Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2007/06/25CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MOUNDS VIEW CITY HALL Monday, June 25, 2007 7:00 p.m. (Revised as of June 25, 2007 @9am) 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. 6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS A. Check Presentation to the Festival in the Park Committee. 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. 7:05 pm Public Hearing to Consider the First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 793, an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Code to Eliminate References to the Former Public Facilities Zoning District. B. 7:10 pm Public Hearing to Consider the Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 790, an Ordinance Amending Chapters 3 and 5 of the Mounds View City Charter. (ROLL CALL VOTE) C. 7:15 pm Public Hearing to Consider Resolution 7103, an Off Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor License Renewal for SuperAmerica located at 2640 County Road I in Mounds View. D. Continued Public Hearing Resolution 7092 to consider Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Vino and Stogies located at 2345 County Road H2. E. Second reading and adoption of Ordinance 791, and Ordinance adopting the Five Year Financial Plan. (ROLL CALL VOTE) F. Resolution 7100 Approving the Final Plat for the Subdivision of 8360 Long Lake Road. G. Resolution 7079 Approving the Purchase of a New Postage Machine. H. Resolution 7099 Step Increases for Don Burda, Full Time Temporary Building Inspector. I. Resolution 7102 Authorizing Use of Neighborhood Dispute Services J. Resolution 7105 Awarding a Construction Contract for the 2007 Seal Coat Project K. Resolution 7107 Abatement of a Nuisance Code Violation at 7626 Woodlawn Drive. L. Resolution 7108 Adopting the Global Release and Settlement Agreement, including Approval of Various Leases. M. Resolution 7033 Adopting the City Vision and Mission Statement, Goals Program, Values Statement and Rules of Conduct. 8. CONSENT AGENDA A. Licenses for Approval B. Resolution 7104 Approving Revision to Code Enforcement Standard Operating Guideline 05-08, Inspection of Vacant Buildings C. Resolution 7106 Amending the 2007 Cable Fund and Special Projects Fund budgets and authorizing transfer of funds 9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. May 29, 2007 City Council Meeting B. June 11, 2007 Executive Session Minutes 11. REPORTS A. Reports of Mayor and Council B. Reports of Staff (1) Fire Inspection Update (2) Cable TV Support C. Reports of City Attorney 12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, July 2, 2007 @7pm Next Council Meeting: Monday, July 9, 2007 @7pm CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MOUNDS VIEW CITY HALL Monday, June 25, 2007 7:00 p.m. (Revised as of June 25, 2007 @9am) 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. 6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS A. Check Presentation to the Festival in the Park Committee. 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. 7:05 pm Public Hearing to Consider the First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 793, an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Code to Eliminate References to the Former Public Facilities Zoning District. B. 7:10 pm Public Hearing to Consider the Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 790, an Ordinance Amending Chapters 3 and 5 of the Mounds View City Charter. (ROLL CALL VOTE) C. 7:15 pm Public Hearing to Consider Resolution 7103, an Off Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor License Renewal for SuperAmerica located at 2640 County Road I in Mounds View. D. Continued Public Hearing Resolution 7092 to consider Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Vino and Stogies located at 2345 County Road H2. E. Second reading and adoption of Ordinance 791, and Ordinance adopting the Five Year Financial Plan. (ROLL CALL VOTE) F. Resolution 7100 Approving the Final Plat for the Subdivision of 8360 Long Lake Road. G. Resolution 7079 Approving the Purchase of a New Postage Machine. H. Resolution 7099 Step Increases for Don Burda, Full Time Temporary Building Inspector. I. Resolution 7102 Authorizing Use of Neighborhood Dispute Services J. Resolution 7105 Awarding a Construction Contract for the 2007 Seal Coat Project K. Resolution 7107 Abatement of a Nuisance Code Violation at 7626 Woodlawn Drive. L. Resolution 7108 Adopting the Global Release and Settlement Agreement, including Approval of Various Leases. M. Resolution 7033 Adopting the City Vision and Mission Statement, Goals Program, Values Statement and Rules of Conduct. 8. CONSENT AGENDA A. Licenses for Approval B. Resolution 7104 Approving Revision to Code Enforcement Standard Operating Guideline 05-08, Inspection of Vacant Buildings C. Resolution 7106 Amending the 2007 Cable Fund and Special Projects Fund budgets and authorizing transfer of funds 9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS City Council Meeting June 25, 2007 Page 2 10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. May 29, 2007 City Council Meeting B. June 11, 2007 Executive Session Minutes 11. REPORTS A. Reports of Mayor and Council B. Reports of Staff (1) Fire Inspection Update (2) Cable TV Support C. Reports of City Attorney 12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, July 2, 2007 @7pm Next Council Meeting: Monday, July 9, 2007 @7pm Item No: 7A Meeting Date: June 25, 2007 Type of Business: PH & CB Administrator Review: _____ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing, First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 793, an Ordinance Amending the Mounds View Zoning Code Relating to the Former Public Facilities Zoning District Introduction: In October of 2003, in response to a recommendation from the City Attorney’s office, the City adopted Ordinance 720 which eliminated the Public Facilities (PF) zoning district from the City’s zoning map. All properties which had been zoned PF (including all City parks) were rezoned to be included in another appropriate district. In the case of City parks, the parcels were rezoned to be within the R-1, Single Family Residential district. An unintended consequence of the rezoning of the parks was that telecommunication towers and antenna, which had been a conditional use in the PF district, were no longer permitted. Background: In July of 2003, the City Attorney prepared an opinion to the City Council which recommended that the City re-evaluate the PF zoning district. The following is an excerpt from the 2003 attorney’s opinion: “In light of the recent MN Supreme Court decision in the case of In the Matter of Denial of Eller Media Company’s Applications for Outdoor Advertising Device Permits in the City of Mounds View, Minnesota and the reasoning set forth in that case, an issue that has been discussed by the City in the past regarding the City of Mounds View Zoning Code and the districts contained therein now appears to warrant additional review by the City of Mounds View. Specifically, the issue is the existence of a public facilities (PF) district in the zoning code that covers a range of uses from public parks through wastewater treatment facilities. The PF district distinction is based solely on ownership of a parcel of land, which has to be by the City of Mounds View, and does not deal with the type of land use actually being made of a given parcel of land. As the MN Supreme Court points out in its opinion, zoning deals with land uses and the City’s authority to regulate such land uses. In the case of the PF district designation in the City of Mounds View’s City Code, the designation exists solely for the purpose of convenience for categorizing land owned by the City and not because of the actual use being made or the intended use to be made of a parcel of land, which should actually be the establishing or guiding factor of a zoning district designation. Thus, consistent with the MN Supreme Court’s reasoning in the Eller case, it may be best to revise or entirely delete the PF district designation existing in the City’s Code (which only applies to City-owned parcels) and to revise such districts to guide the uses made of those parcels, e.g.: parks-residential; wastewater treatment plants-industrial; city offices-business/commercial/industrial; golf courses-business/industrial (golf courses are a permitted use in a business district as presently defined by the Mounds View City Code).” Towers in Parks Report June 25, 2007 Page 2 Based upon the attorney’s recommendation, the City Council asked the Planning Commission to comprehensively review the PF district and make a recommendation regarding the status of the district. The Planning Commission reviewed potential alternative zoning districts for each of the 17 affected properties and agreed upon a supported comprehensive rezoning of the PF properties in light of the attorney’s recommendation and directed staff to draft an ordinance, resolution and final map showing the proposed changes to forward on the City Council. Based on the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the Council adopted Ordinance 720 on October 13, 2003. Discussion: It was recently determined that the Code governing the siting of telecommunications towers (Chapter 1124) is out of date in that it still references the PF district. The regulations originally contemplated allowing towers in City parks with a conditional use permit. However since all parks are now zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, towers and antenna are prohibited (except as allowed on churches, schools or public buildings, but even then no more than 10 feet above the height of the roof.) Staff brought this issue to the City Council on May 7, 2007. The City Council expressed a desire that the Code should be corrected relating to the PF district and telecommunications towers, in that, if towers were conditionally allowed in parks before 2003, the Code should be amended to clarify that they are still conditionally permitted in parks today. In addition, the Council requested that any other remnant inconsistency resulting for the 2003 comprehensive rezoning of PF districts be identified and resolved. The Planning Commission’s reviewed a draft ordinance which eliminated the remnant references to the PF Zoning District and clarified that telecommunication towers and antennae would be permitted in City parks with a conditional use permit. The Planning Commission approved Resolution 866-07 on June 6, 2007 which recommends approval of the attached Ordinance 793. Recommendation: Based on the Planning Commission’s action, staff recommends opening the public hearing, introducing Ordinance 793 and approving its first reading. If approved, the second reading would be scheduled for July 9, 2007. Respectfully submitted, ________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Present Request to City Council Does he City Counc Support such request? Send Letter to Provider Declining their Offer / Request Telecommunications Tower / Antenna Review and Approval Flowchart Application Received for a Telecommunications Tower or Antenna on City Owned Property NO Direct Applicant to Apply for a CUP Park & Rec Commission Reviews Application Planning Commission Holds Public Hearing, Reviews Application Park & Rec Forwards Recommendation to City Council Planning Commission Forwards Recommendation to City Council City Council Holds Public Hearing on CUP Did the City Council Approve the CUP? Finalize Lease Agreement, Record CUP Resolution Building Permit Application, Plan Review Construction Begins YES NO YES Prepared by: Jim Ericson Date: June 25, 2007 CHAPTER 1124 WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES SECTION: 1124.01: Purpose 1124.02: Definitions 1124.03: Allowance for Towers and Antennae by Zoning District 1124.04: Co-Location Requirements 1124.05: Siting and Design Requirements 1124.06: Procedural Requirements 1124.07: Nonconforming Wireless Telecommunication Antennae and Towers 1124.01: PURPOSE: The zoning regulation of wireless telecommunications facilities is intended to provide for the appropriate location, development and installation of telecommunications towers and antennae within the City of Mounds View (“City”). The provisions of this Code are intended to protect the health, safety and aesthetic concerns of the community by minimizing the adverse visual effects of towers and antennae through careful design, siting and screening; by avoiding potential damage from tower failure to adjacent properties through structural standards and setback requirements; and by maximizing the use of existing towers, structures or buildings to accommodate new telecommunications antennae in the City. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) 1124.02: DEFINITIONS: The following words and terms, for purposes of this Chapter, shall be defined as follows: Subd.1. ACCESSORY EQUIPMENT STRUCTURE: A building or cabinet-like structure located adjacent to, or in the immediate vicinity of, a wireless telecommunication tower or antenna to house equipment customarily incidental to the receiving or transmitting of wireless broadcasts, cellular telephone calls, voice messaging and paging services. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) Subd.2. ANTENNAE: Equipment used for transmitting or receiving radio frequency signals which is attached to a tower, building or other structure, usually consisting of a series of directional panels, microwave or satellite dishes, or omnidirectional "whip" antennae. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) Subd. 3. ANTENNAE STEALTH: Wireless telecommunication antenna designed to blend into the surrounding environment or integrated into the physical structure to which it is attached. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) Subd. 4. BASE TRANSCEIVER STATION: Equipment that provides the link between wireless communications and land-based public telephone switching networks, including radio frequency transceivers, back-up power sources, power amplifiers, and signal processing hardware, typically contained in a small building or cabinet. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) 1124.02 1124.03 (Rev. 2/97) Subd. 5. CO-LOCATION: The location of wireless telecommunications equipment from more than one (1) provider on one (1) common tower, building or structure. (Ord. 588, 2- 10-97) Subd. 6. TOWER: Any ground-mounted, pole, spire, structure or combination thereof, including supporting lines, cables, wires, braces and masts, to which a telecommunications antenna is attached or affixed. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) Subd. 7. TOWER, LATTICE: Three (3)- or four (4)-legged steel girdered structures typically supporting multiple communications users and services generally ranging from sixty feet (60') to two hundred feet (200') in height. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) Subd. 8. TOWER, MONOPOLE: Single pole design, approximately three feet (3') in diameter at the base narrowing to approximately one and a half feet (1½') at the top, generally ranging from twenty five (25) to one hundred twenty five feet (125') in height. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) Subd. 9. UTILITY POLE: Pole used to support essential services such as power, telephone, or cable TV lines; or used to support street or pedestrian way lighting, typically located in public rights-of-way or boulevards. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) Subd. 10. WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES: Licensed or unlicensed wireless telecommunication services including cellular, digital cellular, personal communication services (PCS), specialized mobile radio (SMR), enhanced specialized mobile radio (ESMR), commercial or private paging services, or similar services marketed or provided to the general public. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) 1124.03: ALLOWANCE FOR TOWERS AND ANTENNAE BY ZONING DISTRICT: Subd. 1. Permitted Uses, All Districts: Wireless telecommunication towers and antennae shall be allowed in any district as a permitted use only as provided below: (Ord. 588, 2-10- 97) a. Water Tower: Wireless telecommunication antennae shall be permitted upon City- owned water towers provided the applicant has an approved lease agreement with the City and has obtained a building permit from the City and paid all applicable permit fees. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) b. Co-location on Existing Towers: Wireless telecommunication antennae shall be permitted to be attached to existing towers within the City in accordance with the applicable siting guidelines and design criteria in Section 1124.04, after the applicant has provided to the City a written statement of approval from the tower owner or lessor and has obtained a building permit from the City and paid all applicable permit fees. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) 1124.03 1124.04 (Rev. 2/97) c. Utility Poles: Wireless telecommunication antennae shall be permitted to be attached to utility poles after the applicant has provided a written statement of approval from the utility pole owner or lessor and has obtained a building permit from the City and paid the necessary fees. The height of the antennae shall not exceed ten feet (10') and shall not extend more than six feet (6') above the pole. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) Subd. 2. Conditional Uses, Specific Districts: Wireless telecommunication towers and antennae shall be allowed with the approval of a conditional use permit in the zoning districts specified in the table below and in accordance with the co-location requirements stated in Section 1124.04, siting requirements and design criteria stated in Section 1124.05, and the procedural requirements stated in Section 1124.06. The procedure for review and action on conditional use permits shall be as stated in Section 1125.01. Conditional use permits are not required for towers and/or antennae used by the City for City purposes or public agencies for public safety purposes; or for repair, adjustment or replacement of the elements of a wireless telecommunication antenna array affixed to a tower, if the repair, replacement or adjustment does not reduce acceptable safety standards. The height limitations listed in the following table shall include all parts of the wireless telecommunication tower and antenna structure except for that space needed for lightening diffusion apparata. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) Zoning Districts Height Limitations With Co-location R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-O (antennae only) 10 feet above the height of the roof, allowed only if mounted on educational facilities, religious institutions, government or public utility buildings; or in “upward thrusting architectural elements” such as church steeples, bell towers or smokestacks1 N/A B-1, B-2 75 Feet 95 Feet 2 B-3, B-4, PUD (Commercial PUDs only.) 3 100 Feet 120 Feet 2 I-1, PUD (Industrial PUDs only.) 3 150 Feet N/A CRP and PF 100 feet, allowed only if incorporated into new or existing facilities or structures, such as using the tower as a light standard for ball fields or parking areas, or into mature tree stands that provide a suitable screen for at least half the height of the tower. 120 Feet 2 1 In accordance with section 1124.05, subdivision 7 of this Code. 2 Co-location height bonus subject to applicant providing to the City proof of a signed lease arrangement, shared use agreement, or other like document. 3 For towers and antennae proposed in PUDs, the applicant shall file a request to amend the existing PUD final plan and/or adopted conditional use permit in accordance with Chapter 1120 and Section 1125.01 of this Code. Wireless telecommunication towers and antennae shall not be allowed in PUDs having residential uses. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) 1124.04 1124.04 (Rev. 2/97) 1124.04: CO-LOCATION REQUIREMENTS: Subd. 1. A proposal for a new wireless telecommunication tower shall not be approved unless the applicant documents to the satisfaction of the City that the antennae planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or commercial or industrial building within a one-half (½) mile radius, transcending municipal borders, due to one or more of the following: (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) a. The antenna would exceed the structural capacity of the existing or approved tower or commercial building. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) b. The antenna would cause interference with other existing or planned equipment at the tower or building. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) c. Existing or approved towers and commercial buildings cannot reasonably accommodate the antenna at a height necessary for the proposed antenna to function. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) d. Existing or approved towers and commercial buildings are outside of the documented search area. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) e. The owners or lessors of existing or approved towers and commercial buildings are unwilling to allow co-location upon their facilities or are unavailable to grant such an allowance. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) f. Approval cannot be obtained for co-locating upon an existing tower or antenna site which is within the documented search area but outside Mounds View municipal boundaries. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) Subd. 2. It is the City's intent to encourage co-locating providers to share accessory equipment building space whenever possible and practical so as to minimize the number of necessary accessory buildings and their impact upon the surrounding community. An applicant co-locating on another provider's tower shall incorporate its base transceiver station and all other equipment into an existing accessory equipment building or suitable principal structure, except as otherwise provided in this subdivision 2. If this requirement cannot be met due to insufficient space within the existing accessory building, security issues, competition or compatibility concerns, or for other reasons, one of the following options, ranked in preferential order, shall be utilized: (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) a. The existing accessory building shall be expanded to a size sufficient to house the co-locator's equipment. Such building expansion shall match the design and features of the existing accessory equipment building. The applicant shall obtain a building permit from the City prior to construction. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) b. A cement pad shall be constructed alongside and adjacent to the existing accessory equipment building upon which the co-locator's equipment shall be attached. The applicant shall obtain a building permit from the City prior to construction. (Ord. 588, 2- 10-97) 1124.04 1124.05 (Rev. 2/97) c. A separate building shall be constructed that conforms to all the requirements set forth in Section 1124.05 of this Code. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) 1124.05: SITING AND DESIGN REQUIREMENTS: The requirements of this section apply to all wireless telecommunications towers and antennae erected, constructed, placed, or replaced in the City. All wireless telecommunication towers and antennae shall be designed and situated to be visually unobtrusive to minimize the impact upon the neighboring uses and shall conform to the following design and siting criteria: (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) Subd. 1. Setbacks: The minimum setback from any property line or public right-of-way for a wireless telecommunications tower is thirty feet (30') unless abutting a residential district, then at least half the height of the tower. Where placed on a lot improved with a principal building, the wireless telecommunication tower shall be located only in the rear yard or interior side yards not abutting streets. Wireless telecommunication towers shall not be placed between the principal building and any street abutting the property. Setbacks for accessory equipment structures associated with wireless telecommunication towers and antennae shall meet the requirements as outlined in Section 1104.01, subdivision 4 of the Zoning Code. (Ord. 588, 2- 10-97) Subd. 2. Accessory Equipment Structures: The base transceiver station and all other related equipment shall be housed in an existing building whenever possible. If an existing building is unavailable, a new accessory equipment building may be constructed according to Minnesota State Building Code requirements and shall be of the same or better construction, design and appearance as any principal structure or adjacent buildings. If the equipment is to be housed in a weather-proof cabinet-like structure in lieu of a building, it shall be mounted upon a suitable concrete pad. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) Subd. 3. Fencing: The wireless telecommunication antenna tower and/or accessory equipment structure shall be surrounded with an eight foot (8') fence so as to prevent unauthorized entry and access to the equipment building or tower. Barbed wire, razor wire or electrified fences shall not be permitted. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) Subd. 4. Landscaping and Screening: The wireless telecommunication tower and/or accessory equipment building shall be landscaped and screened with a mixture of six-foot (6') tall evergreens and one and one-half inch (1½") caliper ornamental deciduous trees at a ratio of four (4) evergreens per every one (1) deciduous tree, spaced no less than eight (8) feet apart on center so as to achieve at least a fifty percent (50%) opaque screen. Trees may be clustered to create a more natural appearance to the screening. In addition to these landscape requirements, wireless telecommunication towers and/or accessory equipment buildings located in the PF and CRP zoning districts shall include a mix of shrubbery and/or flowering perennials in order to enhance and complement the natural features and environmental value of the City's parks and recreation areas. The landscaping plan shall be reviewed by the City Forester and approved by the City Council as part of a conditional use permit (CUP) or by the Director of Community Development, if the wireless telecommunication tower or antennae is allowed as a permitted use. The City Council or Director of Community Development, as applicable, may waive the landscaping and/or screening requirements upon request of the applicant if the existing landscaping and screening is deemed sufficient. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) 1124.05 1124.05 (Rev. 2/97) Subd. 5. Color: The wireless telecommunication tower and antenna shall be of a neutral color such as light grey or sky blue except as dictated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and be designed to minimize visibility and to blend into the surrounding environment. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) Subd. 6. Construction Type and Materials: The wireless telecommunication tower shall be of a monopole construction unless a variance is granted by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Guy-wired towers shall not be permitted. Metal towers shall be constructed of, or treated with, corrosive resistant materials. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) Subd. 7. Roof-Mounted Wireless Telecommunication Antennae: Roof-mounted wireless telecommunication antennae shall not be permitted on buildings with pitched-roofs, unless they are stealth antennae incorporated into upward thrusting architectural elements, such as a church steeple, spire or bell-tower, smokestack, etc. On flat roofs, the height of the antennae and mounting hardware may not more than ten feet (10') above the highest point of the roof to which the antennae is attached. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) Subd. 8. Structurally-Mounted Wireless Telecommunications Antennae: Telecommunication antennae mounted upon sides of buildings shall be attached flush against building side, not to protrude more than the depth of the antennae. Structurally mounted antennae not affixed to towers shall be made to blend into the design and contours of the structure, unless roof-mounted in accordance with Section 1124.05, subdivision 7 of this Code. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) Subd. 9. Prevention of Radiation: Wireless telecommunication antennae shall be subject to state and federal regulations regarding non-ionizing radiation and other health hazards related to such facilities. If the federal government adopts new, more restrictive standards, the antennae shall be made to comply or the antenna shall be removed by the owner or the City at the tower owner's expense. The owner or operator of the tower shall pay any associated costs of compliance verification. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) Subd. 10. Lights: No wireless telecommunication tower or antenna shall have affixed or attached to it in any way except during time of repair or installation, any lights, reflectors, flashers, day-time strobes or steady night time light or other illumination devices, except as required by the Federal Aviation Agency, the Federal Communications Commission or the City. This restriction against lights shall not apply to towers which have been combined with light standards for illumination of ball fields, parking lots, playgrounds, or other similar public uses, as provided in Section 1124.03, subdivision 2 for the PF and CRP districts. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) Subd. 11. Signs and Advertising: The use of any portion of a tower for signs or advertising, other than required warning signs, shall be prohibited. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) Subd. 12. Other Attachments: No antennae or tower shall have constructed thereon, or attached thereto, any platform, catwalk, crows' nest, or like structure for the purpose of human support, except during periods of construction or repair. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) 1124.05 1124.06 Rev. 2/97) Subd. 13. Interference with Public Safety Telecommunications: No new or existing telecommunications service shall interfere with public safety telecommunications. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) 1124.06: PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS: Subd. 1. Conditional Use Permit Requirements: Applicants proposing to erect wireless telecommunication towers and/or antennae that require a conditional use permit (CUP) as outlined in Section 1124.03, subdivision 2, shall provide at the time of application the following information: (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) a. A notarized document from the property owner or lessor that allows the applicant to apply for a CUP and building permit to erect a wireless telecommunication tower and/or antenna. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) b. Demonstration of need, in accordance with Section 1124.06, subdivision 3 of this Code. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) c. A site plan which shows property lines, location of wireless telecommunication tower or antennae, setback distances, any accessory equipment structure, fencing and landscaping proposed. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) d. Sufficient information to show that construction, installation and maintenance of the wireless telecommunication tower and/or antenna will not create a safety hazard or damage to the property of other persons. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) e. Proof of insurance, in accordance with Section 1124.06, subdivision 4 of this Code. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) f. Any other information necessary for the City to evaluate the CUP. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) Subd. 2. Building Permits: Applicants proposing to erect wireless telecommunication towers and/or antennae shall obtain a building permit. The towers and antennae are subject to inspection by the City building official to determine compliance with Minnesota State Building Code construction standards. No building permit shall be issued by the City without prior approval of a CUP by the City Council if applicable. When no CUP is required, the applicant shall provide to the City all information as required by Section 1124.06, subdivision 1 of this Code at the time of application for building permits, in addition to that required by Section 1124.06, subdivision 2a below. Building permits shall not be required for the repair, replacement, adjustment and/or alteration of the elements of antenna arrays if such work does not reduce acceptable safety standards. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) 1124.06 1124.06 Rev. 2/97) a. A report and plan from a qualified and registered engineer or firm that specifies and includes the following: (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) (1) The tower height and design including a cross section and elevation. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) (2) The height above grade for all potential mounting positions for co- located antennae and the minimum separation distances between antennae. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) (3) The capacity of the tower, including the number and type of antennae that the tower can accommodate. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) (4) The steps that the applicant will take to avoid interference with established public safety telecommunications. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) (5) An engineer's stamp and registration number. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) Subd. 3. Demonstration of Need: The applicant shall provide a diagram showing the cell site configuration illustrating the coverage area of the proposed wireless telecommunication tower and/or antennae. This diagram shall demonstrate the frequency re-use and spacing needs of the wireless system in order to provide adequate coverage and capacity to areas that cannot be adequately served by locating the antenna on an existing structure. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) Subd. 4. Proof of Insurance: The applicant shall provide the City with proof of liability insurance which protects against losses due to personal injury or property damage resulting from the construction or collapse of the tower, antennae or accessory equipment. Such proof shall be supplied to the City by the wireless telecommunication tower owner or lessee at the time of application and shall be made available to the City from time to time upon its request. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) Subd. 5. Removal of Abandoned or Damaged Towers: Any wireless telecommunication tower and/or antennae that is not used for one (1) year shall be deemed abandoned and the property owner shall remove the tower and/or antennae in the same manner and pursuant to the same procedures as for dangerous or unsafe structures established by Minnesota Statutes, sections 463.15 through 463.26. If the owner fails to remove the tower and/or antenna after one (1) year, it may be removed by the City with the costs of such removal assessed against the property owner of the tower site. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) Subd. 6. Violations: Deviations from the approved construction plans and CUP is a misdemeanor, punishable as provided in Section 104.01 of this Code. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) 1124.07 1124.07 (Rev. 2/97) 1124.07: NONCONFORMING WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION ANTENNAE AND TOWERS: Wireless telecommunication antennae and towers in existence as of the date of enactment of this Chapter that do not meet or comply with the provisions of this Chapter are subject to the following: (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) Subd. 1. Existing towers may continue in use for their existing purpose but may not be replaced or structurally altered to an extent exceeding ten percent (10%) of the tower's fair market value, as determined by the City, without meeting all standards in this Chapter. In no event shall any alteration have the effect of increasing or intensifying the level or extent of a tower's nonconformity. Alterations shall be subject to Section 1124.06, subdivision 2 of this Code. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) Subd. 2. If such tower is damaged or destroyed to the extent of fifty percent (50%) or more of its fair market value, as determined by the City, due to any reason or cause whatsoever, the owner of the tower may choose to rebuild or remove the tower. In either case, the tower owner shall have one (1) year in which to obtain a building permit from the City and to complete the necessary work. If the owner chooses to rebuild the tower, the tower as reconstructed shall conform to all current and applicable regulations as specified by this Code. If a tower is damaged to an extent of less than fifty percent (50%) of its fair market value, the tower owner shall have one (1) year in which to obtain a building permit from the City and to repair or restore the tower to its former size, height and use. The location and physical dimensions shall remain as they were prior to the damage or destruction. If the tower is not repaired or restored within one (1) year from the date of the damage, the ability to repair or restore the tower shall lapse and may not be exercised, upon which time the tower shall be deemed abandoned. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) Subd. 3. Removal of Abandoned or Damaged Towers: Any tower and/or antenna that is not used for one (1) year shall be deemed abandoned and the property owner shall remove the tower and/or antennae in the same manner and pursuant to the same procedures as for dangerous or unsafe structures established by Minnesota Statutes, sections 463.15 through 463.26. If the owner fails to remove the tower and/or antenna after one (1) year, it may be removed by the City with the costs of such removal assessed against the owner of the tower site. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 866-07 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 1100, CHAPTERS 1105, 1121 AND 1124 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE BY CORRECTING LANGUAGE PERTAINING TO THE FORMER PF ZONING DISTRICT WHEREAS, in October of 2003, the City Council adopted Ordinance 720, an ordinance amending the Mounds View Zoning Code to eliminate the PF (Public Facilities) Zoning District; and, WHEREAS, subsequent to the adoption of Ordinance 720, the City has become aware of additional “housekeeping” changes necessary to correct for remnant PF references in the Zoning Code and an inconsistency relating to telecommunication facilities on City-owned parklands; and, WHEREAS, City staff, working in consultation with the City Attorney, has prepared an ordinance (attached as Exhibit A) to eliminate the remaining references to the PF zoning district and correct the inconsistency relating to telecommunications facilities on City-owned parklands; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission concurs that these amendments to the Zoning Code are warranted and justified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of an amendment to Title 1100, Chapters 1105, 1121 and 1124 of the Mounds View Zoning Code as evidenced in Exhibit A. 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 6th day of June, 2007. __________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: __________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director (SEAL) ORDINANCE NO. 793 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 1100, CHAPTERS 1105, 1121 and 1124 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CODE BY CORRECTING LANGUAGE PERTAINING TO THE FORMER PF ZONING DISTRICT THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Mounds View hereby amends Title 1100, Chapter 1105 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to “Zoning Districts and Maps” by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined text as follows: 1105.01: DISTRICTS ESTABLISHED: Subd. 1. Establishment of Districts: The following zoning classifications are hereby established within the City: d. Special Districts: CRP, Conservancy, Recreation and Preservation District PF, Public Facilities District PS, Pawn Shop Overlay District PUD, Planned Unit Development District (1988 Code §40.09) SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Mounds View hereby amends Title 1100, Chapter 1121 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to “Off Street Parking Requirements” by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined text as follows: 1121.09: STALL, AISLE AND DRIVEWAY DESIGN: Subd. 5. Curb Cuts and Driveway Openings: a. Parking Space Size: Each parking space shall not be less than nine feet (9') wide and eighteen feet (18') in length exclusive of access aisles, and each space shall be served adequately by access aisles. Spaces designed as curbside parallel parking shall be twenty-two feet (22') in length. b. Curb Cut Widths. Widths of curb cuts shall be as follows, subject to requirements of Subdivision 5e hereof: Ordinance 793 Page 2 Type of Land Use Maximum Width of Curb Cut Public Parks & Preservation Areas (PF R-1, CRP) 32 Feet SECTION 3. The City Council of the City of Mounds View hereby amends Title 1100, Chapter 1124 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to “Wireless Telecommunication Facilities” by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined text as follows: 1124.03: ALLOWANCE FOR TOWERS AND ANTENNAE BY ZONING DISTRICT: Subd. 2. Conditional Uses, Specific Districts: Wireless telecommunication towers and antennae shall be allowed with the approval of a conditional use permit in the zoning districts specified in the table below and in accordance with the co-location requirements stated in Section 1124.04, siting requirements and design criteria stated in Section 1124.05, and the procedural requirements stated in Section 1124.06. The procedure for review and action on conditional use permits shall be as stated in Section 1125.01. Conditional use permits are not required for towers and/or antennae used by the City for City purposes or public agencies for public safety purposes; or for repair, adjustment or replacement of the elements of a wireless telecommunication antenna array affixed to a tower, if the repair, replacement or adjustment does not reduce acceptable safety standards. The height limitations listed in the following table shall include all parts of the wireless telecommunication tower and antenna structure except for that space needed for lightening diffusion apparata. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) Zoning Districts Height Limitations With Co-location CRP and PF City-owned parkland zoned R-1 100 feet, allowed only if incorporated into new or existing facilities or structures, such as using the tower as a light standard for ball fields or parking areas, or into mature tree stands that provide a suitable screen for at least half the height of the tower. 120 Feet 2 2 Co-location height bonus subject to applicant providing to the City proof of a signed lease arrangement, shared use agreement, or other like document. 1124.05: SITING AND DESIGN REQUIREMENTS: The requirements of this section apply to all wireless telecommunications towers and antennae erected, constructed, placed, or replaced in the City. All wireless telecommunication towers and antennae shall be designed and situated to be visually unobtrusive to minimize the impact upon the neighboring uses and shall conform to the following design and siting criteria: (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) Ordinance 793 Page 3 Subd. 4. Landscaping and Screening: The wireless telecommunication tower and/or accessory equipment building shall be landscaped and screened with a mixture of six- foot (6') tall evergreens and one and one-half inch (1½") caliper ornamental deciduous trees at a ratio of four (4) evergreens per every one (1) deciduous tree, spaced no less than eight (8) feet apart on center so as to achieve at least a fifty percent (50%) opaque screen. Trees may be clustered to create a more natural appearance to the screening. In addition to these landscape requirements, wireless telecommunication towers and/or accessory equipment buildings located on City-owned parkland or in the PF and CRP zoning districts shall include a mix of shrubbery and/or flowering perennials in order to enhance and complement the natural features and environmental value of the City's parks and recreation areas. The landscaping plan shall be reviewed by the City Forester and approved by the City Council as part of a conditional use permit (CUP) or by the Director of Community Development, if the wireless telecommunication tower or antennae is allowed as a permitted use. The City Council or Director of Community Development, as applicable, may waive the landscaping and/or screening requirements upon request of the applicant if the existing landscaping and screening is deemed sufficient. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) Subd. 10. Lights: No wireless telecommunication tower or antenna shall have affixed or attached to it in any way except during time of repair or installation, any lights, reflectors, flashers, day-time strobes or steady night time light or other illumination devices, except as required by the Federal Aviation Agency, the Federal Communications Commission or the City. This restriction against lights shall not apply to towers which have been combined with light standards for illumination of ball fields, parking lots, playgrounds, or other similar public uses, as provided in Section 1124.03, subdivision 2 for the PF and City owned parkland and CRP districts. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 days from and after its passage and publication, in accordance with Section 3.09 of the City Charter. Introduction and First Reading by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this ____ day of _______, 2007. Second Reading and Adoption by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this _____ day of _______, 2007. ________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (seal) Item No. 07B Meeting Date: June 25, 2007 Type of Business: WK WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator Desaree M. Crane Assistant to the City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Second Reading and Ordinance 790, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 3 and Chapter 5 of the Mounds View City Charter. Background: The City Council reviewed this item with the Charter Commission Chair Thomas at the May 7, 2007 Work Session and again for a first reading at the May 29, 2007, City Council Meeting. Revisions were made by the Charter Commission to Chapter 3 (Council Procedure) and Chapter 5 (Initiative, Referendum and Recall) to the City Charter. Both Chairman Jonathan Thomas and City Attorney Scott Riggs will be at this Council Meeting to provide comment. Discussion: The Mounds View Charter Commission is requesting the City Council consider adoption by Ordinance of the proposed Charter amendments that are attached. Attached is Charter Commission Resolution 2007-01, a mark-up version which outlines the changes in the chapters. City staff and the City Attorney have worked with the Charter Commission throughout the review process and are supportive of the proposed changes to help clarify and simplify the procedures found in these two chapters. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council open the public hearing for public comment and approve Ordinance 790, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 3 and Chapter 5 of the Mounds View City Charter, subject to final review by the City Attorney. ORDINANCE NO. 790 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF MOUNDS VIEW BY AMENDING CHAPTER 3 AND CHAPTER 5 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CHARTER The Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby ordain: SECTION I. The City Council of the City of Mounds View hereby amends Chapter 3 and Chapter 5 of the Mounds View City Charter by deleting the stricken material and adding the underlined material as follows: CHAPTER 3 COUNCIL PROCEDURE Section 3.05. Procedure on Ordinances. Every proposed ordinance shall be presented in writing and read in full before adoption, unless the reading is dispensed with by unanimous consent of the Council. No ordinance shall contain more than one subject. Such subject shall be clearly expressed in its title. The enacting clause shall be "The City of Mounds View ordains". No ordinance, except an emergency ordinance shall be adopted at the meeting at which it is introduced and at least fourteen (14) days shall elapse between its introduction and final adoption. Every ordinance must contain a specified effective date as noted in Section 3.09 of this Charter. Section 3.07. Signing, and Publication of Ordinances. Every ordinance adopted by the Council shall be signed by the Mayor, and attested to, filed and preserved by the Clerk-Administrator. Every ordinance shall be published at least once in the official newspaper as soon as practicable no earlier than eight (8) calendar days nor later than seventeen (17) calendar days from the date of passage, either in its complete form preceded by a summary of its contents or as a title and summary.1 The Ordinance or the Ordinance Title and Summary shall be published in a body type no smaller than brevier or eight (8) point type. A copy of any new ordinance may be obtained from the City at no cost. The entire text of the ordinance shall be posted on the City’s web site, if there is one, in a manner that can be identifiable by subject matter or ordinance number. A copy shall also be available in the community library, if there is one, or if not, in any other public location which the Council designates. In the case of lengthy ordinances, or ordinances that include charts or maps, if the Council determines that publication of the title and a summary of an ordinance would clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance, the Council may by a four-fifths (4/5th) vote of its members, direct that only the title of the ordinance and a summary be published, with notice that a printed copy of the ordinance is available for inspection during regular office hours at the office of the Clerk-Administrator. Prior to the 1 It is the intent of the Charter Commission that the Council will determine which is less costly. publication of the title and summary, the Council shall approve the text of the summary and determine that it clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance, and shall further state that the complete text of the ordinance is on file at the office of the Clerk-Administrator. The publishing of the title and summary shall be deemed to fulfill all legal publication requirements as completely as if the entire ordinance had been published. A copy of the publication shall be attached to and filed with the ordinance for reference. To the extent and in the manner prohibited provided by law an ordinance may incorporate by reference a statute of Minnesota, a state administrative rule or a regulation, a code or ordinance or part thereof without publishing the material referred to in full, so long as the complete reference to the item is included. (Amended, Ord. 700, 8- 26-2002) Section 3.09. When Ordinances and Resolutions Take Effect. Every resolution and emergency ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its adoption or at such later date as it specifies. Every other ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its publication or at such later date as it specifies unless challenged by a petition for referendum. In the event of a petition for referendum, the Council must suspend the effective date of the ordinance as specified in Section 5.07 of this Charter. CHAPTER 5 INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM AND RECALL Section 5.01. Powers Reserved by the People. General Voter Authority*. The people of Mounds View, reserve to themselves the powers have the right, in accordance with the provisions of this Charter, to initiate and adopt ordinances and resolutions, to require measures passed by the Council to be referred to the electorate for approval or disapproval, and to recall elected public officials. These powers shall be called the initiative, the referendum, and the recall, respectively to propose ordinances [initiative] and to require that any ordinance be referred to the voters [referendum], except those that appropriate money, levy taxes or deal with administrative issues (MN Statute 410.20, as amended). The voters also have the right to remove elected public officials [recall]. The term voter(s), as used in Chapter 5, shall refer only to residents of the City of Mounds View who first register, or who have registered and are qualified to vote. Per Minnesota Statute 200.039, as amended, eligibility to sign the petition is not restricted to only those who were eligible to or did cast ballots in the previous election. For clarity flow charts and time lines are attached as appendices at the end of this charter. In all cases, the Charter text shall take priority over the appendices should there appear to be a discrepancy. Section 5.02. General Provisions for Petitions. A petition provided for under this chapter shall be sponsored by a committee of five registered(5) to ten (10) members who are voters of the City and whose names and addresses shallmust appear on the petition as the Sponsoring Committee. A completed petition may consistconsists of one or more papers, but each pages gathered together as a single document. Each separately circulated paper page shall contain at its head, or attached thereto, the information specified in sections 5.05, 5.07 or 5.08 which apply, respectively, to initiative, referendum and recall. Each signer shall be a registered voter of the City and shall sign their name and give their street address.The Sponsoring Committee may obtain a sample petition from the Clerk-Administrator. The Clerk-Administrator shall provide the number of signatures for petition sufficiency which is based on the total number of ballots cast for President in the most recent Presidential election. All petition circulators must be voters of the City. Each separate page of the petition shallmust have appended to it include a certificate signed and dated by the circulator, verified by oath,. The certificate shall affirm that each signature appended thereto was made in theirthe circulator’s presence and that the circulator believes them the page to be contain the genuine signatures of the person voters whose names it they purports to be. The person making the certificate shall be a resident of the City and registered to vote. and that each signer was presented with the full petition. Each signer of a petition must be a voter of the City and must sign and print their name and give their street address. The completed petition shall be submitted to the Clerk-Administrator for review. Any personvoter whose name appears on a petition may withdraw their name by filing a statement in writing filed with the Clerk-Administrator before saidthe Clerk-Administrator advises the Council of the information related to the sufficiency of the petition. Section 5.03. Determination of Petition Sufficiency. The committee shall file the completed petition in the office of the Clerk-Administrator. The required number of signers shall be at least fifteen percent for initiative and referendum, and for recall, at least twenty-five percent of the total number of electors who cast their votes for president at the last presidential election. Immediately upon receipt of the petition, the Clerk-Administrator shall examine the petition as to its sufficiency and report to the Council within ten days. Upon receiving the report, the Council shall determine by resolution the sufficiency of the petition. For a petition to be sufficient, it must meet the requirements set forth in section 5.02 and contain at least the following: • Petitions for Initiative and Referendum require signatures of at least fifteen (15) percent of the total ballots cast for President in the most recent Presidential election. • Petitions for Recall require signatures of at least twenty five (25) percent of the total ballots cast for President in the most recent Presidential election. If all requirements have been met, the Clerk-Administrator shall report to the Council within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the completed petition. Thereafter, the Council shall immediately declare the sufficiency of the petition. Section 5.04. Disposition of Insufficient or Irregular Petition If the Council determines that the petition is insufficient or irregular, the Clerk-Administrator shall deliver a copy of the petition, together with a written statement of its defects, to the sponsoring committee. The committee shall have thirty days in which to file additional signature papers and/or to correct the petition in all other particulars, except that, in the case of a petition for recall, the committee may not change the statement of the grounds on which the recall is sought. Within five days of receipt of the corrected petition, the Clerk-Administrator shall again report to the Council. If the Council finds that the petition is still insufficient or irregular, the Clerk-Administrator shall file the petition and notify the sponsoring committee. The final finding that the petition is insufficient or irregular shall not prejudice the filing of a new petition for the same purpose, nor shall it prevent the Council from referring the subject matter of the petition to the voters at the next regular or special election. If the Clerk-Administrator determines that the petition does not meet the requirements for sufficiency, a copy of the petition, together with a written statement of its defects, shall be delivered to the Sponsoring Committee and to the Council within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the completed petition. As specified in this Charter, the Sponsoring Committee shall have twenty one (21) calendar days to file additional signature papers and/or to correct the specified irregularity. Within nine (9) calendar days of receipt of the corrected completed petition, the Clerk-Administrator shall determine whether the petition as corrected meets the requirements for sufficiency and shall proceed as directed in Section 5.03. If the petition is still insufficient or irregular, the Council shall direct the Clerk-Administrator to file the petition as noted and notify the Sponsoring Committee within ten (10) calendar days that no further action will be taken. The final finding that the petition is insufficient or irregular shall not prejudice the filing of a new petition for the same purpose unless otherwise specified within this Charter. Except in the case of a petition for recall, it shall not prevent the Council from referring the subject matter of the petition to the voters at the next regular or special election. Section 5.05. Ballot Measure Requirements. If a measure meets the requirements to be put on a ballot and is in compliance with Chapter 4 of this Charter, at or before its next regularly scheduled meeting, the Council shall pass a resolution placing the measure on a ballot. If it is within 120 calendar days of a primary or general election and all of the county election requirements can be met, the measure shall be placed on the ballot at the next regularly scheduled election. If a measure meets the requirements to be put on a ballot but cannot be placed on the ballot at a regularly scheduled election, at or before its next regularly scheduled meeting, the Council shall pass a resolution placing the measure on the ballot and calling for a special election to be held within 120 calendar days of said meeting. However, no special elections can be held between a regular primary election and a regular general election or 40 calendar days after a regular general election. If there is no regular primary election then no special election shall be held within 60 calendar days prior to a regular general election. Section 5.05.06. Initiative*. Any An ordinance may be proposed by a petition which shall state at the head of each page or attached thereto the exact text of the proposed ordinance. If the Council passes the proposed ordinance with amendments, and a majority of the sponsoring committee do not disapprove the amended form by a statement filed with the Clerk-Administrator within ten days of its passage by the Council, the ordinance need not be submitted to the voters. If the Council fails to enact the ordinance in a form acceptable to the majority of the sponsoring committee within sixty days after the final determination of sufficiency of the petition, the ordinance as originally proposed shall be placed on the ballot at the next election occurring in the City. If no election is to occur within 120 days after the filing of the petition, the Council shall call a special election on the ordinance to be held within such period.. The exact text of the proposed ordinance must be stated at the head of each page of the petition or attached thereto. Within sixty (60) calendar days after final determination of the petition’s sufficiency according to Section 5.03 and 5.04 of this Charter, the Council must either adopt an ordinance according to Subdivisions 1 or 2 or pass a resolution to place the measure on a ballot as provided in Subdivision 3. Any amendment to the proposed ordinance must proceed according to Subdivision 2 of this section. If an ordinance is adopted, it shall become effective thirty (30) calendar days after adoption unless the ordinance specifies a later effective date. If the vote for adoption fails, the ordinance must be placed on the ballot as provided in Section 5.05. If a ballot measure for a proposed ordinance fails the same measure is prohibited from being brought forward again as an initiative within six months of the election certification. Failure of a ballot measure for a proposed ordinance shall not prevent the Council from proposing a similar ordinance. Subdivision 1. If the Council elects to adopt the ordinance as provided by the petition without amendment, they shall proceed in accordance with Section 3.05 of this Charter. During this adoption process, the ordinance cannot be amended but, if adopted, is subject to the referendum process as defined in Section 5.07. Subdivision 2. If an amendment to the ordinance is proposed by a majority vote of the Council, it must be presented to the Sponsoring Committee prior to the first reading of the proposed ordinance. The Sponsoring Committee shall have fourteen (14) calendar days from the receipt of the amended proposed ordinance to disapprove the amendment by majority vote, and file a statement with the Clerk-Administrator. Upon receipt of a statement of disapproval from the Sponsoring Committee, the Council must either adopt the proposed ordinance, according to Subdivision 1 of this section, or place the ordinance, as presented by the Sponsoring Committee, on the ballot as provided in Section 5.05. If the Sponsoring Committee does not submit a statement of disapproval, the ordinance can proceed, as amended, according to Section 3.05 with no further amendments and, if adopted, is subject to the referendum process as defined in Section 5.07 of this Charter. If the vote for adoption fails, the ordinance, as amended, must be placed on the ballot as provided in Section 5.05. If an amended ordinance is approved at a first reading, the Council may choose to submit the ordinance, as amended, as a ballot measure. Subdivision 3. If the ordinance is required to be put on a ballot, or if the Council chooses to submit the ordinance as presented as a ballot measure, they shall proceed as provided for in Section 5.05 of this Charter. If a majority of those voting on the ordinance vote in its favor, it shall become effective thirty (30) days after adoptioncertification of the election results unless the ordinance specifies a later effective date. If the majority does not vote in favor, the ordinance shall not be enacted. (Amended, Ord. 650, 8-16-2000) Section 5.07. Referendum*. Prior to the date when an ordinance takes effect, it may be subjected to a referendum by a petition which shall state at the head of each page, or attached thereto, the exact text of the measure to be considered by the electorate voters. The Sponsoring Committee must file the completed petition in the office of the Clerk-Administrator at least ten (10) calendar days before the ordinance takes effect. If the petition is found to be sufficient under the provisions of Section 5.03 of this chapter, the said ordinance shall thereby be prevented from going into operation, and the subject matter of the petition shall be placed on the ballot at the next election occurring in the City. If no election is to occur within 120 days after the filing of the petition, the Council shall call a special election to be held within such period, providing the petition has been found to be sufficient. If a majority of the voters voting thereon favors the ordinance contained in the petition, it shall remain in effect. If a majority of the electors voting thereon votes against the ordinance contained in the petition, it shall be considered repealed upon certification of the election results the Council must immediately adopt a resolution suspending the effective date of the ordinance until it is decided by a vote of the public. The Council must also immediately pass a resolution to place the measure on a ballot as provided in Section 5.05 of this Charter. If a majority of the voters favors the ordinance contained in the petition, it shall take effect immediately unless the ordinance specifies a later date. If a majority votes against the ordinance contained in the petition, it shall be considered repealed upon certification of the election results. If the petition cannot meet the requirements of sufficiency under the provisions in Section 5.03 of this chapter, the Council must adopt a resolution suspending the effective date of the ordinance for thirty (30) calendar days and the Sponsoring Committee will have 21 calendar days in which to file additional signature papers and/or to correct the specified irregularity according to Section 5.04. If the final finding is that the petition is insufficient, the ordinance shall take effect on the date declared by the resolution of suspension. If the corrected petition is declared sufficient according to Section 5.03, the Council must pass a resolution suspending the effective date of the ordinance until it can be decided by a vote of the public and proceed as previously mentioned in this section. (Amended, Ord. 651, 8-16- 2000) Section 5.08. Recall. Consideration by the electorate of the recall of any elected officer of the City may be initiated by petition. The voters of the City may request a recall vote of any elected official of the City by petition. The petition shall state at the head of each page, or attached thereto, a certificate stating the name of the official officer whose removal is sought, the grounds for recall, constituting which shall be malfeasance, or misfeasance or nonfeasance in office, in not more than 250 words, and the intention of the sponsoring committeeSponsoring Committee to bring about the official's recall. Such The petition shall be filed in the Clerk-Administrator's office prior to circulation. and shall be valid for 180 days during which time a completed petition with signatures must be filed. If the petition or amended petition is found sufficient under the provisions of Section 5.03 of this chapter, the Clerk-Administrator shall transmit it to the Council without delay, and shall also officially notify the person sought to be recalled of the sufficiency of the petition and of the pending action. The Council shall at its next meeting, by resolution, provide for the holding of special recall election within ninety days after such meeting, except if any other election is to occur within ninety day period after such meeting, the Council may in its discretion provide for the holding of the recall vote at that time. The Clerk-Administrator shall include with the published notice of the election the statement of the grounds for the recall and, also in not more than 500 words, the answer of the officer concerned in justification of their course of office. The Clerk-Administrator shall notify the official sought to be recalled of the petition and proceed as provided in Section 5.03 and 5.04 of this Charter. If the Council is able to declare the petition sufficient, it shall immediately pass a resolution to place the measure on a ballot as provided for in Section 5.05 of this charter. Within 14 calendar days of the declaration of sufficiency, the elected official named by the petition may provide an answer for their own course of action in not more than 500 words. The Clerk-Administrator shall include with the published notice of the election, the statement of the grounds for the recall and the answer of the official concerned or a statement stating no answer was received. If a majority of those voting on the recall vote in its favor, it shall become effective immediately upon certification of the election results. If the majority does not vote in favor, the recall has failed and a petition for recall is prohibited from being repeated for that elected official for one year from the date of certification of the election. If a vacancy occurs due to recall election, Section 4.05 herein shall apply to fill said vacancy. Section 5.069. Initiative to Amend the Charter. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as in any way affecting the right of the electors voters to propose amendments to this charter which can be proposed in accordance with MN Statute 410.12, as amended. * Minnesota courts have limited the powers of initiative and referendum to ordinances which are legislative in character. General legislative acts lay down some permanent and uniform rule of law, administrative acts relate to daily administration of municipal affairs, and quasi judicial acts are the product of investigation, consideration and deliberate human judgment based upon evidentiary facts of some sort. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force 90 days from and after its passage and publication. INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 29th day of May, 2007. SECOND READING AND ADOPTION by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 25th day of June, 2007. _______________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (seal) Item No. 07C Type of Business: PH &CB Meeting Date: June 25, 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: Public Hearing to Consider Resolution 7103, Approving an Off-Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor License for SuperAmerica located at 2640 County Road I in Mounds View In accordance with Section 502.08 of the Mounds View City Code, a public hearing is required for all liquor license renewals. 502.08: LICENSE HEARING: No issuance of a new license, transfer of an existing license, renewal of an existing license, issuance of temporary special event or banquet licenses, or special outdoor consumption endorsements for the sale of intoxicating liquor on-sale or off-sale, club, Sunday sales or on-sale wine shall be hereafter granted by the Council until a public hearing has been conducted by the Council after published notice in the official newspaper at least ten (10) days in advance of the hearing. SuperAmerica decided to renew their 3.2 Off Sale Malt Liquor License (they were contemplating on not renewing their 3.2 Malt Liquor License) and Staff did not receive their application materials until Tuesday, June 5, 2007, and therefore was not able to present it to the City Council on June 11, 2007 along with the other liquor licenses. SuperAmerica has submitted the city liquor license application materials and the applicable fees, and Certificate of Liability Insurance. The notice of this public hearing was sent out to residences within a 350 feet radius, and the Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Mounds View/New Brighton Bulletin. The following investigations have been conducted to determine whether there is a cause for the City to deny SuperAmerica’s Off-Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor License: Police Inquiry and Investigations (Mounds View Police Department) This establishment did pass a compliance check this year and the Mounds View Police Department issued a satisfactory report. Utility Billing Inquiry (City of Mounds View) The Finance Department has issued a satisfactory report. Fire Inspection (City of Mounds View Fire Marshal) The Fire Marshal has issued a satisfactory report on the property. Recommendation Staff recommends opening the Public Hearing for Public Comment. Staff recommends approval of this business license. The time period for this license will be July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008. Respectfully Submitted, Desaree Crane RESOLUTION 7103 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA Resolution Approving an Off-Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor License for SuperAmerica located at 2640 County Road I WHEREAS, SuperAmerica’s 3.2 Malt Liquor License expires on June 30, 2007; and WHEREAS, all City of Mounds View business licenses must be approved by the City Council; and WHEREAS, SuperAmerica has submitted applications materials and paid all applicable fees; and WHEREAS, staff recommends approval of SuperAmerica’s Off-Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor License. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does hereby approve an Off-Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor License for SuperAmerica for the time period of July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008. Adopted this 25th day of June, 2007. ________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (seal) 1 Item No: 7D Meeting Date: June 25, 2007 Type of Business: Council Meeting City Administrator Review_____ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Police Chief Mike Sommer Item Title/Subject: Vino and Stogies Liquor License Date of Report: June 25, 2007 Background: At the June 11th Mounds View City Council meeting the application to renew the liquor license for Vino and Stogies was discussed. The Mounds View Police Chief provided a summary of criminal activity that occurred within the building in which Vino and Stogies is situated in. After hearing this the City Council moved consideration of this liquor license to the June 25th City Council meeting. Robert Waste Jr., the holder of the current liquor license for Vino and Stogies was present at the June 11th meeting and at that time he was advised the Council would take up consideration of renewal of the liquor license at a public hearing at the June 25th council meeting held at 7:00 PM. With respect to the liquor license renewal application the Council has several options to consider. State statutes offer a variety of regulations and alternatives including revocation, suspension, and fines. City code provides additional requirements and regulations. The responsibility of the liquor license holder is detailed in Section 502.11 of the Mounds View City Code: City Code § 502.11: CONDUCT OF BUSINESS; CONDITIONS OF LICENSE: Subd. 1. Responsibility of Licensee: Every licensee shall be responsible for the conduct of licensee's place of business and the conditions of sobriety and order in it. The act of any employee on the licensed premises authorized to sell and serve intoxicating liquors shall be deemed the act of the licensee as well, and the licensee shall be liable to all penalties provided by this Chapter equally with the employee. The licensed premises, as defined in the floor plan submitted in its application, for Vino and Stogies does not extend beyond the sales, shelving, and display areas of the liquor store. The floor plan shows three access points into the liquor store area. The floor plan does not allude to the presence of an adjacent residential unit or a basement. The criminal activity observed by the Mounds View Police Department, and summarized by the Police Chief at the Council’s June 11 meeting, occurred in the basement of the structure where Vino and Stogies is also located. Recommendation: The City Council can question the license holder as to what steps he may have taken to address the 2 activities observed by the Police within the structure he occupies and any steps the license holder may have taken to prevent these types of activities from occurring in the future. The City Council may want to question the license holder to clarify the ownership of the building and the business to determine whether the defendant in the relevant criminal action, Edward Waste, has an ownership interest of the building or business. These are relevant considerations for the City Council because, at the June 11, 2007, City Council meeting, Robert Waste indicated the building was owned by "the family.” The Council may: (1) renew the license currently issued to Robert Waste with no conditions, (2) renew the license with added conditions as determined by the City Council as appropriate to the situation (for example, access considerations), or (3) deny the application consistent with the City Code, State Statute, and case law. Based on the ownership of the building and business, along with the outcome of the relevant criminal matter, the City Council may have the requisite grounds to impose civil penalties, revoke, and/or suspend the license in the future. *Vino and Stogies is up to date on their utility bill and have passed their fire inspection. Resolution 7092 has been changed to reflect this update. 3 RESOLUTION 7092 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA Resolution Approving an Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Vino & Stogies WHEREAS, Vino & Stogies’ Intoxicating Liquor License expires June 30, 2007; and WHEREAS, all City of Mounds View business licenses must be approved by the City Council; and WHEREAS, all necessary investigations for the establishment have been conducted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does hereby approve an Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Vino & Stogies for the period of July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008. Adopted this 25th day of June, 2007. ________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (seal) ' Item No: 7F Meeting Date: June 25, 2007 Type of Business: Action Administrator Review: _______ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Approval of a Final Plat for the Major Subdivision of 8360 Long Lake Road; Planning Case MA2007-001 Introduction: Charlene Moschkau has submitted an application for a major subdivision of 8360 Long Lake Road. This parcel is towards the northern end of Long Lake Road, across from Ardan Park. The proposed 1.55 acre subdivision would create 3 lots from the existing one lot. Char Moschkau has been designated the personal representative of the deceased landowner and now controls the property. Even though 8360 Long Lake Road is less than two acres in size, this is a major subdivision due to the fact that more than one additional lot is being created Discussion: The area identified as 8360 Long Lake Road is currently zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. The proposed subdivision would be consistent with the existing zoning of the property. All of the lots shown on the preliminary plat satisfy the minimum requirements of 75 feet lot width and 11,000 square foot lot area. This proposal allows the existing home to remain and allows for the correct required setbacks, which means the three lots will slightly differ in size but all will far exceed the minimum lot size requirements. The new lot line between lots 2 and 3 will have a slight jog in it due to the requirement of lots being at least 75 feet wide and the house needing a 10 foot side setback. Even with the jog in the property line, Lot 3 will still have a 75 foot width at the front and back of the lot since the north property line slightly angles back towards the northwest after the jog. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates 8360 Long Lake Road and the surrounding area as single family detached housing. The proposed subdivision would be consistent with that designation and consistent with the residential goals and policies as articulated in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal would also be consistent with specific housing goals and policies articulated in the Comp Plan. Local Water Management Plan: Also known as the City’s Surface Water Management Plan, this planning document guides the City in regards to drainage and stormwater management. The project is located in the Judicial Ditch No. 1 minor watershed, AA-1 and AA-5 sub- watersheds. The boundary between these two sub-watersheds appears to run approximately through the middle of this lot. The minimum recommended building elevation for the AA-1 sub- watershed is set at 905.4 feet and AA-5 is 904.0 feet. Easements: The City’s Subdivision Code requires that plats dedicate perimeter drainage and utility easements for each lot in the subdivision. This plat does dedicate the necessary perimeter easements. There are two existing easements on this property that will remain: a 45 foot drainage and utility easement on the west side and a 10 foot easement for Northern States Power which overlaps the drainage easement. 8360 Long Lake Road Final Plat Staff Report - Page 2 Streets: The three new lots will have access onto Long Lake Road, which is a county owned road. This street is adequate to handle the small amount of added traffic that two additional homes would create. Any work to the boulevard would require a permit from the county, and any alterations to the existing sidewalk would require a permit from the city. Park Dedication Requirements: The Subdivision Code indicates that any subdivision of land is subject to a park dedication fee. The dedication imposed is intended to mitigate public costs to the parks system associated with land development. The fee shall be reasonable and based on the extent of the development. In this case, the fee should be equal to 10% of the market value of the land. To establish the market value, staff uses Ramsey County assessed values as the basis for dedication computation. Since there is already one existing house on the property, the park dedication fee will be based on 2/3 of the land value. The 2007 Ramsey County total land value is $159,600 (2/3 = $106,400). The dedication amount then would be $10,640. This amount must be paid prior to the City signing the final plat for recording. Utilities: All utilities on the site would need to be installed underground, per Section 1203.10. Water and sanitary sewer lines are also accessible. Due to the unique depth that the water and sewer pipes were installed in this area when Long Lake Road was reconstructed, the three future homeowners will more than likely need to enter into a shared utility agreement since there is only one utility connection coming across Long Lake Road for 8360. The utilities run on the east side of Long Lake Road and due to the high cost of adding additional connections crossing the road, it is assumed that the contractor would use the existing connection for all three homes. Public Works has indicated that the size of the pipes should be adequate to service three homes. There are similar agreements for a few other properties in this area. This issue will be dealt with upon construction of the new homes. Traffic: The amount of daily vehicle trips on the proposed road will be minimal since only two additional housing units are proposed. There is currently one house on the property. On average, single-family homes generate about 10 vehicle trips per day, thus one could expect an additional 20 movements along Long Lake Road or as a result of this subdivision. Vegetation: The 1.55 acre site is mostly tree covered. The City Forester visited the site last summer and determined that there are four or five large Red Oak trees near the current house that would be worth making an effort to save when new homes are built, along with some deadfall that should be cleared. Staff recommends that upon each lot’s completion (after the house has been constructed) the yard areas shall be sodded and a minimum of two trees shall be in the front yard – whether they are existing trees or new ones planted if the existing trees must be removed. The new tree species shall be from a list provided by the City Forester. Wetlands: The National Wetlands Inventory Map and the City’s official Wetland Zoning Map do not identify any wetlands within the property boundary. Public Input: Notices were mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the project area prior to the March 21st Planning Commission meeting and the public hearing held at the City Council meeting on April 9, 2007. No feedback has been received. Planning Commission Action: On March 21, 2007 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat for the subdivision of 8360 Long Lake Road, and the City Council voted unanimously on April 9, 2007 to approve the preliminary plat. 8360 Long Lake Road Final Plat Staff Report - Page 3 Recommendation: Review the staff report and discuss the final plat. The City Attorney has reviewed this subdivision proposal and found it to be acceptable, and thus Resolution 7100 approving the final plat for the subdivision of 8360 Long Lake Road has been drafted for action if the Council so chooses. Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Planning Application 2. Final Plat date stamped June 18, 2007 3. Zoning Map 4. Aerial View 5. Photographic Documentation 6. Planning Commission Resolution 862-07 7. Council Preliminary Plat Resolution 7058 8. Council Final Plat Resolution 7100 Zoning Map * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential Aerial View 75 ft 85 ft 90 ft Proposed 3 lots – approx. Long Lake Road Ardan Park & Compost Site Photographic Documentation View of existing house– house is placed approximately in the middle of the 250 foot wide lot MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 862-07 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 8360 LONG LAKE ROAD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. MA2007-001 WHEREAS, Charlene Moschkau has requested approval of a preliminary plat for the major subdivision of 8360 Long Lake Road, legally-described as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, Charles Hermann Addition WHEREAS, The above-described land is zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential and are designated as Single-Family Detached on the Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, Charlene Moschkau has submitted a Preliminary Plat for the major subdivision which creates 3 buildable lots; and, WHEREAS, the community development and public works staff have reviewed the preliminary plat and finds that it satisfies the minimum subdivision requirements as articulated in Titles 1100 and 1200 of the Mounds View Municipal Code and complies with county platting requirements; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 1204.04, Subd. 4, the subdivision is subject to a park dedication fee which would be equivalent to 10% of 2/3 of the assessed value of the land area, which been determined to be $10,640.00; and, WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is not within a designated wetland area; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Staff Report 2. Planning Application 3. Preliminary Plat 4. Zoning Map 5. Aerial View 6. Site Plan Resolution 862-07 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary Plat submitted by Charlene Moschkau subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall arrange to have an acceptable Title Commitment provided to the City Attorney for review prior to the final approval of the subdivision by the City Council. 2. The applicant shall pay a park dedication fee in the recommended amount of $10,640. 3. The applicant shall take all steps to save any trees possible during the construction and shall make arrangements to have a minimum of two trees in each front yard upon project completion and sod all yard areas. 4. The applicant shall obtain permits, if required, from Rice Creek Watershed District and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency before construction activity commences. 5. All utilities within the development area and to the individual home sites shall be located underground. 6. The applicant shall apply for Final Plat approval no later than 6 months after the date of approval of the preliminary plat, or the Preliminary Plat approval will become null and void. 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 21st day of March, 2007. __________________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director (SEAL) RESOLUTION NO. 7058 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 8360 LONG LAKE ROAD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. MA2006-002 WHEREAS, Charlene Moschkau, has applied for a major subdivision for a single family residential subdivision of 8360 Long Lake Road; and, WHEREAS, the preliminary plat date-stamped March 14, 2007 proposes a three lot subdivision, with all lots fronting Long Lake Road; and, WHEREAS, the subject parcel is legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, Charles Hermann Addition, Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the parcel is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and the adopted Comprehensive Plan designates the parcel for low-density residential development; and, WHEREAS, the proposed preliminary plat satisfies the minimum subdivision requirements as identified in Chapters 1100 and 1200 of the Mounds View Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Staff Report 2. Planning Application 3. Preliminary Plat 4. Zoning Map 5. Aerial View 6. Photographic Documentation 7. Planning Commission Resolution 862-07 WHEREAS, In accordance with Section 1204.04, Subd. 4 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, all subdivisions of land are subject to park dedication fee requirements; and, WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing regarding this preliminary plat on Monday, April 9, 2007. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission supported the request by adopting Resolution 862-07, which recommends approval of the major subdivision; and Resolution 7058 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council approves the preliminary plat for the major subdivision of 8360 Long Lake Road, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall arrange to have an acceptable title commitment provided to the City Attorney for review prior to the final plat approval by the City Council. 2. The applicant shall pay a park dedication fee in the amount of $10,640.00. 3. The applicant shall take all steps to save any significant trees possible during the construction and shall make arrangements to have a minimum of two trees located in each front yard upon project completion and sod all yard areas. 4. The applicant shall obtain permits, if required, from Rice Creek Watershed District and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency before construction activity commences. 5. All utilities within the development area and to the individual home sites shall be located underground. 6. The applicant shall apply for Final Plat approval no later than 6 months after the date of approval of the preliminary plat, or the Preliminary Plat approval will become null and void. Adopted this 9th day of April, 2007 _____________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk / Administrator (SEAL) RESOLUTION NO. 7100 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT FOR 8360 LONG LAKE ROAD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. MA2006-001 WHEREAS, Charlene Moschkau has requested approval of a final plat for the major subdivision of 8360 Long Lake Road, legally-described as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, Charles Hermann Addition, Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, The above-described land is zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential and is designated as Single-Family Detached on the Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, Charlene Moschkau has submitted a Final Plat, date stamped June 18, 2007, for the major subdivision which creates three lots, and, WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 1204.04, Subd. 4, the subdivision is subject to a park dedication fee which would be equivalent to two-thirds (2/3) of 10% of the assessed value of the land; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Staff Report 2. Planning Application 3. Zoning Map 4. Location Map 5. Preliminary Plat, dated March 22, 2007 6. Planning Commission Resolution 862-07, Adopted March 21, 2007 7. Resolution 7058, Adopted April 9, 2007 8. Final Plat, date stamped June 18, 2007 WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has received a recommendation of approval from the Mounds View Planning Commission as stated in Planning Commission Resolution No. 862-07; and, WHEREAS, on April 9, 2007, the Mounds View City Council held a duly noticed public hearing regarding this subdivision and approved Resolution 7058 which approved the preliminary plat; and, WHEREAS, the City Attorney has reviewed the final plat and finds it to be in conformance with all applicable sections of the Mounds View Municipal Code, subject to the conditions and requirements contained in this Resolution; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the proposed final plat for the subdivision and finds it to be consistent with the preliminary plat and in conformance with Resolution 7058 and with all applicable sections of the Mounds View Municipal Code, subject to the conditions and requirements contained in this Resolution. Resolution 7100 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council, having already approved the preliminary plat, approves the final plat for the subdivision of 8360 Long Lake Road, subject to stipulations as follows: 1. Prior to the Final Plat execution, Charlene Moschkau shall pay a park dedication fee in the amount of $10,640.00. 2. Charlene Moschkau shall successfully complete any and all requirements from the review of the final plat by the City Attorney and City Staff. 3. The approval contemplated herein is subject to the condition that Charlene Moschkau must pay for all costs incurred by the City concerning this subdivision, including preparation and review of the preliminary and final plat by technical assistants and the costs incurred by the City Attorney, city consultants, as well as other costs of a similar nature. 4. No grading or construction activity may proceed without all necessary permits having been obtained. 5. All utilities within the development area and to the individual home sites shall be located underground. Upon construction of new homes, utility agreements shall be executed and recorded with Ramsey County if required by Mounds View Public Works staff. 6. Necessary permits shall be obtained for any and all work occurring within the City or County right of way. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that approval of this final plat is subject to approval by and recordation with Ramsey County, which shall occur within one hundred twenty (120) days of Council approval. Charlene Moschkau shall furnish the City with a reproducible copy of the final plat showing evidence of the recording within 10 days of the recordation; otherwise, the approval of the final plat shall be void. Adopted this 25th day of June, 2007. __________________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk / Administrator (SEAL) Item No. 07G Meeting Date: June 25, 2007 Type of Business: CB 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: Resolution 7079, Approving the Purchase of a New Postage Machine The lease for the City’s postage machine (E595 Pitney Bowes) will expire at the end of June. Due to this lease expiration, Staff researched other postage machine companies to see if there were more efficient postage machines at a lower cost to the City. Staff received three quotes – Minnesota Mailing Solutions (Hasler), Neopost and Pitney Bowes. In 2002, the City leased its current postage machine, and as with any equipment its effectiveness has diminished. Staff is requesting that a replacement postage machine/scale be leased or bought due to diminished effectiveness. In addition, Staff feels that this would be the best time to find other competitive rates since the lease will be expiring. Neopost did submit a proposal, but the postage machines they had did not meet the needs of the City. They were too small for the City’s needs. Therefore, Staff only considered Minnesota Mailing Solutions (Hasler) and Pitney Bowes. Currently the City is paying $262.00 per month to lease its postage equipment from Pitney Bowes and a yearly maintenance agreement for $473.00 a month. Not including the yearly maintenance agreement, the city has paid $15,720 for the current postage machine. That is calculated at $262.00 times 60 months (the city is currently under a 60 month lease with Pitney Bowes). On the May 7, 2007 City Council Work Session it was the consensus of Staff and the City Council to purchase the machine due to the future cost savings. The quotes given to the City Council at the May Work Session have changed. Soon after the May City Council Work Session, the Post Office discontinued the 15 pound scale and only offers machines with a 10 or 30 pound scale. Although the 10 pound scale normally does not meet the needs of the City, a 30-pound scale is very expensive and is available on mostly very high volume machine. Staff then explored other options, and found that the City only mails heavy packages (weighing over 10 pounds) about once a month. Therefore, any packages over 10 pounds could be weighed on any scale and the data could then be inputted in the United States Postal Service Website (www.usps.com). After inputting the data into the website, a postage cost is calculated. Staff can then hand calculate the postage amount in the new postage machine and still mail the package from City Hall without going to the post office. Staff asked Minnesota Mailing Solutions (Hasler) and Pitney Bowes to re-quote the machines with a 10 pound scale. After numerous hours and days of negotiating, here are the final proposals: Pitney Bowes DM500 Machine Purchase: $3,461/plus tax Meter Rental: Free for First Year/$50.00 a month after Maintenance Agreement: Free for First Year/Pitney Bowes was not able to quote me a price for next year’s maintenance agreement. In an email, they told staff it would be about $480/year (+3-4%) depending on inflation. Minnesota Mailing Solutions (Hasler) WJ150 Machine Purchase: $3,751/plus tax Meter Rental: Free for First Year/$45 a month after Maintenance Agreement: Free for First Year/$550 a year in 2008, then add 3-4% depending on inflation in the following years. In order to purchase the machine, the Budget would have to be revised for 2007. The revision would have to come from Central Services/Capital Equipment (Budget Number 100-4160-7030). Since the City will not longer be leasing this equipment, $1,572.00 can be used from the equipment rental portion of the Budget (Budget Number 100- 4160-4010) and transferred to budget number 100-4160-7030. The remaining balance would need to be reflected in the capital equipment budget. Recommendation: Although Pitney Bowes is the apparent low quote, Staff recommends purchasing the equipment from Minnesota Mailing Solutions (Hasler). The City of Mounds View has been using the services of Pitney Bowes for at least 10 years. Pitney Bowes has been the only company for postage machines services for those years. Staff was made aware just this year that other companies were available that had the same services as Pitney Bowes. Staff has been unhappy with Pitney Bowes’ customer service for many years. There has been repeated difficulty in getting maintenance technicians in person to fix our current machine. Staff would spend time on the phone with a maintenance technician customer service agent (sometimes it would take as long as an hour depending on the problem), going back and forth trying to fix the machine. Every time we asked for a service maintenance technician to come out for service, Staff would have to go through series of troubleshooting before Pitney Bowes would even consider getting a technician out. This example of poor service happens very often. That is just one of many examples. Many of the customer service agents even have very poor customer service skills and sometimes rude or condescending on the phone. Going by past practices of Pitney Bowes, Staff is concerned Pitney Bowes may be trying not to abide by maintenance agreements. There have been even a couple of times that Pitney Bowes could not get a service technician out until one or two days later. This was especially frustrating when Staff had a mass mailing for Mounds View residents. Staff was forced to buy stamps at the Post Office because a mass mailing to Mounds View residents needed to be completed that day. A mass mailing could be hundreds even thousands of letters, which means Staff had to place stamps by hand on hundreds of letters. Staff feels that staff time could be better spent drafting staff reports for City Council Meetings than trying to fix a postage machine or placing stamps on envelopes by hand. Staff did address these issues with the Pitney Bowes salesperson. This Pitney Bowes salesperson was the same salesperson drafting the quote. It was stated by the salesperson to just “lie” and the customer service agent would be required to send out a maintenance technician. City Staff should not have to “lie” to get service. On Thursday, June 21st, Staff spoke with the Pitney Bowes Salesperson, and the Government Contract Agent and Staff did mention the “lie” comment that was made. They stated to staff that they would be willing to have a meeting to discuss these issues in the future. This is contingent if the City purchases this machine. Staff is concerned that this may just be an attempt to ensure our business with them. Minnesota Mailing Solutions (Hasler) does have contracts with the metro cities of Circle Pines, Lino Lakes, Crystal, Edina, Golden Valley, Centerville, Robbinsdale, Plymouth, Ham Lake, Hutchinson, Lakeville, New Hope and North Oaks. Staff did try to get in contact with these cities, and the cities of Circle Pines, Lino Lakes, Edina and Golden Valley did respond and are very satisfied with their machines and have no issues with Minnesota Mailing Solutions. Minnesota Mailing Solutions is a local company out of Golden Valley, and have their technicians available in their facility. Circle Pines, Lino Lakes, Edina, and Golden Valley have no issues with the response time. Although Pitney Bowes has a satellite office in Eden Prairie, the corporation is located out of Sanford, CT. Most of the service calls to Pitney Bowes are out of state. Another advantage of the Minnesota Mailing Solutions Hasler machines is that you can add equipment as your needs change. For example, you could add a Differential Scale that weighs letters as it is stamped, and just pay for the part. Unfortunately, if our needs change on a Pitney Bowes Machine, we would need to purchase a new machine. The flexibility with the Hasler machines is a real plus. Staff recommends approving the purchase of a new postage machine from Minnesota Mailing Solutions. Although the Hasler quote is a little higher, Staff feels that the poor customer service and reliability of Pitney Bowes is in question and would rather send a little extra money for better service and reliability. The 2007 Budget would need to be revised in order to reflect the purchase of this machine. $1,572 can be transferred from Budget Number 100-4160-4010 to 100-4160-7030, and an additional $2,179 increase needs to be added to Budget Number 100-4160-7030. Respectfully Submitted, Desaree Crane RESOLUTION 7079 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF A NEW POSTAGE MACHINE FROM MINNESOTA MAILING SOLUTIONS (HASLER) WHEREAS, City’s postage machine (E595 Pitney Bowes) will expire at the June; and WHEREAS, on the May 7, 2007 City Council Work Session it was the consensus of Staff and the City Council to purchase the machine due to the future cost savings; and WHEREAS, Staff received three quotes - Minnesota Mailing Solutions (Hasler), Neopost and Pitney Bowes; and WHEREAS, Staff only considered Minnesota Mailing Solutions (Hasler) and Pitney Bowes because Nepost did not have machines to meet the City’s postage needs; and WHEREAS, the City received the following quotes below: Pitney Bowes DM500 Machine Purchase: $3,461/plus tax Meter Rental: Free for First Year/$50.00 a month after Maintenance Agreement: Free for First Year/Pitney Bowes was not able to quote me a price for next year’s maintenance agreement. In an email, they told staff it would be about $480/year (+3-4%) depending on inflation. Minnesota Mailing Solutions (Hasler) WJ150 Machine Purchase: $3,751/plus tax Meter Rental: Free for First Year/$45 a month after Maintenance Agreement: Free for First Year/$550 a year in 2008, then add 3-4% depending on inflation in the following years; and Resolution 7079 Page 2 WHEREAS, due to the numerous past problems and issues with service and reliability with the Pitney Bowes, Staff is recommending purchasing the postage machine from Minnesota Mailing Solutions (Hasler); and WHEREAS, the 2007 budget needs to be revised to reflect the purchase of this machine; and WHEREAS, $1,572 can be transferred from Budget Number 100-4160-4010 to 100-4160-7030 for the purchase of this machine; and WHEREAS, an additional $2,179 increase needs to be added to Budget Number 100-4160-7030. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mounds View, that the purchase of a WJ150 from Minnesota Mailing Solutions (Hasler) is approved with the following specifications below: Minnesota Mailing Solutions (Hasler) WJ150 Machine Purchase: $3,751/plus tax Meter Rental: Free for First Year/$45 a month after Maintenance Agreement: Free for First Year/$550 a year in 2008, then add 3-4% depending on inflation in the following years; and NOW, FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED by the Mounds View City Council adopts the amendments to the 2007 Budget for a $1,572 transfer from Budget Number 100- 4160-4010 to 100-4160-7030 and an increase of $2,179 towards Budget Number 100- 4160-7030 for the purchase of WJ150 Hasler Postage Machine. Adopted this 25th day of June, 2007. __________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (seal) Item No: 07H Meeting Date: June 25, 2007 Type of Business: CB 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: Resolution 7099 Approving a Step Increase for Don Burda, Full Time Temporary Building Inspector Background: Don Burda is a current employee with the City of Mounds View. His supervisor has reviewed his performance as it relates to his responsibilities outlined in the job description. Discussion: It was determined that Don Burda has more than satisfactorily performed in the capacity of his position, and therefore, a step increase wage adjustment is consistent with the Personnel Manual and AFSCME Union Labor Agreement. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Resolution 7099, approving the Step Increase. Respectfully Submitted, Desaree Crane RESOLUTION 7099 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA APPROVING STEP/LONGEVITY ADJUSTMENT WHEREAS, the following below is a regular full-time employee who is currently working for the City of Mounds View; and WHEREAS, his supervisor reviewed his performance as it relates to the responsibilities outlined in the job description; and WHEREAS, his supervisor determined that the following employee below has more than satisfactorily performed in the capacity of his position documented in his performance review on file; and WHEREAS, a step increase wage adjustment is consistent with the Mounds View Personnel Manual and Labor Agreements. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does hereby approve a wage adjustment to the following indicated in the chart below. NAME CURRENT POSITION DATE OF EMPLOYMENT/CURRENT POSITION CURRENT STEP & WAGE STEP & WAGE ADJUSTMENT EFFECTIVE DATE OF ADJUSTMENT Don Burda Temp Bldg Inspector May 24, 2006 Step 2: $22.50/hr Step 3: $23.82/hr May 24, 2007 Adopted this 25th day of June, 2007. __________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (seal) Item No. 7J Meeting Date: June 25, 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 7105 Awarding a Construction Contract for the 2007 Seal Coat Project Background: On April 9, 2007 the City Council approved Resolution 7065 authorizing the preparation of a preliminary feasibility report and the selection of a consultant for the 2007 Seal Coat Project. At the meeting, Staff introduced the concept of partnering with the City of Spring Lake Park as a way to reduce the administrative costs and perhaps receive more favorable bids. On April 23, 2007 the City Council approved Resolution 7072 authorizing the preparation of a Joint Powers Agreement and setting a Public Improvement Hearing date for the 2007 Seal Coat Project. On May 14, 2007 the City Council approved Resolution 7085 approving the Feasibility Report, holding a Public Improvement Hearing, ordering the project, authorizing the preparation of plan and specifications, and approving a Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Spring Lake Park. On May 29, 2007, the City Council approved Resolution 7089 approving the plans and specifications, setting a bid date, and authorizing the advertisement for bids for the 2007 Seal Coat Project. Discussion: Bids for the 2007 Seal Coat Project were received at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at City Hall. A list of the bids received is attached for City Council’s review. Bid Review - A total of three (3) bids were received for this project. A complete bid summary is as follows: Bidder’s Name Base Bid Pearson Bros, Incorporated $219,682.50 Allied Blacktop $223,169.75 Astech Surface Technologies $243,943.00 Engineer’s Estimate $225,650.00 Pearson Bros, Incorporated submitted the low bid in the amount of $219,682.50. This amount compares to the engineer’s estimate of $225,650.00. This contract will be for a combined project with the City of Spring Lake Park. Mounds View’s share of the project is 63.6% – or $139,718.07 for construction costs. The City of Spring Lake Park share would be $79,964.43 Spring Lake Park City Staff have reviewed the bids and will be reporting the results to their City Council on Monday, July 2, 2007. All costs for this project will be financed via funds derived from the City’s Street Improvement Fund (account 285-4470-7050). Project Schedule – The current project schedule is as follows: June 25, 2007 Award Construction Contract July 16, 2007 Project Begins (estimated) July / August 2007 Initial Sweeping – three days after application. Second sweeping – 30 days after application September 1, 2007 Project Completed Recommendation: It is recommended the Council adopt the attached resolution awarding the construction contract for the 2007 Seal Coat Project. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Lee, Director of Public Works RESOLUTION 7150 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AWARDING THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE 2007 SEAL COAT PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 7089 adopted by the City Council on May 29, 2007, sealed bids were received on June 21, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. for the 2007 Seal Coat Project; and WHEREAS, the low responsive bid was received from Peterson Companies, Incorporated with a Base Bid $219,682.50 for the 2007 Seal Coat Project; and WHEREAS, this contract will be for a combined project with the City of Spring Lake Park with Mounds View’s share of the project estimated at 63.6% – or $139,718.07 for construction costs. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the Base Bid of Pearson Bros, Incorporated in the amount of $219,682.50 for the 2007 Seal Coat Project is the lowest responsive bid. 2. That a contract to perform said work is awarded to Pearson Bros, Incorporated. 3. The Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with said bidder. 4. The Public Works Department is authorized and directed to return the deposit made for said bids, except the deposit of the successful bidder, which shall be retained until a contract has been signed. Adopted this 25th day of June 2007. (ATTEST) ____________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor (SEAL) ____________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator Item No: 07M Meeting Date: 06/25/07 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 7033 Adopting City Vision and Mission Statement, Goals Program, Values Statement, and Rules of Conduct Introduction On February 7-8, 2007, the city council and department heads held a leadership retreat at the Random Park recreation building. The retreat was facilitated by Don Salverda, an outside consultant, for the purpose of strategic planning and team building among the City’s key elected and appointed officials. This item was postponed on June 11th to allow staff to revise item Rule 8 in regard to the Rules of Conduct, attached as Exhibit E. It now reads, Rule #8 Council Members praise in public and criticize and discipline in private, with the words and discipline removed from the statement as agreed to at the retreat. At the retreat, the Council and Department Heads discussed the past, present and future, and responded with revised organizational goals and an action plan to respond to the opportunities facing the City of Mounds View over the next two years. The Council originally considered adoption of this resolution at the April 12, 2007 meeting, but postponed action to allow for citizen input prior to adoption. Discussion The group reaffirmed a shared vision for success, by agreeing on the current vision and mission statement. The vision statement reads: We see Mounds View as a proactive community that takes pride in its achievements. We are responsive to the changing needs and interests of our residents and businesses. As a result, our community thrives and prospers. The mission statement reads: Provide high quality public services that effectively address changing citizen and community needs in a fiscally responsible and customer-friendly manner. Participants also reaffirmed the City’s motto of “PRIDE – PROGRESS - PARTNERSHIPS” as a slogan that is still very relevant to the work the City will be doing in the next couple of years. The group also worked on a variety of other items including; improving communication, identifying future issues and opportunities, reviewing individual roles and responsibilities, identifying organizational values, establishing goals, and creating an action plan. The City’s goals program was reviewed and discussed with residents at the April 14th Town Hall meeting. There was good discussion at the meeting, with the public generally being supportive of the City goals as presented. The City Action Plan that establishes timeframes and responsibility for achieving these City goals was reviewed by the City Council at the April 2nd work session and a status report is scheduled for July. Recommendation As part of the retreat follow-up, it is recommended that the Council formally adopt the City Vision and Mission Statement, Goals Program, Values Statement, Rules of Conduct, and an Action Plan. The attached Resolution 7033 adopting these items is presented for council consideration and recommended for approval. RESOLUTION 7033 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA ADOPTING THE CITY VISION AND MISSION STATEMENT, GOALS PROGRAM, VALUES STATEMENT AND RULES OF CONDUCT WHEREAS, in February of 2006, the Mounds View City Council and Department Heads held a leadership retreat for the purpose of strategic planning and team building; and WHEREAS, the City Council and Department Heads discussed the past, present, and future and responded with a plan to respond to the opportunities facing the City of Mounds View over the next two years; and WHEREAS, the City Council and Department Heads developed a shared vision for success by agreeing on a formal vision, mission statement, values statement, and rules of conduct. WHEREAS, the City Council shared the City vision, mission, and goals with the public at the annual Town Hall Meeting, and residents in attendance voiced support. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View City Council hereby adopt the City of Mounds View Vision Statement (Exhibit A), Mission Statement (Exhibit B), Goals Program (Exhibit C), Values Statement (Exhibit D), and Rules of Conduct (Exhibit E). Adopted this 25th day of June, 2007. ________________________________ _ Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ _ Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (seal) (EXHIBIT A) CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW VISION STATEMENT ADOPTED June 11, 2007 We see Mounds View as a proactive Community that takes pride in its achievements. We are responsible to the changing needs and interest of our residents and businesses. As a result, our community thrives and prospers. Adopted this 25th day of June, 2007. ATTEST: Mayor Rob Marty Councilmember Stigney Councilmember Mueller Councilmember Flaherty Councilmember Hull City Administrator Ulrich (seal) (EXHIBIT B) CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW MISSION STATEMENT ADOPTED June 25, 2007 Our Mission is to provide high quality services that effectively address changing citizen and community needs in a fiscally responsible and customer-friendly manner. Adopted this 25th day of June, 2007. ATTEST: Mayor Rob Marty Councilmember Stigney Councilmember Mueller Councilmember Flaherty Councilmember Hull City Administrator Ulrich (seal) (EXHIBIT C) CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW GOALS PROGRAM ADOPTED June 25, 2007 STRATEGIC GOALS Strategic Goal 1: Improve the City’s street and utilities infrastructure and develop a financing plan for these improvements. Strategic Goal 2: Finalize and implement the redevelopment and revitalization plan for County Highway 10. Strategic Goal 3: Improve communications with, and the engagement of, the public in City programs and activities. Strategic Goal 4: Address Issues Related to the City Community Center. Strategic Goal 5: Develop an economic development philosophy for the City and develop alternatives to TIF to stimulate economic development. Strategic Goal 6: Enhance the City’s Revenue Sources to Ensure the City’s Financial Stability. Strategic Goal 7: Implement sound wall along south side of US Highway 10 ONGOING GOALS Ongoing Goal 1: Continue to provide quality service with limited resources Ongoing Goal 2: Keep property taxes as low as possible Ongoing Goal 3: Continually Update the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Ongoing Goal 4: Ensure a safe and secure community, with an emphasis on prevention. Ongoing Goal 5: Maintain and update the City’s five-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), including a plan for parks and recreation improvements. Ongoing Goal 6: Continually execute (implement) the strategic plan in order to achieve the City’s goals Adopted this 25th day of June, 2007. ATTEST: Mayor Rob Marty Councilmember Stigney Councilmember Mueller Councilmember Flaherty Councilmember Hull City Administrator Ulrich (seal) (EXHIBIT D) CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW VALUES STATEMENT ADOPTED June 25, 2007 The following values are fundamental to the City of Mounds View’s success and the fulfillment of our mission: 1. Excellence and Quality in the Delivery of Services We believe that service to the public is our reason for being and strive to deliver quality services in a highly professional and cost-effective manner. 2. Fiscal Responsibility We believe that fiscal responsibility and the prudent stewardship of public funds is essential for citizen confidence in government. 3. Ethics and Integrity We believe that ethics and integrity are the foundation blocks of public trust and confidence and that all meaningful relationships are built on these values. 4. Treating Citizens with Respect We believe that citizens are to be treated with courtesy and respect and deserve the best services we can provide. 5. Open and Honest Communication We believe that open and honest communication is essential for an informed and involved citizenry and to foster a positive working environment for employees. 6. Cooperation and Teamwork We believe that the public is best served when departments and employees work cooperatively as a team rather than at cross purposes. 7. Professionalism We believe that continuous improvement is the mark of professionalism and are committed to applying this principle to the services we offer and the development of our employees. 8. Continuous Learning We believe that continuous learning and ongoing education of our elected and appointed officials will allow us to better recognize current opportunities, anticipate change, and prepare for the future. Adopted this 25th day of June, 2007. ATTEST: Mayor Rob Marty Councilmember Stigney Councilmember Mueller Councilmember Flaherty Councilmember Hull City Administrator Ulrich (seal) (EXHIBIT E) CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RULES OF CONDUCT ADOPTED June 25, 2007 Rule#1 Council Members treat each other, the staff and the public with respect and dignity. Rule #2 Council Members maintain the highest standards of honesty and integrity in their public and private dealings. Rule #3 Council Members recognize the interdependency of the Council and the Professional Staff. Rule #4 Council Members are courteous in their dealings, and do not interrupt other Council Members, the Staff or Citizens when they are speaking at Council meetings. Rule #5 Council Members respect the individuality and contribution that other Council Members and Staff Members bring to the City. Rule #6 Council Members respect the majority vote of the Council, and do not undermine or sabotage implementation of ordinances, policies, and rules passed by the majority. Rule #7 Council Members respect and do not belittle, the minority opinions and votes of Council Members who are not part of the majority vote on key issues. Rule #8 Council Members praise in public and criticize in private. Rule #9 Council Members focus on the “Big Picture of the City,” thinking and acting strategically. Rule #10 Council Members set an example for others to follow. Adopted this 25th day of June, 2007. ATTEST: Mayor Rob Marty Councilmember Stigney Councilmember Mueller Councilmember Flaherty Councilmember Hull City Administrator Ulrich (seal) Item No: 08A Meeting Date: June 25, 2007 Type of Business: CA City Administrator 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. Alpine Fence Company Fence Installer New Flo’s Remodeling Deck Installer New Hoffman Refrigeration & Heating HVAC Renewal Steel Structures, Inc. General (Commercial) New TDJ Construction, Inc. General (Commercial) Renewal Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested. Corrections Made by Roger Signey, MV Councilmember, Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator, and Jim Ericson, Community Development Director PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting May 29, 2007 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 7:00 P.M. 1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL: Stigney, Hull, Flaherty, and Mueller NOT PRESENT: Marty. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Monday, May 29, 2007 City Council Agenda City Administrator Ulrich indicated that the Mayor wanted to note that he is attending his daughter’s last orchestra performance tonight. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Flaherty. To Approve the Monday, May 29, 2007 City Council Agenda as Presented. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 5. PUBLIC INPUT Kim Jacobson of 5070 Irondale Road said she would like to ask the City to ban burning in the City of Mounds View. She then said that up to six neighbors at any one time are burning anything that they are too cheap to have hauled off including treated wood. Ms. Jacobson said that their cars have layers of ash, and their windows and windowsills have layers of soot on them. She then said that this deprives them of their use of their property and jeopardizes their health. Acting Mayor Stigney indicated that he would like to have this discussed at a work session. Council Member Flaherty agreed. Mounds View City Council May 29, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 2 Council asked if Ms. Jacobson has called the police. Ms. Jacobson said that she does not want to have to call the police and waste their time but she had to and continues to do so. The police caught a resident burning leaves. Rick of 7791 Groveland Road said that he brought down five copies of the parking lot grading plan. He then said that the utilities are on his property and it should not have been put on his property. Community Development Director Ericson said he would personally discuss this with Mr. Perrozzi. Mr. Perrozzi said that he does not trust Velmeir to keep things straight and if this does not get resolved and the parking lot is not done he is taking this to court because he is tired of waiting. Council Member Flaherty said that he is confused about the easements and asked if this is an individual property owner asking for an easement onto someone else’s property. Director Ericson said that a lightpole and the utilities line do cross over into their property. 6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUISNESS A. Annual MS4 Report Mr. Fleischhacker provided a review of the Annual MS4 Report for Council and those in attendance. Mr. Fleischhacker indicated that it is important for residents to know where the easements are located on their property and to avoid placing anything in them because it can become costly when the City has to clear them to improve drainage. Council Member Flaherty asked what the measurable goals are. Mr. Fleischhacker said that a measurable goal would be to increase participation and receive more and more comments and feedback. Another goal would be to inspect a certain portion of the structures per year to determine their effectiveness. 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Public Hearing to Consider Ordinance 791, An Ordinance Adopting the Five Year Financial Plan Acting Mayor Stigney opened the public hearing at 7:28 p.m. Mounds View City Council May 29, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 3 Finance Director Beer explained that as part of the City’s Charter the City must prepare a five year financial plan and this is the plan for 2008 through 2012. He then reviewed the suggested plan with the Council but noted that the plan is a work in progress and can be modified as time goes by. Finance Director Beer said that the street light fund should be good for the foreseeable future as the fund is doing well. The storm water fund, depending upon projects, is the one fund that may need gradual increases to build the fund up. Hearing no public comments, Acting Mayor Stigney closed the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. Council Member Mueller indicated that the Finance Director put together a very nice five year plan for Council and she is very glad to see the pavement management account included to assist the City with planning for the future. City Administrator Ulrich commended the Finance Director Beer for his work to reduce surprises in the finances of the City during future planning. MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Flaherty. Waive the Reading and Introduce the First Reading of Ordinance 791, An Ordinance Adopting the Five Year Financial Plan. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. B. Resolution 7077 Approving Abatement of Nuisance at 5232 Skiba Avenue Community Development Director Ericson explained that this was considered at the last meeting and continued to this meeting to allow Staff to review whether the Code violations at the property were corrected. Staff recommended approval of Resolution 7077 recognizing that Mr. Olin has rectified the Ordinance violations. Approval would then require Mr. Olin pay for the administrative costs and fines associated with the abatement action. Mr. Olin said that he thought he had taken care of things prior to this but, when he received the notice, he immediately took care of the requested items. MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Hull. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 7077, A Resolution Approving Abatement of Nuisance Violations at 5232 Skiba Avenue. Council Member Mueller asked how many times Staff had to go out to the property. Mr. Olin indicated it was three times including today. Ayes – 3 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View City Council May 29, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 4 C. Ordinance 790, An Ordinance Amending Chapter 3 and Chapter 5 of the Mounds View City Charter Regarding Council Procedure, Referendum and Recall Process City Administrator Ulrich indicated that the City Attorney had a few comments that were provided in the packet and Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 790. Mr. Thomas reviewed the proposed amendments to the Charter. Council Member Flaherty said that these are great and commended the Chair for developing the charts to help residents understand the Charter. Council Member Mueller agreed and said that not only was the language cleaned up, the timing was defined and becomes a usable tool for residents. It also clarified and gave direction to the necessary steps in a process. She then thanked Mr. Thomas and the Commission for the work involved to do so. City Attorney Riggs said that his issue is that a third party has the ability to control whether or not an Ordinance is approved. He then said that would cause issues with development situations as there are specific time limit requirements. He further said that he understands what the Charter Commission is trying to accomplish but there can be situations where, through no fault of the City, an Ordinance can not be adopted. Mr. Thomas commented that it would just require another reading to move the Ordinance through. City Attorney Riggs said that with development issues requiring public hearings, it would set things back and potentially cause issues if something does not get published through no fault of the City. He then said that it is possible and it is an issue and this is a change from what was in the Charter where it would not have occurred before. Council Member Mueller noted that there are two legal newspapers that the Ordinances can be published in. City Attorney Riggs would like to see the start date from the date of publication rather than the adoption date. Acting Mayor Stigney said that it talks about ballots not voters and asked them to look at it. Section 4 should be formatted over for the new section. Acting Mayor Stigney asked why 30 days are given if it is wrong. Mr. Thomas said it could only be stalled one time in 30 days. Mounds View City Council May 29, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 5 City Administrator Ulrich explained that the Mayor had issues with Section 5.03 and section 5.04 as he thought the language was somewhat difficult to follow and somewhat complex. His other comment was in regard to Line 116 and 117, on Page 3 of 5 except in the case of a petition for recall it shall not prevent the council from sending the petition for recall to the next regular election and the question is why the petition for recall could not be referred to a special election. City Attorney Riggs said that the language is correct as written because recall is completely different than referendum or initiative. City Administrator Ulrich suggested that this go back to the Charter Commission for further discussion and review prior to the second reading of the Ordinance. MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Hull. To Waive the Reading and Introduce Ordinance 790, Waive First Reading With Understanding that the Charter Commission will be revising the Language Prior to the Second Reading of the Ordinance. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mr. Thomas asked Council Members to send specific requests for language changes to them to make it clear for their consideration. D. Resolution 7033, Adopting the City Vision and Mission Statement, Goals Program, Values Statement, and Rules of Conduct City Administrator Ulrich would like to table this until the Mayor is available. MOTION/SECOND: Mueller. To Table Resolution 7033, Until Mayor Marty Arrives Later this Evening or to the Next Meeting. Motion withdrawn. Consent to simply defer action on the item until all council members are present.. E. Resolution 7080 Approving a Severance Payment for Aaron Backman, Mounds View Economic Development Specialist City Administrator Ulrich reviewed the severance payment for Mr. Backman and asked for Council consideration of approval. MOTION/SECOND: Hull/Mueller. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 7080, Approving a Severance Payment for Aaron Backman, Mounds View Economic Development Specialist. Council Member Stigney indicated that the vacation amount due is $7,011.63. Council Member Mueller asked if it is normal that employees carry over vacation year to year. Mounds View City Council May 29, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 6 Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. F. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 789, Amending Section 607.08 Related to Construction Noise MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Mueller. To Waive the Reading and Adopt Ordinance 789, Amending Section 607.08 Related to Construction Noise, and Approve Publication of a Summary Ordinance. Council Member Mueller asked whether there has been or will be notification of these changes to homeowners and contractors under construction. Community Development Director Ericson said that those developers under construction will be notified as would all homeowners who obtained permits this past year. Director Ericson indicated that Staff is seeking authorization to publish a summary of the Ordinance. City Administrator Ulrich indicated that this would become effective 30 days after publication. ROLL CALL: Stigney/Flaherty/Hull/Mueller Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. G. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 792, Amending Chapter 1202 (Subdivision Plats and Procedures) Community Development Director Ericson reviewed Ordinance 792, Amending Chapter 1202. MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Hull. To Waive the Reading and Adopt Ordinance 792, Amending Chapter 1202 (Subdivision Plats and Procedures) and Approve Publication of a Summary. ROLL CALL: Stigney/Hull/Flaherty/Mueller Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. H. Resolution 6895, Approving Contracts for SCADA Systems Upgrade #2 Public Works Director Lee provided information on the SCADA system upgrade. Council Member Flaherty indicated that this is very important to the City and then asked if there are any draw backs to a nonproprietary system. Mounds View City Council May 29, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 7 Director Lee said that there are none that he can think of. MOTION/SECOND: Hull/Mueller. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 6895, Approving Contracts for SCADA Systems Upgrade #2. Council Member Mueller asked if the City has any history of working with this bidder. Director Lee said that the City of Mounds View does not but they have worked with many other cities in the metro area and have an excellent service record. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 8. CONSENT AGENDA A. Licenses for Approval B. Resolution 7087, Approving a Therapeutic Massage License for Dennis Opitz who will be Administering Therapeutic Massage at Anytime Fitness Located at 2541 County Highway 10 in Mounds View C. Resolution 7088, Authorizing a Tobacco Business License Transfer from Mohammad Ismail to Nidal Mah’s Al-Ramahi for Sam’s Food Market Located at 2408 County Road I in Mounds View D. Schedule a Public Hearing for Monday, June 11, 2007, at 7:40 p.m. for a Second Reading of Ordinance 790, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 3 and Chapter 5 of the Mounds View City Charter E. Schedule a Public Hearing for Monday, June 11, 2007 at 7:45 p.m. to Consider a Conditional Use Permit for a Summer Seasonal Produce Stand to be located in the Parking Lot of the Mermaid, 2200 County Highway 10 F. Resolution 7089 Approving Plans and Specifications, Setting a Bid Date, and Authorizing the Advertisement for Bids for the 2007 Seal Coat Project G. Resolution 7090 Approving a Service Contract for the City Hall Elevator Council Member Flaherty requested that Item B be removed for discussion. Council Member Mueller requested that Item G be removed for discussion. MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Flaherty. To Approve Consent Agenda Items A, C, D, E and F as Presented. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. B. Resolution 7087, Approving a Therapeutic Massage License for Dennis Opitz at Anytime Fitness, 2541 County Highway 10 City Administrator Ulrich provided an explanation of the therapeutic massage request. Mounds View City Council May 29, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 8 MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Mueller. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 7087, Approving a Therapeutic Massage License for Dennis Opitz at Anytime Fitness, 2541 County Highway 10. Council Member Hull noted that in the sixth whereas there is a she that should be a he. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. G. Resolution 7090, Approving a Service Contract for the City Hall Elevator Director Lee explained that City Hall has an elevator and there are several requirements and one of them is to have the elevator inspected on a monthly basis. Acting Mayor Stigney said that Metro is $15.00 per month less. Council Member Flaherty asked what the benefits of All City would be over another contractor. Director Lee indicated that the City has been contracting with All City and Staff is familiar and comfortable with them. He then said that All City has been involved with the City’s elevator previously. Council Member Mueller said that there is an emergency backup call provided in the contract. Council Member Flaherty asked whether emergency call coverage is included in the Metro bid. MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Flaherty. To Postpone Resolution 7090, to the Next Council Meeting to Allow Staff Time to Clarify the Bid Information. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS Council Member Flaherty asked for information on the City Hall project expenditure. He then said that he was told that this is the second to the last payment. Director Lee explained that this would be the second to the last payment. Council Member Flaherty asked about the Hillview Road matter. Director Lee explained that this was one needed repair to the sewer system. Council Member Mueller asked on Page 10 where the playground equipment was installed. Mounds View City Council May 29, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 9 Director Lee indicated that this was for padding on the indoor equipment at the Mounds View Community Center. Acting Mayor Stigney asked about the webstreaming charge of $577.38 because he was under the impression that the City was trying something on a trial basis. City Administrator Ulrich indicated that the City has gone beyond the trial period and they gave the City a discounted amount based on the number of meetings the City has. Acting Mayor Stigney asked whether the Council voted on accepting this contract. Finance Director Beer said that it was a budget item but he is not sure that it was voted upon. Acting Mayor Stigney said that he thinks that this should be brought back at a worksession discussion. City Administrator Ulrich noted that this charge is for more than one month and Staff will hold the check and bring it back at the next meeting with an explanation and breakdown of costs. Council Member Flaherty agreed and said that this should be held until more detail is available. MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Mueller. To Approve Just and Correct Claims as Presented Excepting out the Webstreaming Bill. Council Member Mueller said that there is $526.00 for junk removal and asked about it. Finance Director Beer explained that was part of the abatement process that will be billed to the property owner and certified to the taxes if they do not pay for it. Finance Director Beer noted there will also be staff time and an additional $100.00 for storage to be charged to this property owner. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. April 23, 2007 City Council Meeting Minutes Acting Mayor Stigney requested the following changes: On Page 8, Line 31, Hay study correct the spelling. Then correct wording to: He does not approve of full time for this position because he does not want the City to be required to pay the benefits and other costs associated with having a full time employee. Acting Mayor Stigney noted that the Mayor said he had a change to the Minutes. Mounds View City Council May 29, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 10 Director Ericson indicated he had received the correction and it will be made. MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Hull. To Approve the April 23, 2007 City Council Meeting Minutes as Amended. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 11. REPORTS A. Reports of Mayor and Council Council Member Flaherty said that he noticed in just and correct claims a clothing fee for a union employee for the purchase of a Mounds View sweatshirt and he thinks it would be a good idea for the City to make sweatshirts available for purchase at the Festival in the Park. City Administrator Ulrich suggested the Council discuss this at a work session prior to Festival in the Park. Council Member Mueller wanted to mention a few things about Festival in the Park Sunday, August 19, 2007. The winning design has been chosen and the winner will be contacted shortly to discuss the design and style and placement so there will be t-shirts for sale at Mounds View Festival in the Park. More information is available on the website. B. Reports of Staff City Administrator Ulrich noted that Senator Betzold and Representative Tillberry will be coming for a legislative update a the June 4th worksession. City Administrator Ulrich noted the latest report by the League of Minnesota Cities is $70 million additional given to cities but the distribution is not known yet. They also agreed to consider inner ring suburbs reduced tax base amounts and that should be studied over the coming year. Director Ericson reported that Moe’s will have a one year celebration on Saturday, June 9, 2007 and they are looking for volunteers to sit in the dunk tank. Director Ericson noted that Staff has had a police vehicle out to the Harstad construction site and parking should be limited to one side or the east side of Greenwood. Director Ericson updated Council on the conversion to Gov Office and the design should be done this week and it will go live next week. He then said that it has been a little more time intensive than Staff thought it would be but it should be ready next week. Director Ericson said that the City is taking applications for the Comprehensive Plan Task Force if there are any interested residents. Mounds View City Council May 29, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 11 Director Ericson noted that the Economic Development Specialist position was advertised and the deadline for those applications is June 8, 2007. C. Reports of City Attorney None. 12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, June 4, 2007, at 7 p.m. Next Council Meeting: Monday, June 11, 2007 at 7 p.m. City Administrator Ulrich noted that the Street and Utility Task Force meets on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. 13. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:18 p.m. Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Executive Session Date: 06/11/07 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 Time: 6:00 pm 1. 6:00pm EXECUTIVE SESSION IS CALLED TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Mayor Marty, Council Members Stigney, Flaherty, Mueller and Hull. City Administrator Kurt Ulrich, and Assistant to the City Administrator Desaree Crane. 3. DISCUSS UNION NEGOTIATIONS City Administrator Ulrich reviewed and discussed the status of current union contract negotiations with the Council. 4. 6:43PM MEETING ADJOURNED Respectfully Submitted: Kurt Ulrich City Administrator