left to the professionals. 29
30
Council Member Flaherty said that he is concerned about the $250 for relocating a bench. 31
32
Director Lee said that the information listed is a cost estimate at this time and costs will be more 33
specific once the bids are received. He then said that Staff is trying to get the Met Council to 34
move their own bench and, if that is possible, that would be removed from the estimate. 35
36
Council Member Flaherty said that $1,600 is a lot of money for a garbage can and asked who is 37
supplying them. 38
39
Director Lee explained that the contractor will have to find their own supplier and noted that all 40
contractors will be bidding competitively. He also explained the type of trash enclosure the 41
specifications refers to. 42
43
Director Lee explained where the signage would be located. 44
45
Mounds View City Council January 8, 2007
Regular Meeting Page 9
Council Member Mueller asked if the panels on the sign are interchangeable. 1
2
Director Lee indicated that they are. 3
4
Council Member Flaherty said that he does not know that $20,000 worth of seating is necessary. 5
6
Council Member Flaherty questioned the quantity of the trailway lights. He then said that there 7
are three lights in front of the Holiday store and asked whether those are necessary because it is 8
pretty bright in that location already. 9
10
Director Lee indicated that the lighting is spaced about 80 feet apart. He then said that the foot-11
candle lighting was considered and it was determined that lighting is needed in that location to 12
illuminate the trail. 13
14
Council Member Flaherty asked if the same would be true of the trail near Super America. 15
16
Director Lee explained the lighting in that area noting that the existing lighting would not be 17
sufficient. 18
19
Council and Staff reviewed the lighting designs. 20
21
City Administrator Ulrich asked whether there is a difference in the amount of light the two 22
fixtures provide. 23
24
Director Lee indicated that Staff was attempting something a little bit more decorative at the 25
intersections but the lighting they provide is about the same. 26
27
Council Member Mueller asked the cost difference to change the intersection lights to shoe box 28
lights. 29
30
Director Lee indicated there are only four shepard’s hook lights included in the project for about 31
a difference of $8,800.00. 32
33
Council Member Flaherty indicated that rather than using all of the shepard’s hooks they put 34
them at intersections to show that people were in MV. 35
36
Director Lee indicated that the Mounds View medallion will be on the shepard’s hook lights. 37
38
Council Member Flaherty indicated that he wants the quotes to come in as a not to exceed and 39
does not want to see a bunch of change orders. 40
41
Mayor Marty asked Staff to really review the bids to ensure that everything is listed so there will 42
not be any change orders. 43
44
Mounds View City Council January 8, 2007
Regular Meeting Page 10
Council Member Stigney asked about the board walk and asked how much less the costs would 1
be without the overlook. 2
3
Public Works Director Lee indicated that he does not have information to answer that question 4
without having the consultant recalculate the amounts. He then said that the City would be 5
charged for the change to have it bid both ways. 6
7
Council Member Flaherty asked for an alternate for removal of the overlook when this goes out 8
for bids for comparison. 9
10
Council Member Hull asked whether the maintenance to the landscape material has been 11
considered. 12
13
Director Lee indicated that anything in the County right of way would be the responsibility of the 14
City to maintain. 15
16
Council Member Stigney asked what the price difference would be for a concrete bench. 17
18
Director Lee estimated that a concrete bench would be significantly more expensive than what is 19
being proposed. 20
21
MOTION/SECOND: Hull/Flaherty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 7001, 22
Approving the Plans and Specifications and Authorizing the Advertisement for Bids and Setting 23
a Bid Date for the County Road 10 Trailway Project: Segments 9 & 10. 24
25
Council Member Stigney asked how many change orders are anticpated. 26
27
Director Lee said he expects none but, realistically, probably one for the project. 28
29
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 30
31
8. CONSENT AGENDA 32
33
A. License for Approval 34
B. Resolution 6999, Adopting Modifications to Section 1.1 and 4.1.A of the 35
City’s Purchasing Policy 36
C. Resolution 7000 Approving an Agreement for Maintenance and EVP System 37
Agreement for the Traffic Control Signals at County Road J and Xylite 38
Street, and County Road J and Coral Sea Street 39
D. Resolution 7002, Approving to Hire a Replacement for a Part Time Cable TV 40
Operator in the Mounds View Cable Department 41
E. Set a Public Hearing for 7:05 p.m. for Monday, January 22, 2007, to 42
Consider a Civil Penalty and Suspension of an Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor 43
Business License for ABC Liquor Located at 2840 County Highway 10 in 44
Mounds View 45
Mounds View City Council January 8, 2007
Regular Meeting Page 11
1
Council Member Mueller requested that Item C be removed for discussion. 2
3
Mayor Marty removed Item D for discussion. 4
5
MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Mueller. To Approve Consent Agenda Items A, B, and E. 6
7
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 8
9
C. Resolution 7000, Approving an Agreement for Maintenance and EVP 10
System Agreement for the Traffic Control Signals at County Road J and 11
Xylite Street, and County Road J and Coral Sea Street 12
13
Council Member Mueller indicated that she understands that the City is sharing the maintenance 14
of the control signals but she was wondering if the configuration of the control signals is set in 15
stone or whether it could be debated. She then said that the intersection of County Road H and 16
County Road 10 and County Road H and County Road H2 do not function correctly for safe 17
passage of residents and commuters. 18
19
Public Works Director Lee indicated that these intersections have been reviewed by Staff, the 20
City of Blaine, Anoka County, Ramsey County, and Mn/DOT and they are adequate for today’s 21
standards. He then said that at County Road H and County Road 10 that is part of the corridor 22
improvement plan because the left turn lanes would make the intersection function properly. 23
24
Council Member Mueller asked if the new construction was designed to accommodate future 25
office traffic. 26
27
Public Works Director Lee indicated that be believed that it had been designed with that in mind. 28
29
Council Member Flaherty asked why this was acted on in Blaine back in April and why there was 30
such a delay getting this to Council. 31
32
Director Lee indicated that the City’s attorney found an issue with the indemnification clauses 33
and that was brought up with the County and they sat on it for a while. He then said that Ramsey 34
County is the lead agency on this project so the timing was based upon their ability to complete 35
the documents. 36
37
MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Hull. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 7000, 38
Approving an Agreement for Maintenance and EVP System Agreement for the Traffic Control 39
Signals at County Road J and Xylite Street, and County Road J and Coral Sea Street. 40
41
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 42
43
D. Resolution 7002, Approving to Hire a Replacement for a Part Time Cable TV 44
Operator in the Mounds View Cable Department 45
Mounds View City Council January 8, 2007
Regular Meeting Page 12
1
Mayor Marty indicated he discussed this with the City Administrator today and he brought it up 2
last year as well. He then said that when Kimberly Blackford was still here it was discovered 3
there was no pay scale for part time help so that was drafted and Dave Olson started at Step 4 but 4
he has been here a longtime and that is why he lobbied to start him at Step 5. He then said he 5
wants to move Dave Olson to Step 5 and advertise for the rehire position. 6
7
Council Member Stigney indicated it is not on the agenda and Human Resources Committee 8
should deal with that. 9
10
Mayor Marty indicated he would like to direct this to Human Resources Committee to consider 11
moving Dave Olson to Step 5. 12
13
MOTION/SECNOD: Marty/Stigney. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 7002, 14
Approving to Hire a Replacement for a Part Time Cable TV Operator in the Mounds View Cable 15
Department. 16
17
Council Member Flaherty indicated that he feels that Mr. Olson is an excellent employee and this 18
should be looked at by the Human Resources Committee. 19
20
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 21
22
9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 23
24
Council Member Flaherty asked for an explanation on the LCD TV recorders and transceivers. 25
26
City Administrator Ulrich indicated that this is part of the police video that they are doing for 27
video surveillance adopted by Council and paid for by federal grant money. 28
29
Council Member Mueller asked what a street opening refund is. 30
31
Public Works Director Lee explained that anyone who needs to do work in the right of way 32
requires a security deposit and, once the work is done, then the money is refunded. 33
34
MOTION/SECOND: Hull/Mueller. To Approve the Just and Correct Claims as Presented. 35
36
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 37
38
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 39
40
A. City Council Minutes December 11, 2006 41
42
Mayor Marty indicated he called his amendments in. He then asked about Page 2, Line 72. Staff 43
will review it. 44
45
Mounds View City Council January 8, 2007
Regular Meeting Page 13
Mayor Marty indicated that in reading over the Minutes on Page 4 he thought of something else 1
where Council was discussing Knollwood Place Townhome Developments he was wondering if 2
a privacy fence could be required to prevent snowplow drivers from pushing snow off the end of 3
the driveway. 4
5
Council Member Stigney requested the following changes: On Page 13, Line 17 asking for costs 6
for putting in concrete barrier curb and gutter. Line 19 should read looks like the 2003 feasibility 7
report with a barrier bituminous or concrete curb and until the changes are made that show the 8
cost difference between surmountable bituminous versus concrete barrier curb he will not 9
support the project. 10
11
Line 25 he said he would like the cost information to reconstruct the streets now as they exist 12
without barrier concrete curb and gutter. 13
14
Council Member Stigney requested the following change: On Page 20, Line 44, does not think 15
that someone should be hired outside to lease and manage the banquet center. 16
17
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Mueller. To Approve the December 11, 2006 City Council meeting 18
minutes as amended by comments to Staff and at this meeting. 19
20
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 21
22
11. REPORTS 23
24
A. Reports of Mayor and Council 25
26
Mayor Marty announced that NW Youth and Family Services is having their awards banquet on 27
February 1, 2007 and one of Mounds View’s residents has received an outstanding service to 28
youth award. 29
30
Director Ericson explained that the City has been focusing a different business every month on 31
the City’s Website and in the Mounds View Matters. This month the spotlight is on Fedor’s 32
Market. 33
34
B. Reports of Staff 35
36
City Administrator Ulrich announced that 2006 Citizenship nominations are being solicited with 37
the deadline the end of February 2007. 38
39
City Administrator Ulrich noted that the Council/Staff Leadership Retreat is scheduled for 40
February 7 and 8, 2007 at the Random Park building. 41
42
City Administrator Ulrich announced that the joint meeting with New Brighton is scheduled for 43
February 26, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. in Council Chambers. 44
45
Mounds View City Council January 8, 2007
Regular Meeting Page 14
City Administrator Ulrich noted that Senator Betzold and Representative Tillberry will be here 1
for the public meeting on January 22, 2007 to handle questions. 2
3
City Administrator Ulrich announced that City Hall will be closed January 15, 2007 in honor of 4
Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. 5
6
Community Development Director Ericson explained that he received a telephone call from 7
Marty Harstad and the Red Oak Estates Townhome models will open this weekend and he 8
invited Staff and Council to come and tour the models. 9
10
Mayor Marty asked if there are four units. 11
12
Director Ericson indicated that there are four units in the first building. 13
14
Mayor Marty asked about three garages for four units. 15
16
Director Ericson indicated that one garage is converted to the office for sales and then will be 17
converted back to garage space. 18
19
1. Finance 20
21
Finance Director Beer indicated that the workers comp renewal was received with an increase but 22
the City got a 10% discount for a 90% nonsmoking police force. 23
24
C. Reports of City Attorney 25
26
None. 27
28
12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, February 5, 2007, at 7 p.m. 29
Next Council Meeting: Monday, January 22, 2007 at 7 p.m. 30
31
13. ADJOURNMENT 32
33
The meeting was adjourned at 9:42 p.m. 34
35
Transcribed by: 36
37
Joan Lenzmeier, Recording Secretary 38
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 39
Reviewed and Corrected by Kurt Ulrich (City Administrator), Jim Ericson (Community Deve Director) and Carol Mueller (City Councilmember)
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL 1
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3
4
Regular Meeting 5
January 22, 2007 6
Mounds View City Hall 7
2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 8
7:15 P.M. 9
10
11
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 12
13
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 14
15
3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Hull, Flaherty, and Mueller 16
17
NOT PRESENT: None. 18
19
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 20
21
A. Monday, January 22, 2007 City Council Agenda 22
23
MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Stigney. To Approve the Monday, January 22, 2007 agenda as 24
presented. 25
26
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 27
28
5. PUBLIC INPUT 29
30
Rick Perrozzi of 7791 Groveland Road indicated that he spoke to staff regarding Velmeir’s lack 31
of response on finishing the parking lot. He then said that as of the end of September there was 32
an approved plan and he was waiting for the utility easement agreements from Velmeir and he 33
just got them recently and then he received a changed plan shortly after. He further said that the 34
plan sent to engineers for approval is a plan that was rejected by them. 35
36
Mayor Marty indicated that he is not sure that Staff realized that the plans submitted to the City 37
were plans rejected. 38
39
Mr. Perrozzi indicated that the plan of the work done is not what was approved. He then said 40
that when he showed the plan to the Watershed he asked if it would be approved and they said no 41
because water would go into the parking lot because the grades are wrong. 42
43
Mr. Perrozzi indicated that they assumed this was one property and had they known that it was 44
two separate pieces of property they would not have allowed it because water cannot be directed 45
to someone else’s property. He then said that he wonders why there are permit fees or inspectors 46
that they have to pay because this was not handled properly and he cannot rent the building for 47
going on three years. 48
Mounds View City Council January 22, 2007
Regular Meeting Page 2
1
Mayor Marty indicated that he would contact Community Development Director Ericson and Mr. 2
Perrozzi tomorrow to discuss this because there have been no plans before Council on this 3
recently. 4
5
Council Member Mueller asked where this property is located. 6
7
Mr. Perrozzi explained his location. 8
9
Ella Shavonic of 7959 Sunnyside Road said she is circulating a petition on the 2006-2007 Street 10
and Utility Improvement Project and most people are opposed so she would like to know why 11
Council ordered a survey and estimates for road construction after the survey in 2006 revealed 12
that most were opposed. 13
14
Mayor Marty indicated the new survey results came back differently. 15
16
Ms. Shavonic asked how the new Council Members feel. 17
18
Council Member Hull said that if residents could pay for this over 15 years he would not mind 19
that but right now he is wavering in his support. 20
21
Council Member Mueller indicated that she has been looking into this and she does not know 22
that concrete curb and gutter for all of the streets is appropriate based on the average income and 23
demographic of the City. She then said that she thinks that there are some roads that could be 24
replaced as existing or with surmountable curb. She further said that some shared use roads have 25
requirements by Mn/DOT but she likes the country feel of the streets and she is not sure that 26
concrete curb and gutter is the thing to do for every street in town. 27
28
Ms. Shavonic asked if Council has considered approving roads without concrete curb and gutter. 29
30
Mayor Marty indicated that he has discussed with Staff ways to assess less for concrete curb and 31
gutter and noted that the overall increase in cost is $200 and no one makes bituminous curbs at 32
the present time so there is a potential possibility that it would have to be created specifically for 33
this City and that could end up costing more than $200. 34
35
Ms. Shavonic indicated that some people are concerned about which roads would need to be 36
narrowed under this project. 37
38
Mayor Marty indicated that the standard width is 28 feet from face of curb to face of curb and the 39
one road that the City was considering narrowing was Hillview but residents asked the City to 40
leave it as it is. 41
42
Ms. Shavonic asked if homeowners with wide driveways would be allowed to maintain the 43
width. 44
45
Mayor Marty indicated that at the curb cut the code is approximately 26 feet but the rest of the 46
driveway can maintain its width. 47
Mounds View City Council January 22, 2007
Regular Meeting Page 3
1
Ms. Shavonic asked if sidewalks are being added with the project. 2
3
Mayor Marty indicated that if Hillview were narrowed sidewalks would have been added but the 4
City is not talking about any new sidewalks in the current project area. 5
6
Ms. Shavonic asked what the increase is per year for the new school referendum passed. 7
8
Finance Director Beer indicated that it would be $76.00 per $100,000 of value for approximately 9
$162.00 for an average home in the City. 10
11
Ms. Shavonic asked what the tax increase would be for the curb and gutter. 12
13
Finance Director Beer estimated about $420.00 per year over 10 years. 14
15
Ms. Shavonic said that when Council was talking about the different options she would like to 16
know what the strategy is for finding out the best plan for each individual street. 17
18
Mayor M arty indicated that this has been an ongoing process for years and there were complaints 19
of too many surveys in this area and comments that residents just want the roads done. 20
21
Anna Shavonic of 7959 Sunnyside Road asked about the position of the sod and asked whether 22
during the three years it takes the sod to become established the City will be maintaining it. 23
24
Mayor Marty indicated that it has to be mowed and watered or it will die and that is the 25
responsibility of the resident. 26
27
Ms. Shavonic said that it makes this sound like a days worth of work when you cannot enter your 28
driveway or street but she read in the documentation that there would actually be seven days for 29
the concrete to set. 30
31
Public Works Director Lee explained that there would be a period of seven days that vehicles 32
could not travel over the concrete to allow for the time to cure and vehicles would be allowed to 33
park in front of homes rather than on the driveways. 34
35
Ms. Shavonic indicated that some residents have upcoming events for the summer and they 36
would like to know when roads are affected to allow for planning. 37
38
Mayor Marty indicated that the plans are not approved and the project has not been ordered. He 39
then said that Staff has a timeline set up. 40
41
Public Works Director Lee explained that this project, if approved, would begin in July of 2007 42
and end in 2008. He then said that anyone with events being planned can contact Staff to be 43
scheduled into the construction process. 44
45
Ms. Shavonic asked Staff to make sure there is information available to residents at any 46
upcoming meetings. 47
Mounds View City Council January 22, 2007
Regular Meeting Page 4
1
Public Works Director Lee indicated that information in on the internet or Staff is willing to 2
entertain questions. 3
4
Ms. Shavonic indicated that they have lists of people not in favor of the project based on the 5
petition and asked how to present that to the City. 6
7
Mayor Marty asked her to bring it to the next Council meeting. 8
9
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUISNESS 10
11
A. Senator Betzold and Representative Tillberry 12
13
Mayor Marty introduced Senator Betzold and Representative Tillberry. 14
15
Senator Betzold addressed Council and those in attendance to review legislative issues for the 16
2007 Session. 17
18
Senator Betzold explained that there really is not much of a surplus in the budget because there is 19
$1 Billion leftover from last session that was not spent and part is for tax collection that is one-20
time money. He then said that the economists have said that there should be a budget reserve of 21
5% of the state’s budget which would take $1 billion in one time money to accomplish. 22
23
Senator Betzold indicated that over the next two years it is projected that more money will be 24
taken in than will be spent by June 30, 2009. He then explained that adding inflation to revenues 25
would eliminate any projected surplus. 26
27
Senator Betzold indicated that he introduced a bill to establish a sound wall across from 28
Medtronic but he is not sure how that bill will proceed. 29
30
Representative Tillberry addressed Council and those in attendance and thanked those that 31
supported his campaign. 32
33
Representative Tillberry provided information on the committees he has been assigned to. 34
35
Council Member Mueller mentioned that the decibel levels were tested before the Medtronic 36
campus was done and said she thinks that the decibels are getting to threatening levels and that is 37
a health and safety concern for the residents and she would appreciate anything that can be done 38
to move the sound wall project forward. 39
40
Mayor Marty asked the Senator and Representative to do what they can to support administrative 41
fines and provide clarity on the issue. 42
43
Senator Betzold indicated that there was a bill last year but that died so it must be started over 44
this year. 45
46
Mounds View City Council January 22, 2007
Regular Meeting Page 5
Finance Director Beer asked if there has been any consideration of local government aid to first 1
ring suburbs. 2
3
Senator Betzold indicated that there was some money put back in for 2005 but the formulas did 4
not help the first ring suburbs. 5
6
Mayor Marty said that he feels that the local government aid formula needs to be looked at and 7
he would appreciate any help. 8
9
City Administrator Ulrich indicated that Senator Betzold has been working with the Fire 10
Department to complete a study of firefighter pensions and thanked him for his work on the 11
project. 12
13
Mike Read of 2208 Lois Drive said the transportation bill was passed and he is wondering why 14
the gasoline tax is being considered again. 15
16
Senator Betzold explained that the Governor vetoed the gas tax bill last year but that bill has 17
been reintroduced. 18
19
Council Member Flaherty asked what kind of bills are being seen for the motor vehicle tax funds 20
and. 21
22
Senator Betzold explained that the Governor cannot veto constitutional amendments and the 23
voters passed dedicating all motor vehicle sales tax to roads and transit to be phased in over a 24
couple of years. 25
26
Mayor Marty noted that bus route 860 was cut through the City and a lot of residents depended 27
upon that to get to work and he asked Staff about that and Staff is going to research the status of 28
that route. He then said that he would contact the Senator if the City needs help with the issue. 29
30
Mayor Marty thanked Senator Betzold and Representative Tillberry for coming in to discuss the 31
issues and provide information. 32
33
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS 34
35
A. Public Hearing, Resolution 7003 to Consider a Civil Penalty and Suspension 36
of Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Business License for ABC Liquor at 2840 37
County Highway 10 38
39
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing. 40
41
Chief Sommer addressed the Council and summarized the facts of this case. On January 13, 42
2006 Mr. Xiong was charged with sale of alcohol to are underage person and this offense was 43
related to an investigation and they were able to confirm the sale of alcohol to an underage 44
person and he was charged with a gross misdemeanor. 45
46
Mounds View City Council January 22, 2007
Regular Meeting Page 6
Chief Sommer indicated that this came to the attention of Council during license renewal for 1
ABC Liquor in 2006 and Council expressed disappointment but the license was renewed. He 2
then explained that on November 28, 2006 Mr. Xiong sold to a customer who was under 21 years 3
of age during a compliance check and he was charged with gross misdemeanor sale to underage 4
person. He also noted that on December 18, 2006, Mr. Xiong failed a tobacco compliance check 5
and this time the license holder sold to the underage person and was charged with sale of tobacco 6
to minor. 7
8
Chief Sommer indicated that this matter was discussed at the January work session and Council 9
consensus was to issue a civil penalty of $2,000 and suspension of liquor license for a 30 day 10
period. He then explained that the license suspension cannot take effect until they have been 11
given an opportunity for a hearing and that is the purpose of this hearing. 12
13
Mr. Ge Xiong and Mr. Xang Xiong were present for the hearing. 14
15
Mr. Xang Xiong said that they will be going to court on the sales to minor in February. 16
17
Mr. Xang Xiong indicated that the first incident was October of 2005 so the two offenses were 18
not within one year as alleged by the City. 19
20
Mr. Xiong indicated that he does not believe that this can be decided until the case has been 21
decided in Court so he would like the City to table this until after the hearing. 22
23
Mr. Xiong said that for the first offense what it was he was trying to comply and asking 24
assistance from the City police because he had two people who he knew were going to commit 25
theft so he tried to keep one at the store and by the time the police arrived one made off with a 26
couple bottles of liquor and then the person that was kept in the store reported that he had sold 27
alcohol to a minor. He then said that he never knew that anything would go against him that 28
happened that night. 29
30
City Attorney Riggs indicated that this is dealing with the license not the criminal matter. He 31
then said that the criminal matter will be heard in the court and the license procedure is to 32
determine whether the offenses occurred and they have not denied the instances. 33
34
Mr. Xiong said that he cannot comment until he speaks further with his attorney. 35
36
City Attorney Riggs indicated that they were noticed as required by law and this is their time to 37
respond and refute the charges or not. 38
39
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing. 40
41
Council Member Flaherty asked Mr. Xiong whether he was denying selling to an underage 42
person in 2006. 43
44
Mr. Xiong indicated that, at the time, he had no reason to believe that the person was underage 45
because a crime was being committed and the person at the counter was distracting him as the 46
crime was being committed so he did not check his identification. 47
Mounds View City Council January 22, 2007
Regular Meeting Page 7
1
Council Member Flaherty asked if a sale was wrung up for that person at the counter. 2
3
Mr. Xiong said he cannot recall for certain because that was a year and a half ago. 4
5
Council Member Flaherty asked if there was a sale to a minor on that date. 6
7
Chief Sommer indicated that Mr. Xiong was charged with it in January and it occurred in 8
October and he was convicted. 9
10
Mr. Xiong indicated that the case is not fully completed as it goes to court in February. 11
12
Council Member Flaherty asked whether a sale was made to a minor. 13
14
Mr. Xiong asked if a full sale is considered the individual leaving the store or if simply handing 15
over money is considered a full transaction. 16
17
City Attorney Riggs asked whether there was a business transaction that occurred. 18
19
Mr. Xiong said that the person gave him money but he had no bottle when he left the store and 20
the money was for something else because he had stolen from his store previously. 21
22
City Attorney Riggs asked if Mr. Xiong is claiming that no transaction occurred. 23
24
Mr. Xiong indicated that the person had stolen from him for two days straight. 25
26
Mayor Marty said that the individual said that he had come in previous times with a fake 27
identification and had not been carded and had not used it for a number of months and was still 28
allowed to purchase alcohol. He then said that when the license holder was in last year for 29
licensing Council cautioned that a suspension was possible for another offense. He further said 30
that two things happened one with alcohol, and one with tobacco and both compliance checks 31
were failed. He also said that waiting for the court date is totally separate on the criminal case 32
and this is the license renewal that the City can control. 33
34
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Flaherty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 7003, 35
Civil Penalty and Suspension of Liquor License for ABC Liquor. 36
37
Council Member Stigney mentioned that this Resolution approves a civil penalty of $2,000 and a 38
suspension of the license for 30 days. 39
40
Mr. Ge Xiong asked whether the penalty would be for each offense. 41
42
Mayor Marty indicated that this is the total for the offenses. 43
44
Mr. Ge Xiong indicated he would be willing to attend classes to help him make sure that 45
underage persons do not buy at his store. 46
47
Mounds View City Council January 22, 2007
Regular Meeting Page 8
Council Member Flaherty suggested that he work with the Police Department for better 1
information and understanding of the law. 2
3
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 4
5
B. Presentation by Kari Murlowski in Regard to an Alternative Wellness 6
Center at Mounds View Square 7
8
Assistant to the Administrator Crane addressed Council and provided an overview of the request 9
and introduced Ms. Murlowski. 10
11
Ms. Murlowski explained that she is a life coach and learning consultant but does not perform 12
any massage at all. She then explained that her clients are fully clothed and nothing that she does 13
is massage. 14
15
Council Member Flaherty indicated that the raindrop therapy Council considered massage as oils 16
are put on the spine area and the back is exposed. 17
18
Ms. Murlowski indicated that is the only technique considered massage by the City so she would 19
eliminate that technique at this location. 20
21
Council Member Stigney indicated that this type of business is not spelled out in the Code. He 22
then said that he is looking at what type of regulation or oversight there should be for therapeutic 23
wellness businesses. He then said that he would like a postponement or moratorium to allow 24
time to research whether the Code should be amended to handle this type of business. He further 25
said that he would like to know what other cities are doing to regulate these types of businesses 26
and to check with the League of Minnesota Cities. 27
28
Ms. Murlowski indicated that there is a state office that handles alternative wellness businesses. 29
She then said that there are no issues with this type of business in other cities and she has been 30
doing this for four years with no issues and she is insured. She further said she could eliminate 31
the raindrop technique. 32
33
City Attorney Riggs indicated that the City could move forward with a moratorium and clarified 34
that right now, if it is not allowed by Code, then it is not allowed. 35
36
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Hull. To Postpone for 30 Days to Direct Staff to Review and 37
Bring Back Suggested Code Language and the Type of Regulation that the City Should Require 38
for Alternative Wellness Businesses. 39
40
Council Member Flaherty recommended to Staff that when this is reviewed that the largest issue 41
was the raindrop technique and placing hands on an unclothed portion of the body and the 42
Applicant is not a licensed therapist. 43
44
Mayor Marty indicated that the Code does not handle how to regulate this type of business. 45
46
Mounds View City Council January 22, 2007
Regular Meeting Page 9
Ms. Murlowski commented that Medtronic will have a wellness center and they will be using a 1
lot of the techniques that she plans to do so this should be addressed by the City. 2
3
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 4
5
C. County Road 10 Trailway Project: Segments 9 & 10 – Review of Boardwalk 6
Bump Out 7
8
Public Works Director Lee explained that the bump out is estimated to cost $4,900 and to change 9
the plans and specs and bid documents would be approximately $1,200 to $1,500. He then asked 10
Council for direction to either continue moving forward with Option One to keep the bump out 11
or to move forward with Option Two amending the plans and specs to remove the bump out. 12
13
Mayor Marty said that he would like to word the bids in the future so that there is not a fee to 14
change the bid like is happening in this instance. 15
16
Public Works Director Lee said that he does not know a way around getting the bid without the 17
bump out without amending the plans. 18
19
Mayor Marty said that it does not seem very complicated to do this and the fee to change the 20
plans seems a little high. 21
22
City Attorney Riggs explained that there must be bid standards to allow the contractors to bid 23
this competitively. 24
25
Public Works Director Lee explained that this bump out has been engineered with footings and 26
pilings and if there is just a straight boardwalk it needs to be determined whether those footings 27
are to be included or removed by the engineers. 28
29
Council Member Mueller asked whether the Council determined to ask for the bid with the bump 30
out. 31
32
Public Works Director Lee explained that it came from the Consultant from direction to include 33
things to make this project appealing to pedestrians to get them to use the trailway. 34
35
Council Member Flaherty said that he likes the bump out and feels it is a nice amenity for 36
residents. He then said that this was in the original feasibility report. 37
38
City Administrator Ulrich indicated that throughout the County Road 10 corridor project there 39
are a number of pocket parks and bump outs so there would be opportunities to scale down if that 40
is the desire of Council. 41
42
Mayor Marty indicated that he would like to leave it in especially since it would cost money to 43
redo the plans to remove something from the plan. He then said that perhaps Staff could ask the 44
contractors if they can do it without the bump outs when that time comes. 45
46
Mounds View City Council January 22, 2007
Regular Meeting Page 10
Council Member Mueller said that she wants to be clear that if it stays in now then that is what 1
the contractors will bid on. 2
3
Council Member Flaherty said he would like to keep Option One with the bump out because it is 4
a nice amenity. 5
6
Council Member Stigney said that he thinks that this needs a motion. 7
8
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Hull. To Approve Option Two To Direct Staff to Revise the Plans 9
and Spec to Remove the Bump Out. 10
11
Council Member Stigney said that this was not to create a scenic boardwalk but to provide safe 12
pedestrian crossing along Highway 10. 13
14
Council Member Mueller said that she was wondering why the Council went ahead with the 15
Plans with the bump out included. 16
17
Mayor Marty indicated that the bump out was to break up the 161 feet. 18
19
Council Member Mueller asked whether it is worth the extra $3,700 if Mounds View is a 20
destination rather than just moving people through. 21
22
Council Member Flaherty said that he would like to leave it in as it was in the original plan and 23
would be a nice amenity for residents as part of the revitalization of the corridor. 24
25
Mayor Marty indicated that it bothers him to pay the architects to revise the plans but he would 26
rather put the money toward streets or another bench or something. 27
28
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1(Flaherty) Motion carried. 29
30
D. Resolution 7012 Supporting the County Road 10 Trailway Project: 31
Segments 1-5 and Consequent Department of Natural Resources Trailway 32
Grant Easement 33
34
Public Works Director Lee indicated that the City will be applying for a DNR Trailway Grant 35
and the City must submit a Resolution in support of the grants as part of the requirements. He 36
then said that the City is attempting to obtain support from civic groups within the City. 37
38
Mayor Marty read a list of civic groups to be included. 39
40
Mayor Marty suggested a letter from Kraus Anderson and Paster Enterprises and maybe some of 41
the businesses in town in support of the grant. 42
43
Council Member Flaherty suggested Medtronic. 44
45
Mounds View City Council January 22, 2007
Regular Meeting Page 11
MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Stigney. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 7012 1
Supporting the County Road 10 Trailway Project: Segments 1-5 and Consequent Department of 2
Natural Resources Grant Application. 3
4
Council Member Mueller said that she thought that Council had discussed a grant that was 5
available. 6
7
Public Works Director Lee indicated that the City did obtain a federal grant and this would be 8
additional funds on behalf of the trail system. 9
10
Mayor Marty suggested checking with Congressman Oberstar’s office or Commissioner Bennett 11
to see if there is any other funding the City could tie into for this project. 12
13
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 14
15
8. CONSENT AGENDA 16
17
A. Licenses for Approval 18
B. Resolution 7005 Approving a Therapeutic Massage Business License for 19
Audrey Olsen, who will be administering Therapeutic Massage at Silverview 20
Chiropractic Center 21
C. Resolution 7006 Approving a One-Day Charitable Gambling Permit for 22
Community Partners with Youth to Conduct a Raffle on October 25, 2007, at 23
The Mermaid Entertainment and Event Center at 2200 Highway 10 24
D. Resolution 7007, Approving a One-Day Charitable Gambling Permit for the 25
New Brighton/Mounds View Rotary Club to Conduct a Raffle on April 20, 26
2007, at The Mermaid Entertainment and Event Center at 2200 Highway 10 27
E. Resolution 7009 Approving a One-Day Charitable Gambling Permit for the 28
Pinewood Elementary School to Conduct a Raffle on March 4, 2007, at the 29
Pinewood Elementary School located at 5500 Quincy Street 30
F. Resolution 7010 Approving a One-Day Charitable Gambling Permit for the 31
Twin Cities North Chamber to Conduct a Raffle on February 10, 2007, at 32
The Mermaid Entertainment and Event Center at 2200 Highway 10 33
G. Resolution 7011 Approving a One-Day Charitable Gambling Permit for the 34
Great Lakes Shipwreck Preservation Society to Conduct a Raffle on 35
February 17, 2007, at The Mermaid Entertainment and Event Center at 2200 36
Highway 10 37
H. Resolution 7008 Approving the City’s Pay Equity Report 38
39
40
Council Member Flaherty requested that Item B be removed for discussion. 41
42
MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Hull. To Approve Consent Agenda Items A, C, D, E, F, G, and 43
H, as Presented. 44
45
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 46
47
Mounds View City Council January 22, 2007
Regular Meeting Page 12
B. Resolution 7005, Approving a Therapeutic Massage business License to 1
Audrey Olsen, who will be Administering Therapeutic Massage at the 2
Silverview Chiropractic Center in Mounds View 3
4
Council Member Flaherty explained that Audrey Olson is a licensed massage therapist but Ms. 5
Murlowski is not and he wanted to make the clarification for residents. 6
7
MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Hull. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 7005, 8
Approving a therapeutic Massage Business License to Audrey Olsen, Who Will Be 9
Administering Therapeutic Massage at the Silverview Chiropractic Center. 10
11
Council Member Mueller asked whether the background check has come back or when it will 12
because that would set the license effective date. 13
14
Council Member Mueller asked if there are any other therapeutic massage licenses in the City. 15
16
Council Member Stigney asked if she has worked somewhere else for a year as required. 17
18
City Administrator Ulrich indicated that this is the only therapeutic massage license in the City 19
and the license will become effective upon receipt of the background information. He then said 20
that Ms. Olsen does have the required one year of experience. 21
22
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 23
24
9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 25
26
Council Member Mueller said she talked to Staff about her questions earlier today. She then said 27
that one thing she was concerned about was on Page 8, the payment to Brighton Veterinary 28
Hospital and she would like to have that explained a little bit for residents. 29
30
Finance Director Beer indicated that the amount is a monthly retainer for housing stray animals 31
picked up within the City. 32
33
City Administrator Ulrich indicated that this contract is a cost effective way to handle animal 34
control. 35
36
Council Member Mueller asked whether the expenditure to Harmon Auto Glass will be 37
reimbursed by vehicle insurance. 38
39
Finance Director Beer indicated that the City has a large deductible so it will not be reimbursed. 40
41
Mayor Marty reviewed the claims that have been paid and asked Staff to remove them from the 42
list. 43
44
MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Flaherty. To Approve the Just and Correct Claims as Presented. 45
46
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 47
Mounds View City Council January 22, 2007
Regular Meeting Page 13
1
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2
3
A. City Council Minutes January 2, 2007 Special Meeting 4
5
Mayor Marty Page 2, Line 31 add commas or slashes between City names; On Page 3, Line 23, 6
Park and Recreation add Commission; On Page 6, Line 12, correct spelling of second and 7
correct Mary to Marty. 8
9
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Approve the January 2, 2007 City Council meeting 10
minutes as amended. 11
12
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 13
14
11. REPORTS 15
16
A. Reports of Mayor and Council 17
18
Mayor Marty reported that he and Mr. Ulrich attended the Mayor and City Managers’ meeting in 19
Shoreview and met the new city manager for the City of Roseville and met the new Mayor for the 20
City of Arden Hills and they discussed the TCAAP site along with administrative offenses. 21
22
Mayor Marty indicated that he and Mr. Ulrich talked about the Communication Coordinator 23
position and then said that there are some Cable Committee Members who felt that the 24
Coordinator position held by Blackford was too all encompassing with Mounds View Matters, 25
press releases, cable programming and editing as well as the web page so they think that the City 26
should look into full time cablecasting position and not hiring an additional second part time 27
person. 28
29
Mayor Marty indicated that Staff has said that there will be someone in each department assigned 30
to the web page. He then said that he would like to have the new person, once hired, in charge of 31
cable casting along with Dave Olsen. 32
33
City Administrator Ulrich indicated that the deadline for applications for the Cable Coordinator 34
position is February 5, 2007 and only one application has been received to date. He then said 35
that this will be discussed at the work session. 36
37
Mayor Marty noted that there are still some trees down from a storm more than a year ago and 38
residents had asked if there is a timeframe to clean up the storm damage and there is not. He 39
then said that, after discussing it with Staff, he would like to discuss offering some type of 40
incentive to do the work. He then said that he would like to ask the contractor for a bulk rate on 41
what it would cost to have new driveways installed to provide a less costly way for those with 42
gravel driveways in the City to get a new driveway. 43
44
Council Member Flaherty reported that he has met with residents at Silverview Apartments and 45
they are pleased with the striping on County Road I and the Silver Lake Road Trail. But, one 46
thing is that they would like the City to look at speeding on County Road I and would like the 47
Mounds View City Council January 22, 2007
Regular Meeting Page 14
City to send a representative over to Silverview Apartments for an update on the trail in their 1
location. 2
3
Council Member Mueller reported that the North Metro Abate is having a fundraiser at Roberts 4
this coming weekend. 5
6
Mayor Marty said that he talked to the Mayor of New Brighton this last fall and he was told that 7
a week before the election they bring voting machines in to allow seniors to vote but Staff looked 8
into it and the only places that are qualified are nursing homes, assisted living or hospitals so the 9
City does not qualify. 10
11
B. Reports of Staff 12
13
City Administrator Ulrich indicated he had included a draft Agenda for the Council/Staff Retreat. 14
15
Council Member Stigney asked if the personality information could be completed prior to the 16
retreat by the new members to save time and money. 17
18
Mayor Marty noted that the Council/Staff retreat is an open meeting and residents are welcome to 19
attend if they so desire. 20
21
City Administrator Ulrich reported that the Red Cross will be sponsoring a program called “Get 22
Ready” to get residents ready for natural disasters and training for first aid and CPR. 23
24
City Administrator Ulrich reported that the Fire Department Operating Committee met last week 25
and the Fire Department is showing a $40,000 surplus for last year with the station completed at 26
this time ending up on budget. 27
28
City Administrator Ulrich commended Mr. Backman for receiving the “Outstanding Person” 29
award from Visit Minneapolis North for his work with them over the past five years. 30
31
1. Finance 32
33
Finance Director Beer explained that METRICOM put up towers and receivers in the City and 34
then disbanded but has now resurrected itself as Ricochet Communications in Denver and would 35
like to offer services in Mounds View with the only cost to the City being free rent on the tower 36
and they would offer reduced fees to the residents of Mounds View. He then said that he will 37
provide further information when it becomes available. 38
39
Mayor Marty said he had raised the issue of laptop computers before and he thinks that the 40
amount of paper could be greatly reduced if Council could view the packet on a laptop. 41
42
Staff will look into it with the option of high speed. 43
44
Finance Director Beer indicated that the City is working through the audit with the IRS on some 45
employee benefit issues and the IRS has suspended any further activities with regard to the audit 46
but the City will need to make changes to the Retirement Health Savings Plan in the future. 47
Mounds View City Council January 22, 2007
Regular Meeting Page 15
1
C. Reports of City Attorney 2
3
None. 4
5
12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, February 5, 2007, at 7 p.m. 6
Next Council Meeting: Monday, February 12, 2007 at 7 p.m. 7
8
13. ADJOURNMENT 9
10
The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. 11
12
Transcribed by: 13
14
Joan Lenzmeier, Recording Secretary 15
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 16
Item No. 11B4
Type of Business: Repots
Date: Feb. 12, 2007
City Administrator Review _______ City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Desaree Crane, Assistant to the City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Finalized Agenda for the April 14, 2006 Town Hall Meeting
The Mounds View 3rd Annual Town Hall Meeting is scheduled for Saturday, April 14, 2007. Attached is
the Town Hall Meeting Press Release along with the proposed Agenda. If everything looks fine, the
Staff will start the process of advertising on the Electronic Board, Cable TV, the Mounds View Website,
Mounds View Matters and the local newspapers.
Please review the Agenda and make any changes you feel necessary. The Town Hall Meeting will be
televised by CTV on April 14, 2007.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree Crane
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PRESS RELEASE
There will be a Town Hall Meeting held on Saturday, April 14, 2007 at 9am to 12noon in the Mounds View
Community Center. The Mounds View Community Center is located at 5394 Edgewood Drive in Mounds View.
All Mounds View residents are invited to this great event. There will be Mounds View Historical Displays, City
Vehicle Displays, and great City Department Exhibits. The City will also have seminars to discuss the Vision and
Goals of our City for 2007. There are even activities for the kids at the Mounds View Community Center Gym.
This is your chance to ask questions of Mounds View City Staff to include the Mayor and Mounds View
Councilmembers. Below is a schedule of events. We hope to see you there!
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
TOWN HALL MEETING AGENDA
SATURDAY, APRIL 14, 2007
9am – 12pm
9-930am Registration (Cookies and Coffee Served)
930am-1130am City Exhibits
• Mounds View Police Department
• SBM Fire Department
• Public Works (to include Park and Recreation)
• Community Development
• Finance
• YMCA
• Children Activities at the Mounds View Community Center Gym
10am-1200pm City Presentations
10am – 1030am Mayor’s “ State of the City” Address
1030am – 11am Vision, Mission and Goals for 2007
Speaker: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
11am – 1130am Award Presentations
1130am-12pm Final Thoughts and Questions
12pm Town Hall Meeting Adjourns