HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2006/01/09
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
NEW BRIGHTON CITY HALL
Monday, January 9, 2006
7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, Thomas
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
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. Resolution 6706 Accept Bid for Remaining Contracts Comprising of Bid Package #2 for the
New SBM Fire Station #3.
B. First Reading of Ordinance 767 an Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Xcel Energy
Electric and Natural Gas Operations within the City of Mounds View for the Year 2006.
C. First Reading of Ordinance 768 an Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Center Point
Energy Natural Gas Operations within the City of Mounds View for the Year 2006.
D. Resolution 6715 Authorizing the Re-Advertisement for Bids and Setting a Bid Date for the
Groveland Park Building Replacement Project.
E. Resolution 6717 Approving the Plans and Specifications and Authorizing the Advertisement
for Bids and Setting a Bid Date for the Random Park Building Replacement Project.
F. Resolution 6710 Appointing City Council Members and City Staff as Representatives for City
Commissions and other organizations.
G. Resolution 6712 Re-appointing members to various Mounds View Boards and Commissions.
H. Resolution 6703 Authorizing Insurance Policies for the Year January 2006 through December
2006.
I. Resolution 6713 Authorizing a Temporary One-Day Charitable Gambling Permit for the New
Brighton/Mounds View Rotary to conduct charitable gambling at The Mermaid on April 7,
2006.
J. Resolution 6714 Authorizing a Temporary One-Day Charitable Gambling Permit for the Twin
Cities North Chamber of Commerce to conduct Charitable Gambling at The Mermaid on
February 18, 2006.
K. Resolution 6704 Approving a Minor Subdivision of 8140 Long Lake Road.
L. Resolution 6694 Authorizing an Agreement with G & H Consultants LLC for Plan Review
Assistance Associated with Medtronic Phase I Construction
M. Resolution 6709 Selection of the Official City Newspaper, Acting Mayor, Treasurer, and
Official Depositories for 2006
City Council Meeting Agenda
Monday, January 9, 2006
Page 2
8. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Set a Public Hearing for 7:05pm on Monday, January 23, 2006 for the Second Reading on
Ordinance 767, an Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Xcel Energy Electric and
Natural Gas Operations within the City of Mounds View for the Year 2006.
B. Set a Public Hearing for 7:10pm on Monday, January 23, 2006 for the Second Reading on
Ordinance 768, an Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Center Point Energy Natural
Gas Operations within the City of Mounds View for the Year 2006.
C. Resolution 6702 Adopting a Modification to Section 4.1.A Meals, of the City’s Purchasing
Policy.
D. Resolution 6705 Authorizing the Purchase of Financial Software.
E. Resolution 6716 Authorizing the Preparation of a Preliminary Feasibility Report and the
Selection of a Consultant for the County Road 10 Trailway, Lighting, and Landscape Project.
F. Resolution 6711 Approving the TimeSaver Recording Secretary Contract Extension for 2006.
9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Truth in Taxation Meeting Minutes, December 5, 2005.
B. City Council Meeting Minutes, December 12, 2005.
C. Executive Session, December 12, 2005
11. REPORTS
A. Reports of Mayor and Council
B. Reports of Staff
1. Review Citations Issued to Khaldon Btiebet
C. Reports of City Attorney
12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, January 30, 2006 at 7pm (February Work Session)
Next Council Meeting: Monday, January 23, 2006 @7pm
Item No: 07A
Meeting Date: January 9, 2006
Type of Business: CB
City Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Fire Chief Zikmund
Deputy Fire Chief Krueger
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6706 Accept Bid for Remaining Contracts
Comprising of Bid Package #2 for the New SBM Fire
Station #3
Background:
As a component of the Fire Department Capital Improvement Plan funded by the sale of
Capital Improvement Bonds sold on November 17th, 2005, a new fire station located at
11920 Ulysses Street was approved. The new station will consolidate/replace existing
stations three and five. A budget of $7,082,621 has been established for this portion of
the CIP plan.
The Blaine Council approved the letting of bids for the 2nd Bid Package at their October
20th , 2005 meeting. Advertisements were placed in the official Blaine newspaper, “The
Blaine Life,” in the Construction Bulletin and the Builders Exchange. The 2nd Bid
Package consisted of the following contracts:
#3.35 Cast in place concrete
#4.20 Masonry
#5.10 Steel Erection
#5.12 Steel Supply
#6.10 Rough/Finish Carpentry
#7.50 Roofing/Sheet Metal
#7.90 Caulking
#8.10 Metal Doors/Wood Doors/Frames
#8.33 Overhead Doors
#8.40 Aluminum Entrance Doors/Windows
#9.25 Steel Stud/Drywall
#9.30 Tile/Terrazzo
#9.50 Acoustical Ceiling
#9.65 Resilent Flooring/Carpet
#9.90 Painting
#11.60 Stainless Steel/Appliances
#15.00 Mechanical
#15.30 Fire Protection
#16.00 Electrical
Specifications were made available on October 30, 2005, and one addendum was
issued on November 18, 2005. The specifications and addendum were sent to the Fire
Department, all three cites, and the Builders Exchange.
A prebid conference was held on November 16, 2005 and was attended by fire
department staff, Bossardt Corporation Staff, and several vendors. Bid Proposals were
due to Bossardt Corporation or Blaine City Hall on or before 2:00 PM on November 30,
2005 and the bid opening was held at that time in the Clover Leaf Room.
Proposals Received and Recommendations:
Based upon bid results and the results of our pre-award conferences with the apparent
low bidders, we are making recommendations for award of the following prime
contracts.
We are pleased to report that a total of 111 bids were received for Bid Package Two.
To encourage bidder interest, we made extensive telephone calls to Contractors, and
are satisfied that bids received reflect the best possible pricing for the work indicated.
Bids for Contracts #3.35 / 4.20, 5.12, 6.10, 8.10, 8.40, 9.25, 15.00, 15.30, & 16.00.
which included acceptance of Alternates #9 and #11 were approved by resolutions of
support by the Spring Lake Park Council on December 5th and the Mounds View
Council on December 12th. The Blaine Council took action to award the bids at their
December 15th meeting. These contracts totaled $3,134,034.
Listed below are the apparent low bid results for the remaining Contracts comprising bid
package #2. They are contracts #5.10, 7.50, 7.90, 8.33, 9.30, 9.50, 9.65, 9.90 & 11.60.
These Contracts include acceptance of Alternates #9 and #11.
Contract #5.10 – Steel Erection
KMH Erectors, Inc. $49,300.00
5295 Highway 12
Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359
Contract #7.50 – Roofing/Sheet Metal
M&S Roofing, Inc. $271,720.00
1615 99th Lane
Blaine, Minnesota 55449
Contract #7.90 - Caulking
A.J. Spanjers Co., Inc. $15,700.00
9257 West River Road
Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55444
Contract #8.33 – Coiling/Overhead Doors
Twin City Garage Door Company $147,400.00
5601 Boone Avenue North
New Hope, Minnesota 55428
Contract #9.30 – Tile/Terrazzo
Flooring Concepts, Inc. $54,809.00
12101 Nicollet Avenue South
Burnsville, Minnesota 55337
Contract #9.50 – Acoustical Ceilings/Treatment
Twin City Acoustics, Inc. $28,845.00
8731 Bass Lake Road
New Hope, Minnesota 55428
Contract #9.65 – Resilient Flooring/Carpet/Vinyl Base
Commercial Flooring Services, Inc. $47,538.00
1279 Trapp Road, Suite 190
Eagan, Minnesota 55121
Contract #9.90 – Paintings/Special Coatings
Prospect Painting, Inc. $106,180.00
8471 Xerxes Avenue North
Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55444
Contract #11.60 – Stainless Steel Equipment/Laundry Equipment/Appliances
St. Cloud Restaurant Supply Co. $37,555.00
100 Roosevelt Road
St. Cloud, Minnesota 56301
The total of the remaining bids being recommended for approval as part of Bid Package
#2 equals $759,047. These bids represent approximately 4% less than the estimates.
Future council action on this project will be limited and confined to furniture and fixtures,
equipment, telephone and security systems, simulator software and hardware and other
non-construction type items. We anticipate those items to be brought forward sometime
after March/April of 2006.
Recommendation:
Accept low bids as detailed.
Attachments:
Spreadsheet detailing all bids received.
Bossardt Corporation Letter
RESOLUTION NO. 6706
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ACCEPT BID
FOR REMAINING CONTRACTS COMPRISING BID PACKAGE #2 FOR
NEW SBM FIRE STATION #3
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Council Resolution of a Capital Improvement Plan
for the Spring Lake Park Fire Department Inc. that included construction of a new fire
station and said bids were received on November 30, 2005, opened and tabulated
according to law, and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement
and public notice as required by State law and;
WHEREAS, Listed below are the apparent low bid results for contracts #5.10,
7.50, 7.90, 8.33, 9.30, 9.50, 9.65, 9.90 & 11.60. These Contracts include acceptance of
Alternates #9 and #11.
Contract #5.10 – Steel Erection
KMH Erectors, Inc. $49,300.00
5295 Highway 12
Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359
Contract #7.50 – Roofing/Sheet Metal
M&S Roofing, Inc. $271,720.00
1615 99th Lane
Blaine, Minnesota 55449
Contract #7.90 - Caulking
A.J. Spanjers Co., Inc. $15,700.00
9257 West River Road
Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55444
Contract #8.33 – Coiling/Overhead Doors
Twin City Garage Door Company $147,400.00
5601 Boone Avenue North
New Hope, Minnesota 55428
Contract #9.30 – Tile/Terrazzo
Flooring Concepts, Inc. $54,809.00
12101 Nicollet Avenue South
Burnsville, Minnesota 55337
Contract #9.50 – Acoustical Ceilings/Treatment
Twin City Acoustics, Inc. $28,845.00
8731 Bass Lake Road
New Hope, Minnesota 55428
Contract #9.65 – Resilient Flooring/Carpet/Vinyl Base
Commercial Flooring Services, Inc. $47,538.00
1279 Trapp Road, Suite 190
Eagan, Minnesota 55121
Contract #9.90 – Paintings/Special Coatings
Prospect Painting, Inc. $106,180.00
8471 Xerxes Avenue North
Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55444
Contract #11.60 – Stainless Steel Equipment/Laundry Equipment/Appliances
St. Cloud Restaurant Supply Co. $37,555.00
100 Roosevelt Road
St. Cloud, Minnesota 56301
WHEREAS, the total of these bids equal $759,047 which is within the projected
budget for these bid packages;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mounds View adopt this resolution of support in the Blaine City Council awarding the
contracts as listed to the apparent lowest identified bidders.
Adopted this 9th day of January, 2006.
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No. 7D
Meeting Date: January 9, 2006
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 6715 Authorizing the Re-Advertisement
for Bids and Setting a Bid Date for the Groveland
Park Building Replacement Project
Background:
At the July 25, 2005 City Council Meeting, the City Council rejected the bids
citing that the project was too expensive and asked the Parks, Recreation, and
Forestry Commission to look at alternatives.
On July 28, 2005 the Parks, Recreation, and Forestry Commission began
discussing and exploring alternatives for the replacement of the Groveland Park
building. Discussions and investigation have continued over the past several
months. On October 3, 2005 a Work Session report was submitted discussing
the alternatives (see attached report).
Discussion:
The Parks, Recreation, and Forestry Commission have looked into the options of
volunteer construction and pre-fabricated buildings. For volunteer construction, it
appears that we could make the necessary arrangements to have a volunteer
group construct the building. However, there are several issues that the City
would encounter with this option: if it was stick constructed the plans would need
to be changed at an estimated cost of $10,000, the City would still need a
general manager for the project, there would still be a need to hire plumbing,
electrical, and HVAC contractors. If the city was constructing a shed or a storage
building, this may be a more suitable option.
For pre-fabricated buildings the options found were simple metal shells – void of
any plumbing or HVAC systems. Pre-fabricated buildings that did include these
items were trailer type buildings.
The Parks, Recreation, and Forestry Commission recommends to re-bid this
project in an effort to obtain more favorable bids, and to conduct an
advertisement campaign to reach the smaller contractors who typically do not bid
on public contracts.
Advertise for Bids – As per state statute, with an estimated contract amount in
excess of $100,000, publication must be made at least three weeks before the
last day to submit bids. The advertisement must be published at least once in the
official newspaper and at least once in either a trade paper or a newspaper that
is published in a first class city. Given this, Staff seeks authorization to advertise
for bids.
Bid Date – A February 21, 2006, 10:00 a.m. bid date will provide ample time to
provide the required notification to contractors as per state statute. It will also
allow the necessary time for Staff to provide direct notice to contractors.
Attached is a complete proposed schedule for this project.
Recommendation:
It is recommended the City Council approve a resolution to authorize to advertise
for bids, and set a bid date of February 21, 2006 for the Groveland Park Building
Replacement Project.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
RESOLUTION 6715
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AUTHORIZING THE RE-ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS AND SETTING A BID
DATE FOR THE GROVELAND PARK BUILDING REPLACEMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, as per state statute, with an estimated contract amount in
excess of $100,000, publication must be made at least three weeks before the
last day to submit bids; and
WHEREAS, a February 21, 2006, 10:00 a.m. bid date will provide ample
time to provide the required notification to contractors as per state statute.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mounds View City Council
of the City of, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
1. A date to receive bids for said improvements is hereby established
as February 21, 2006 at 10:00 a.m.
2. That Staff is hereby directed to cause to be published in the New
Brighton Bulletin and in the Construction Bulletin, at least three
weeks before the last day to submit bids, a notice to bidders for the
implementation of said project as required by law.
Adopted this 9th day of January 2006.
(ATTEST) ____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
(SEAL)
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item No. 4B
Meeting Date: October 3, 2005
Type of Business: WK
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: Park Building Review and Recommendations
GROVELAND PARK BUILDING
Background:
Bids for the Groveland Park Building Replacement Project were received on
Thursday, July 14, 2005 at City Hall. The bids were composed of the base bid to
perform the construction of the building and a bid alternate for the air conditioning
of the building.
A total of two (2) bids were received for this project. The low bid of $289,700.00
was submitted by Unicorp, Incorporated of Saint Paul Minnesota. The bid
alternate for air conditioning was $7,000.00.
A complete bid summary follows:
BIDDER’S NAME BASE BID BID ALTERNATE
Unicorp, Incorporated $289,700 $7,000
Meisinger Construction $302,000 $5,500
The engineer's estimate was $227,000 -- 27.6% less than the lowest actual bid.
On July 25, 2005, the bids were presented to the City Council. It was
recommended that, should the City Council wish to proceed with this project, the
City should utilize the construction services of TKDA to oversee the project and
ensure that the contractor adheres to the plans and specifications. TKDA had
submitted a letter of agreement in the amount of $14,000.00 to provide these
services.
Based on the bids received and the estimated construction services, the
following estimated total project cost summary was presented on July 25, 2005:
TKDA Plan Preparation $19,600
Construction $289,700
AC – bid alt. $7,000
TKDA construction services $14,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $330,300.00
As per resolution 6558, Sixty-five percent (65%) of the total project cost would be
financed utilizing Park Dedication Funds (Account No. 285-4470-3030), and the
remaining 35% would be derived for the Special Project Funds (Account No. 280-
4180-7050).
$214,695 - 65% financed by Park Dedication Fund
$115,605 - 35% financed by Special Project Fund
At the July 25, 2005 City Council Meeting, the City Council rejected the bids
citing that the project was too expensive and asked the Parks, Recreation, and
Forestry Commission to look at alternatives.
Discussion:
On July 28, 2005 the Parks, Recreation, and Forestry Commission began
discussing and exploring alternatives for the replacement of the Groveland Park
building. Discussions and investigation have continued over the past several
months. The following is a brief summary of several options were explored:
Public Works crews to do the demolition
The Public Works crews could do demolition if necessary. However, this may not
represent that great of a savings. Having limited labor resources may also be an
issue. The demolition would most likely occur in late winter/early spring. This is
when other, perhaps more critical, activities such as spring park duties, street
repair, street sweeping, and boulevard repairs occur.
Review Bid Items
The Commission requested a list of line items associated with this project from
the low bidder. Unicorp, Incorporated submitted a list they used to develop their
bid. This list is attached for the City Council’s review. There were no items that
were easily identifiable that could be reduced or eliminated to save costs.
Identify Fixed Costs
The Commission was concerned as to how the project was presented to the City
Council on July 25, 2005. A list of all project related costs was presented. These
costs totaled $330,300. The Commission suggested that a more equitable way to
view the cost is to identify fixed costs and remove them from consideration –
essentially identifying the increased cost from the “do nothing option” to replacing
the Groveland Building.
Two such costs that were identified were the demolition costs and plan and
specification costs. These costs have been or will be incurred, regardless of what
option is selected. Since the City will need to remove the Groveland building at
some point in time regardless of whether it is replaced - should the demolition
costs be removed from the overall costs?
The demolition cost is estimated to be $8,000 to $10,000 and the cost to develop
the plan and specifications amount of $19,600 has already been expended.
Need to look at what items are needed
The Commission went through an exhaustive review of the proposed building to
see if there were items that could be eliminated in an effort to reduce the overall
cost of the building.
The restrooms were discussed. The question was raised -- ”Is a restroom
needed?“ Lambert does not have a restroom. However, it is also not being used
to any great extent. When looking at shrinking /eliminating amenities in this
building, the Commission also looked at the impact of the usefulness of the
building. The Commission recommended that the building continue to retain
restrooms.
The question of whether the building should be heated was raised. With the
recommendation to retain the rest rooms, it was also unanimously recommended
to heat the building.
The Commission looked at the need to have two restrooms. Could one unisex
restroom be created? This is a possibility. The plan would be to simply not
include the fixtures and retain the second bathroom as storage. To eliminate the
room would require a redesign of the building plans. The Commission discussed
that it could be included as a bid alternate. However, it should be pointed out that
the removal of a toilet and sink may not be that great of an overall cost savings.
Reducing the building’s overall square footage was reviewed. This is a fairly
basic space. It was suggested by the Commission that the proposed building
retain the space as planned to be used for its current functions. It was also stated
that this is a public building – not private. Because of this, there are additional
requirements such as restroom floor space that need to be compliant with the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Commission recommended
unanimously to maintain the planned floor space.
There is double door to the mechanical room. Is there a need for this second
door and is there a savings to reduce to one door? It was determined that the
opening could be reduced to require one door. However, it was also determined
that it is beneficial to retain the double doors and that the reduction to a single
door does not represent a cost savings due to the additional cost of material
needed to fill in where the second door would be.
The firm of TKDA was contacted to get their recommendations for reducing
costs. TKDA stated that this is a very basic building and that there are no real
“extras” on it. When asked if lower quality materials could be used, TKDA stated
that the materials specified are the “middle of the road” and they would not
recommend lesser material in a public building.
There was a consensus from the Committee not to change the plans and lose
any amenities in the building at this time. The Commission felt that this is a very
basic building without any unnecessary amenities but would still serve the public.
A comparison was made to New Brighton’s buildings, which have fireplaces,
knotty pine walls and ceiling, dividers, very nice restrooms, etc.
Masonry construction versus “stick construction”
The Commission asked, “Would TKDA need to start over with plans and specs
with a stick building?” It was determined that TKDA would not need to start over
since there are many shared design construction features of the two. However,
how much re-work of the plans is needed to develop a stick design is uncertain at
this time.
The line item bid list that was submitted by Unicorp, Incorporated showed the
Concrete/Masonry line item to be $59,800. This cost would include a concrete
floor, which would also be specified in a stick building construction. Also,
considering that wood material would need to be added to the bid list, there
doesn’t appear to be that great of a savings for substituting stick construction
over masonry. Given the minimal cost difference, the overall durability, the
increased longevity and maintenance reduction cost, the Commission
recommended that masonry construction be considerer.
As a note, the existing Golf Course Clubhouse was constructed in 1995. It is a
“stick” constructed building with a total square footage of 1380 sq. ft. The total
cost to construct Golf Course Clubhouse including construction, inspection, and
engineering was $231,657.98 in 1995. The ENR Construction Cost Index from
July 1995 was 5484. As of July 25, 2005, the ENR CCI is 7422. Therefore, to
convert a project cost from July 1995 to July 2005, the 1995 cost should be
multiplied by 1.3534. Doing this the current estimated cost to construct the Golf
Course Clubhouse is $313,525.91
Groveland Clubhouse
Total Cost $330,300 $313,525.91
Square Footage 1217 1380
Cost per sq. ft. $271.41 $227.19
Construction options: Volunteers
The Commission looked into whether high schools, trade schools, vocational
schools or colleges would be capable of building the Groveland Park Building. It
appears that it is possible. A great deal of coordination would be needed. There
was also the issue - can this be done legally? The City's legal counsel and the
City's insurance agent were contacted. In summary, the City could allow a
volunteer group to construct a park building with few legal or insurance issues
involved. The main problem would be that if a volunteer group were to be
covered under the City's insurance policy, the City would need to supervise the
project. Given this, and the fact that the material cost would remain the same,
there probably would be little advantage to this option.
Other options - Prefab construction
This is an option. However, the issues of maintenance costs, durability, and
longevity exist.
Bidding / Contract Options
There are three possible bid revision options:
1.) Revise the plan – this was reviewed and discussed by the Commission.
There are little recommended changes other than perhaps having a single
bathroom as a bid alternate (and keep the AC unit as a bid alternate).
2.) Increase the construction timeframe by revising the specifications to allow
for construction any time during the 2006 construction season. This option
was also recommended by TKDA
3.) Increase the number of potential bidders – develop an information
campaign and target smaller bidders who typically do not use the
Construction Bulletin to know of potential projects and those contactors
who do not typically bid on government projects.
Commission Recommendation
A motion was made to direct Staff to bring this issue back to the City Council with
a summary of the options that were reviewed, discussed, and investigated by the
Commission; also, to present the Commissioner’s recommendation to re-bid this
project in an effort to obtain more favorable bids. This would done by changing
the specifications to give the contractor the entire 2006 construction season to
complete the project – have a December 1, 2006 substantial completion date.
There would also be an advertisement campaign to reach the smaller contractors
who typically do not bid on public contracts. The bid would also include a bid
alternate for the air conditioning unit it be installed.
Prepared: December 14, 2005
Groveland Park Building Replacement Schedule
Actual Dates
Authorized plans and specifications May 10, 2004
Letter of Agreement submitted by TKDA June 21, 2004
Letter of agreement rejected June 28, 2004
Authorized Request For Proposal (RFP) July 12, 2004
Authorized the publication of a Request For Proposal (RFP) August 23, 2004
Approved Letter Agreement with TKDA October 25, 2004
Authorized plans and specifications October 25, 2004
Approved Plans and Specifications June 13, 2005
Set a Public Improvement Hearing Date June 13, 2005
Ordered the Project June 13, 2005
Set a Bid Date June 13, 2005
Authorized to Advertise for Bids June 13, 2005
Bids Opened July 14, 2005
Bids Rejected July 25, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Dates
Set New Bid Date January 9, 2006
Send bid advertisement to local paper / construction bulletin January 13, 2006
Send Bid Information to Local Contractors January 18, 2006
First Advertisement for bids January 18, 2006
Second Advertisement for bids January 25, 2006
Bid opening February 21, 2006
Award contract February 27, 2006
Contractor able to start March 6, 2006
Specified Completion Date December 1, 2006
Item No: 07F
Meeting Date: January 9, 2006
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: Consideration of Resolution 6710, Appointing City Council
Members and City Staff as Representatives for City
Commissions and Other Organizations
Discussion:
The City Council annually reviews the various Council and Staff appointments to City
commissions and other organizations. Below are the 2005 Council and Staff appointments
for your reference:
Ramsey County League of Local Government NW Youth and Family Services
1. Joe Flaherty, Councilmember 1. Joe Flaherty/Barbara Thomas
2. Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (Councilmembers)
SLP/Blaine/MV Fireman’s Relief Assoc. League of Minnesota Cities
1. Roger Stigney, Councilmember 1. Rob Marty, Mayor
2. Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator 2. Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Human Resources Committee 1-35 Corridor Coalition
1. Joe Flaherty, Councilmember 1. Rob Marty, Mayor
2. Roger Stigney, Councilmember 2. Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
3. Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
MPLS Metro N. Convention & Visitors Bureau North Metro Mayors Assoc.
1. Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator 1. Rob Marty, Mayor
2. Aaron Backman, Economic Deve. Coord. 2. Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
YMCA Advisory Committee
1. YMCA Center Manager (Dan Weldon)
2. YMCA Center Manager (Marta McIntyre)
3. Executive Director of NW Family YMCA (Pat Reimersma)
4. Mounds View Banquet Center (Canyon Grille – Roy Dodds)
5. Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
6. Shari Kunza, Rep from the Park and Rec Commission
7. Roger Stigney, Councilmember
8. Sherry Gunn, Councilmember
At the last City Council Work Session, the City Council discussed the creation of a
Community Center Task Force to help plan the future of the facility.
Suggested Task Force Membership:
• 1 Council Member
• 1 Planning Commission Member
• 1 Park and Recreation Commission Member
• 2 Citizens at-large
Staff Liaison: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Steve Dazenski, Parks Supervisor
Direction to task Force:
• Identify the scope of community needs the City wants to serve with the banquet
facility and the Community Center.
• Identify to what extent community needs are being met.
• Identify alternatives to meet the City’s identified needs.
• Identify resources available for the City to meet identified needs.
• Identify a short to long-range strategy for the facility.
• Report to Council at the March 6, 2006 work session
Recommendation:
Please make the appointments as necessary and approve the attached Resolution 6710.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree Crane
RESOLUTION 6710
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPOINTING CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND CITY STAFF AS REPRESENTATIVES
FOR CITY COMMISSIONS AND OTHER ORGRANIZATIONS
WHEREAS, members of the City Council act as representatives to City Commissions and other
organizations; and
WHEREAS, the following representatives of the City have been named to act as representatives
to the following City Commissions and other organizations for the year 2006:
Ramsey County League Northwest Youth and Family
of Local Government Services
1. _______________ 1. ________________
2. Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Spring Lake Park/Blaine/
Mounds View Fireman’s Relief Assoc. League of Minnesota Cities
1. _______________ 1. Mayor Rob Marty
2. Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator 2. Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Human Resources Committee I-35 Corridor Coalition
1. ______________ 1. Mayor Rob Marty
2. ______________ 2. Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
3. Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Minneapolis Metro North Convention North Metro Mayors Association
And Visitor’s Bureau 1. Mayor Rob Marty
1. Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator 2. Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
2. Aaron Backman
YMCA Advisory Committee
1. YMCA Center Manager
2. YMCA Center Manager
3. Executive Director of the Northwest Family YMCA (Pat Reimersma)
4. Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
5. ______________, Rep from the Parks and Recreation Commission
6. _______________, Councilmember
7. _______________, Councilmember
Mounds View Community Center Task Force
1. Barbara Thomas, Council Member
2. Shari Kunza, Rep from the Parks and Recreation Commission
3. Gary Stevenson, Rep from the Planning Commission
4. Duane McCarty, Mounds View Resident (Rep)
5. Rob Hanson, Resident
6. Kara Chamberland, Resident
Resolution 6710
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds View that the
aforementioned appointments are hereby approved.
Adopted this 9th day of January, 2006.
_______________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No: 07G
Meeting Date: January 9, 2006
Type of Business: CB
City Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Desaree Crane, Assistant to City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6712 Re-appointing members to various Mounds View
Board and Commissions
At the December 6, 2005 City Council Work Session, Staff advised the City Council that many
members of different boards and commissions had their terms expiring on December 31, 2005.
Staff was directed by the City Council to contact these members to see if they would be
interested in being reappointed for another term. The following responded and were interested
in serving for another term:
Airport/Blaine Advisory Committee New Term Expiration Date
David Jahnke December 31, 2007
Barbara Haake December 31, 2008
Park and Recreation Commission
Dave Long December 31, 2008
Planning Commission
Gary Stevenson, Chair December 31, 2008
Jean Miller December 31, 2008
Gary Meehlhouse December 31, 2008
Police Civil Service Commission
Virgil Dean Beyer December 31, 2008
Dale Alan Federer December 31, 2008
Dale Aukee and Frank Silvis have not submitted their applications to renew their terms on the
Park and Recreation Commission. However, they are still interested in serving another term.
As soon as Staff receives their applications, Staff will present their applications at the next City
Council Meeting scheduled for Monday, January 23, 2006.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council consider these applications, and approve these
appointments to their respective board/committee/commission.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree Crane
RESOLUTION NO. 6712
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
REAPPOINTING MEMBER TO VARIOUS MOUNDS VIEW BOARDS,
COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES
WHEREAS, Mounds View Board, Commission and Committees consist of members appointed by
the Mayor with the approval of the majority of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, there are currently vacant seats in the Airport/Blaine Advisory Committee, Park and
Recreation Committee, Planning Commission and the Police Civil Service Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City has received applications from members of these Board, Commission and
Committees who occupied these seats prior to their term expiration; and
WHEREAS, it has been the City’s past practice to re-appoint members who have indicated a
desire to continue serving on these Boards, Commissions and Committees, and have submitted an
application indicating such.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Mounds View, Ramsey County,
Minnesota as follows:
1. The Mayor and the City Council do hereby approve the following Mounds View residents
to serve on the Airport/Blaine Advisory Committee:
Name Term Expiration
David Jahnke December 31, 2007
Barbara Haake December 31, 2008
2. The Mayor and the City Council do hereby approve the following Mounds View residents
to serve on the Park and Recreation Commission:
Name Term Expiration
Dave Long December 31, 2008
3. The Mayor and the City Council do hereby approve the following Mounds View residents
to serve on the Planning Commission:
Name Term Expiration
Gary Stevenson, Chair December 31, 2008
Jean Miller December 31, 2008
Gary Meehlhouse December 31, 2008
4. The Mayor and the City Council do hereby approve the following Mounds View residents
to serve on the Police Civil Service Commission:
Name Term Expiration
Virgil Dean Beyer December 31, 2008
Dale Alan Federer December 31, 2008
Resolution 6712
Page 2
Adopted this 9th day of January, 2006.
_____________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No: 07I
Meeting Date: January 9, 2006
Type of Business: CB
City Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Desaree Crane, Assistant to City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Resolution 6713 Authorizing a
Temporary One-Day Charitable Gambling Permit for
the New Brighton/Mounds View Rotary to conduct
charitable gambling at The Mermaid on April 7, 2006
The New Brighton/Mounds View Rotary would like to hold a charitable gambling
event at The Mermaid on April 7, 2006 (as they did last year on April 1, 2005). The
Lions currently hold a charitable gambling license at the Mermaid. The State
Gambling Board has indicated that it does not see a conflict in allowing more than
one organization to hold licenses for the same venue as long as the municipality is
agreeable.
Attached are the application materials along with a list of their members.
Recommendation:
Approve attached Resolution 6713.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree Crane
RESOLUTION NO. 6713
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION GRANTING THE NEW BRIGHTON/MOUNDS VIEW ROTARY A
ONE DAY PERMIT TO CONDUCT CHARITABLE GAMBLING AT THE
MERMAID IN MOUNDS VIEW
WHEREAS, the New Brighton/Mounds View Rotary has requested that
the Council allow them to conduct charitable gambling at The Mermaid on April 7,
2006; and
WHEREAS, the Gambling Control Board required that the local unit of
government (city or county) pass a resolution specifically approving or denying
requests to conduct charitable gambling; and
WHEREAS, the New Brighton/Mounds View Rotary is in compliance with
all requirements of the Mounds View Municipal Code with regard to charitable
gambling regulations; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City of Mounds View to assist in the
economic prosperity of local business owners.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View City
Council does hereby authorize the New Brighton/Mounds View Rotary to conduct
charitable gambling at The Mermaid on April 7, 2006.
Adopted this 9th day of January, 2006.
___________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No: 07J
Meeting Date: January 9, 2006
Type of Business: CB
City Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Desaree Crane, Assistant to City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Resolution 6714 Authorizing a
Temporary One-Day Charitable Gambling Permit for
the Twin Cities North Chamber of Commerce to
conduct charitable gambling at The Mermaid on
February 18, 2006
The Twin Cities North Chamber of Commerce would like to hold a charitable
gambling event (raffle) at The Mermaid on February 18, 2006. The Twin Cities
North Chamber of Commerce currently holds a charitable gambling License at
Mounds View Jake’s Sports Café. All supporting documentation in regard to their
non-profit status is on file with the Minnesota State Gambling Control Board.
The Lions currently hold a charitable gambling license at the Mermaid. The State
Gambling Board has indicated that it does not see a conflict in allowing more than
one organization to hold licenses for the same venue as long as the municipality is
agreeable.
Attached is their application.
Recommendation:
Approve attached Resolution 6714.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree Crane
RESOLUTION NO. 6714
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION GRANTING A ONE DAY CHARITABLE GAMBLING PERMIT
FOR THE TWIN CITIES NORTH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO CONDUCT
CHARITABLE GAMBLING AT THE MERMAID IN MOUNDS VIEW
WHEREAS, the Twin Cities North Chamber of Commerce has requested
that the Council allow them to conduct charitable gambling at The Mermaid on
February 18, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the Gambling Control Board required that the local unit of
government (city or county) pass a resolution specifically approving or denying
requests to conduct charitable gambling; and
WHEREAS, the Twin Cities North Chamber is in compliance with all
requirements of the Mounds View Municipal Code with regard to charitable
gambling regulations; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City of Mounds View to assist in the
economic prosperity of local business owners.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View City
Council does hereby authorize the Twin Cities North Chamber of Commerce to
conduct charitable gambling at The Mermaid on February 18, 2006.
Adopted this 9th day of January, 2006.
___________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No: 7K
Meeting Date: January 9, 2006
Type of Business: Council Business
Administrator Review : _________
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Minor Subdivision of 8140 Long Lake
Road; Planning Case MI2005-008
Introduction:
Dan Behnken and Tim Lundgren have applied for a minor subdivision of the property located at
8140 Long Lake Road. The applicants are proposing to divide the east 229.7 feet from the
west 298 feet.
Minor subdivisions are those divisions of land less than two acres in size in which only one
additional lot is created. Minor subdivisions do not require a public hearing and in contrast to a
major subdivision, a Certificate of Survey rather than a plat is all that is needed to record the
change with Ramsey County.
The Planning Commission reviewed this request on December 21, 2005 and recommended
approval of the minor subdivision on the basis that it satisfied all criteria and code requirements.
The new lot being created abuts unimproved right-of-way along the west property line and is not
technically landlocked.
Discussion:
The property at 8140 Long Lake Road is presently 66,466 square feet, or 1.53 acres. The
proposed subdivision would split off the east 229.7 feet of the lot from the west 298 feet. The
existing home would remain on the east lot (Parcel A) and the west lot (Parcel B) could
eventually be joined with adjacent properties as part of a future redevelopment. The
applicants have submitted a Certificate of Survey for the proposed subdivision, which identifies
the lot to be created as Parcel A and the remainder lot as Parcel B.
Zoning Requirements
The subject property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. The minimum lot size for an
interior (a lot which is not on a corner), single-family lot is 11,000 square feet. As proposed,
Parcel A would have an area of 28,132 square feet and Parcel B would have an area of 38,334
square feet.
The existing lot has 143 feet of frontage on Long Lake Road, which is 68 feet more than the
minimum requirement of 75 feet for a single-family residential property. The subdivision, as
proposed, would appear to leave Parcel B land locked, however it does have unimproved right-
of-way along the west property line. The applicants are proposing to use Parcel B as part of a
possible larger redevelopment project and at that time Parcel B would front right-of-way. Parcel
A will remain zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and Parcel B will also be zoned R-1, as
indicated in the comprehensive plan.
Park Dedication Requirements
Every subdivision of land is subject to park dedication requirements. Since Parcel B does front
right-of-way, even though unimproved, it will be subject to a park dedication fee. Staff is
recommending that the fee be 5% of the per-square-foot land value of the 38,334 square foot
lot (Parcel B). According to the Ramsey County Assessors Office, the land has a “per square
foot” value of $2.13, thus Parcel B’s value would be $81,651 and the applicable dedication fee
would be $4082.55.
Easements
With every subdivision of land, the City requires that drainage and utility easements be
dedicated around the perimeter of the lot. A revised Certificate of Survey provided by the
applicants does indicate the presence of proposed perimeter easements on both Parcel A
and Parcel B. If any future development impacts Parcel B, these easements could be
vacated at that time and new easements dedicated.
Public Notice.
While a public hearing is not required for this request, staff did send out letters to the immediate
neighboring property owners as a courtesy, informing them of the proposed minor subdivision
and the Planning Commission meeting date. Staff received one phone call asking general
questions, but has not heard any other comments.
Recommendation:
Given that the request satisfies all of the City’s zoning and subdivision requirements, staff and
the Planning Commission recommend approval. After discussing this request, Council may
approve Resolution 6704, a resolution approving a minor subdivision of 8140 Long Lake Road,
with stipulations.
Respectfully submitted,
Heidi Heller
Planning Associate
Attachments:
1. Planning Application
2. Zoning Map
3. Photographic Documentation
4. Certificate of Survey
5. Planning Commission approved Resolution 821-05
6. City Council Resolution 6704
8140 Long Lake Road Minor
Subdivision Staff Report
Page 2
Zoning Map
Photographic Documentation
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 821-05
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION OF
8140 LONG LAKE ROAD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. MI05-008
WHEREAS, applicants, Dan Behnken and Tim Lundgren, have requested approval
of a minor subdivision of 8140 Long Lake Road, property zoned R-1, Single Family
Residential,
WHEREAS, the two parcels of land are legally-described as follows:
The north 143.00 feet of the south 405.00 feet of the east 229.7 feet of the Northeast
Quarter of Section 6, Township 30, Range 23, Range 23, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
Subject to a roadway easement per Doc No. 1067299.
And
That part of the north 143.00 feet of the south 405.00 feet of the Northeast Quarter of
Section 6, Township 30, Range 23, Range 23, Ramsey County, Minnesota which lies
westerly of the east 229.70 feet and lies easterly of the west 2142.00 feet of said
Northeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 30, Range 23, Range 23, Ramsey County,
Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to subdivide the east 196.7 feet from the west
298 feet of the subject property; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a Certificate of Survey for the proposed minor
subdivision indicating the new lot as Parcel A and the remainder lot as Parcel B; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the applicant’s request for a
minor subdivision and has determined that it is in conformance with Chapters 1104, 1201,
and 1202 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the applicant’s request for a minor
subdivision is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
recommends approval of the minor subdivision of 8140 Long Lake Road, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The survey shall be revised as follows:
a. Five and ten foot drainage and utility easements shall be added to Parcel B.
b. The following language shall be added: “The proposed drainage and utility
easement areas as shown herein shall be dedicated to the City of Mounds
View by a separate document recorded with Ramsey County.”
2. The applicants shall submit the required $4082.55 park dedication fee prior to the
City approving the deeds for recordation.
3. The applicants shall arrange to record new property deeds with Ramsey County
within 60 days of Council approval and provide the City with proof of recordation.
Failure to do shall cause the approval to 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 December, 2005.
__________________________________________
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
______________________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
(SEAL)
Resolution 821-05
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 6704
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR SUBDIVISION OF
8140 LONG LAKE ROAD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. MI2005-008
WHEREAS, Dan Behnken and Tim Lundgren have requested approval of a minor
subdivision of 8140 Long Lake Road, property zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, legally
described as follows:
The east half of the tract described as the north 143.00 feet of the south 405.00 feet of the
Northeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 30, Range 23, EXCEPT Long Lake Road and
EXCEPT the west 2142.00 feet of said Northeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 30,
Range 23, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS , the applicants have submitted a Certificate of Survey for the proposed
minor subdivision indicating the new lot as Parcel B and the remainder lot as Parcel A; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the applicants’ request for a minor
subdivision and has determined that it is in conformance with Chapters 1104, 1201, and 1202
of the Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the applicants’ request for a minor subdivision
is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and,
WHEREAS, a copy of the Certificate of Survey has been forwarded to the City Attorney
for his review, and found the division in compliance with City requirements; and,
WHEREAS, park dedication fees will be recommended with this subdivision due to the
additional lot created by this subdivision having right-of-way frontage,
WHEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Commission supported the request by
adopting Resolution 821-05, which recommends approval of the minor subdivision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council approves
the minor subdivision of 8140 Long Lake Road, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicants shall submit the required $4082.55 park dedication fee prior to
the City approving the deeds for recordation.
2. The applicant shall arrange to have the deeds prepared and recorded with
Ramsey County within 60 days of City Council approval or this approval shall be
considered null and void. Extensions may be granted at the discretion of the
City in the case of extraordinary unanticipated delays outside of the applicant’s
control.
3. The Applicants shall execute drainage and utility easement documents
consistent with the easements shown on the Certificate of Survey.
Adopted this 9th day of January, 2006.
__________________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk / Administrator
(SEAL)
Resolution 6704
Page 2
Item No: 07L
Meeting Date: January 9, 2006
Type of Business: CB
Administrator Review : ____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6694 Authorizing an Agreement with G & H
Consultants LLC for Medtronic Phase 1 Plan Review
Services.
Introduction:
The City of Mounds view will be requiring plan review assistance for the Medtronic project,
given the sheer magnitude and volume of the plans and the complexity of the building design
(anything above three stories elevates the building into a completely different category of
requirements and standards, the likes of which the City has not experienced.) The need to
contract for plan review assistance has been anticipated and will be reimbursed via the plan
review fees collected. (The City collects plan review fees which need to directly relate to the
level of plan review service provided.) Building Official Osmonson and I agree that entering
into an agreement for such services will allow for a more expedited plan review and a more
in depth and thorough review and analysis of the project. Ms. Osmonson would ultimately be
signing off on the plans subsequent to the review.
Discussion:
Building Official Osmonson sought and received quotes for plan review services associated
with the Medtronic Phase 1 project. The quote sheet is attached to this report for your
review. The State of Minnesota conducts plan reviews for municipalities and would be willing
to do the plan review for the Medtronic project. They require 75% of the plan review fee to
do this and could not guarantee a date by which they would complete the review. Months
could be involved. Two private inspections firms were also contacted and provided quotes,
either could do the review for 75% or 80% of the plan review fee. Other communities were
also contacted that would have the presumed experience to handle such a review. The
Fridley team indicated they could do the review, citing their experience with the World
Headquarters. They could not however guarantee how many hours would be involved or
how many weeks it would take.
Finally, two qualified individuals from the City of Blaine expressed a desire to conduct the
plan review and offered to complete the work in three weeks or less. (One of these
employees has since retired will no longer remain a Blaine employee.) They provided a rate
far below the other quoted rates at 25% of the plan review fee due to the fact that the review
would be a joint effort between G & H Consultants and Ms. Osmonson. In addition to the
plan review services, included in the 25% fee, they would assist with the mechanical plan
review, the fire suppression plan review, fire pump and standpipe reviews, and be available
for inspections (at additional cost) and phone consultation and would work with Ms.
Osmonson as she reviews the plans. Ms. Gove and Mr. Hagedorn have a combined 44
years of experience and are fully certified and qualified to provide such services and are
intimately familiar with Mounds View, our region and our fire district.
Plan Review Report
January 9, 2006
Page 2
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of Resolution 6694 which authorizes an agreement for Plan
Review Services with G & H Consultants LLC for Phase 1 of the Medtronic CRM
Development. A draft agreement for services is attached for the Council’s review and
consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
Attachments:
1. Consultant Fee Matrix
2. Plan Review Agreement for Services
3. Resolution 6694
Plan Review Fee Matrix
Inspectors
Building Mechanical Fire
suppression
Phone
consultations
Meetings Inspections Cost
G & H
Consultants,
LLC
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes $50/hr
25% of building plan
review fee only (not
sprinkler or
mechanical fee, but
review done.)
$34,183
Castle 75% of
plan
review fee
75% of Mech
permit fee
N/a $75/hr $75/hr $65/hr
Hourly or 75% of all
fees collected by
the City
$102,750 minimum
Inspection
Consultants,
Inc.
80% of
plan
review fee
80% of Mech
fee
N/a $100/hr $100/hr $100/hr Unknown # of hours
$109,600 minimum
Fridley $100/hr. $100/hr N/a $100/hr $100/hr $100/hr
Unknown # of hours
$ Unknown
State 75% plan
review fee
N/a? Full permit fee Free for minimal
questions
N/a N/a 75% of the plan
review fee.
$102,750
minimum
The total plan review fee anticipated for Phase 1 is $136,733. All inspection options aside from Hagadorn-Gove would charge additional fees for the
mechanical review and the sprinkler permit review. Hagedorn Gove includes this review with their fee.
Letter of Understanding Between The City of Mounds View and
G & H Consultants, LLC, Building and Fire Code Consultants
The following items, as part of this Letter of Understanding, serve as terms and agreement
for services provided G & H Consultants, LLC, whose principals are by Gary Hagedorn,
2815 113th Ave. NW Coon Rapids, MN 55433 & Katherine A. Gove 30567 98th St. NW,
Princeton, MN, 55371, (hereinafter to referred to as the “Consultant”) to the City of Mounds
View, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
The Consultant, in conjunction with the Mounds View Building Official/Fire Marshal, will
conduct Building and Fire plan reviews of phase I of the Medtronic Office Project. (Phase
1 to encompass the north and Central buildings comprising a collective 820,000 square
feet of office space.) The plan reviews will include a review of plans submitted for the
following permits when applicable:
• Footing to Grade
• Building Permit (2000IBC/IFC)
• Mechanical Permit (2000 UMC)
• Fire Extinguishing System Permit (2000 NFPA 13)
• Fire Pump Permit
• Standpipe Permit
• Fire Alarm Permit
The Consultant will when needed meet with staff, architects, designers or engineers to
review plans and plan review comments.
The Consultant will respond to all questions or inquiries regarding the plan review through
the Mounds View Building Official/Fire Marshal and provide consultation to the. Mounds
View Building Official/Fire Marshal as needed.
The Consultant will provide plan review comments in a written format within 3 weeks of any
plan submittals.
The City will pay Consultant twenty five (25) % of the total plan review fee for the building
permit for Phase 1 (as defined above) based on the 1997 Building Code Fee schedule.
The City will make payment to the Consultant for ½ of this amount within 30 days of the
issuance of the first construction/ building permit and the remaining ½ within 30 days of the
final issuance of any remaining permits but not before January 5th 2006.
The Consultant will if needed conduct inspections with/for the Mounds View Building
Official/Fire Marshal if needed at a rate of $50.00 per hour.
The City understands that unless given prior notice all plan review activity/inspections will
occur after normal business hours.
Consultant Agreement
Page 2
The Consultant agrees to provide proof of general liability and workers comp Insurance.
This agreement can be amended at any time by mutual agreement of the parties. All
amendments shall be in writing and signed by the parties.
Signed:
City of Mounds View
_________________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator Date
_________________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor Date
G & H Consultants, LLC
_________________________________________
Gary Hagedorn Date
_________________________________________
Katherine A. Gove, Consultant Date
RESOLUTION NO. 6694
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH G & H CONSULTANTS LLC
FOR PLAN REVIEW SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH
THE MEDTRONIC CRM PHASE 1 CONSTRUCTION
WHEREAS, providing high quality and timely plan review for Phase 1 of the
Medtronic CRM project is a priority for the City; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View has requested quotes from qualified
consultants to provide plan review services associated with the Medtronic CRM Phase 1
construction project; and,
WHEREAS, the City received five responses from qualified consultants with
fees ranging from $34,183 and $190,600; and,
WHEREAS, one proposal did not include a total fee and others could not
estimate the length of time it would take to complete the review; and,
WHEREAS, the consultant team of Katherine Gove and Gary Hagedorn
doing business as G & H Consultants LLC submitted the lowest proposal of $34,183;
WHEREAS, Gove and Hagedorn have agreed to provide additional plan
review assistance to be included with the estimated fee of $34,183 providing the City with
significant potential cost savings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Mounds View authorizes execution of an agreement with G & H Consultants LLC to
provide plan review services for Phase 1 of the Medtronic CRM development with
compensation set at 25% of the plan review fees collected for Phase 1, not to exceed
$34,183.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the costs for these
plan review services will be paid from the collected Medtronic plan review fees.
Adopted this 9th day of January 2006.
____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
T:
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No: 07M
Meeting Date: January 9, 2006
Type of Business: CB
City Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Desaree Crane, Assistant to City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Resolution 6709, Selection of the
Official City Newspaper, Acting Mayor, Treasurer and
Official Depositories for 2006
Discussion:
The Focus and The Bulletin have each submitted proposals to be the City’s official
newspaper for 2006. The Council selected The Bulletin as the City’s primary newspaper last
year. Both newspapers have put in bids (letters attached), and The Bulletin’s rates continue
to be slightly less. Both newspapers accept legal notices via e-mail.
Last year and in years previous the Council selected the St. Paul Pioneer Press as the City’s
secondary newspaper. Although the Pioneer Press did not submit a proposal this year, it
would certainly be acceptable for the Council to select the Pioneer Press as the City’s
secondary newspaper.
In addition, the attached resolution appoints treasurer consistent with Section 6.04 of the
City Charter.
Recommendation:
Review Resolution 6709, select an official newspaper and Acting Mayor and adopt
Resolution 6709.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree Crane
Attachments:
1. Letter from Sun Newspapers
2. Letter from Lillie Suburban Newspapers, Inc.
RESOLUTION NO. 6709
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPOINTING OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER, ACTING MAYOR, OFFICIAL
DEPOSITORY AND TREASURER FOR THE YEAR 2006
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 412.831 requires that City Councils annually
designate a newspaper of general circulation as its official newspaper; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 412.121 requires that City Councils annually
elect an Acting Mayor from among Council Members; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 427.012 requires that City Councils annually
select an official depository for City funds; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 6. Section 6.04 of the City Charter states the City Council
shall appoint a City Treasurer whose duties shall be as specified by State Law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Mounds View does hereby appoint the following:
Official Newspaper: Primary: The Bulletin
Secondary: St. Paul Pioneer Press
Acting Mayor: _________________________
Primary Depository: Western Bank (for checking accounts, savings
accounts and investments)
Secondary Depositories: Minnesota Municipal Money Market Fund
MBIA-4M Fund
Wachovia Securities, Inc.
RBC Dain Rauscher, Inc.
CitiGroup Global Markets, Inc.
U.S. Bank Systems Investment Services
Wells Fargo Bank N.A.
US Bank Corporate Trust Services
Federal Reserve Bank of Mpls.
Lynk Systems, Inc.
TCF National Banks
UBS Financial Services
Resolution 6709
Page 2
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Administrator/Clerk, the Treasurer, or
the Deputy Treasurer are authorized to conduct banking and investment business on
behalf of the City and the persons appointed to these positions are the following:
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Mark Beer, Treasurer
Mary Tatarek, Deputy Treasurer
Adopted this 9th day of January, 2006.
______________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No. 08F
Meeting Date: January 9, 2006
Type of Business: CA
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 6711 Approval of the TimeSaver Recording
Secretary Contract Addendum for 2006
BACKGROUND:
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial (TOSS) has been providing recording secretary services for
the City since 1999.
Discussion:
The contract addendum for 2006 includes an increase from the 2005 contract addendum
as follows:
2005 RATES 2006 RATES
BASE RATE: $112.00
Add’l ½ Hours: $27.75
BASE RATE: $115.50
Add’l ½ Hours: $28.50
or
2005 RATES 2006 RATES
Per Hour Fee: $24.00
Per Page Fee: $10.90
Per Hour Fee: $24.75
Per Page Fee: $11.25
Recommendation:
Given the City’s satisfaction with TimeSaver’s performance, Staff is recommending
approval of the 2006 contract addendum and adoption of attached Resolution 6711.
RESOLUTION NO. 6711
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVAL OF THE TIMESAVER RECORDING SECRETARY CONTRACT
ADDENDUM FOR 2006
WHEREAS, TimeSaver has been taking minutes for City Council, EDA and Planning
Commission meeting since 1999; and
WHEREAS, the City Council and staff are pleased with the thoroughness and accuracy of
the minutes taken by TimeSaver; and
WHEREAS, the contract proposed for 2006 includes a nominal increase of fees.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council agrees to and
accepts the terms of TimeSaver 2006 contract (see attachment).
Adopted this 9th day of January, 2005.
___________________________________
Rob Marty. Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL 1
TRUTH IN TAXATION 2
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 3
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 4
5
Special Meeting 6
December 5, 2005 7
New Brighton City Hall 8
803 Old Highway 8, New Brighton, MN 55112 9
6:00 P.M. 10
11
12
1. TRUTH IN TAXATION MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 13
14
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 15
16
3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, and Thomas 17
18
NOT PRESENT: None. 19
20
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 21
22
A. Monday, December 5, 2005 City Council Truth in Taxation Agenda 23
24
Finance Director Beer noted the next Council Work Session is December 6, 2005 and not 25
December 3, 2005. 26
27
MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Gunn. To Approve the Monday, December 5, Truth in Taxation 28
agenda as revised. 29
30
Ayes –5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 31
32
5. COUNCIL BUSINESS 33
34
A. 6:00 p.m. Truth in Taxation Hearing 35
36
Finance Director Beer explained the purpose of the Truth in Taxation meeting is to fulfill the 37
City obligation under State Statute and City Charter and will encompass the General Fund and 38
2004 Street Improvement Debt Service Fund. He read the Mission Statement of the City to 39
provide high quality public services that effectively address changing citizen and community 40
needs in a fiscally responsible and customer-friendly manner. 41
42
Finance Director Beer presented a pie chart depicting the General Fund expenditures by type, 43
noting the largest percentages are for Personnel at 55% and Contractural Services at 23%. The 44
other expenditures are for supplies, contingency, fire debt service, capital outlays, and transfers. 45
Mounds View City Council December 5, 2005
Truth in Taxation Meeting Page 2
1
Finance Director Beer then displayed a bar graph showing the General Fund Expenditures for the 2
last three years, noting the General Government line has increased slightly each year. For 2006 3
the primary driver behind the increase will be the addition of a temporary building inspector that 4
will be paid by the permit fees from The Bridges redevelopment. Public Safety shows an 5
increase due to an increased costs for police protection of 4.34% and fire protection of 5.25% 6
over the previous year. Other expenditures have remained relatively flat. He explained that the 7
increase in streets and highways reflects the resumption of street projects and a small amount of 8
inflation. The debt service for the fire bonds reflects the construction of a new fire department. 9
10
Finance Director Beer presented a pie chart identifying General Fund Expenditures by Function, 11
explaining the functions within each category. He pointed out that the Public Safety function is 12
by far the largest expenditure in the General Fund budget. Finance Director Beer then presented 13
a bar graph showing a comparison of the per capita expenditures when compared to the State 14
average. He explained this shows 2003 data, which is the most current data available from the 15
State Auditor, noting Mounds View is below the average per capita in every category. He read a 16
listing of each category and advised where Mounds View ranked out of 215 cities over 2,500 in 17
population. He pointed out that for total expenditures Mounds View is ranked 205 out of 215, or 18
at the very bottom. 19
20
Finance Director Beer stated General Fund expenditures will increase in 2006 for the following 21
reasons: Capital Expenditures will increase $119,432 in conjunction with planned replacements, 22
the Fire Department debt service will increase $89,555, the temporary housing inspector and plan 23
review of The Bridges development will cost $141,348, and inflation and miscellaneous 24
operation changes will account for about $148,340, for a total increase in General Fund 25
expenditures of $498,673. 26
27
Finance Director Beer stated all this leads to a property tax levy being unchanged for 2006. He 28
displayed the data for the 2005 and 2006 levy, noting the base levy went down slightly to 29
accommodate a higher debt service levy. The overall effect with be a zero dollar and zero 30
percent increase in the City’s tax levy for 2006. 31
32
Finance Director Beer presented a three-year graph of revenues by source, noting general 33
property taxes makes up the biggest portion of revenues and shows property taxes as being stable 34
for the past two years. It also identifies the decrease in intergovernmental revenues, which 35
identifies the cuts in Local Government Aid over the last three years. He noted the graph shows 36
an increase in transfers from other funds, partly to off set the cost of capital equipment that will 37
be purchased as part of the planned replacement and reflects monies coming in from the levy 38
reduction fund to off set the cost of the temporary building inspector and supplement the general 39
fund levy. 40
41
Finance Director Beer reported that Mounds View is ranked 93 out of 215 cities for tax capacity 42
and 174 out of 215 for net tax capacity. Property taxes as a whole would equate to a rank of 143 43
out of 215 which again is on the bottom side of the State ranking. In 2003, the State-wide 44
average for taxes was $366 per capita. 45
Mounds View City Council December 5, 2005
Truth in Taxation Meeting Page 3
1
Finance Director Beer presented a pie chart identifying the General Fund revenues, noting 2
property taxes makes up the largest percentage at 66%, other taxes at 6%, licenses and permits at 3
3%, intergovernmental revenues at 5%, other revenues at 3%, and transfer from other funds at 4
17%. He explained how you would go about calculating your property taxes, noting the chart 5
available from Ramsey County does not include the homestead credit calculation which is spread 6
to all entities within the County. 7
8
Finance Director Beer showed a slide of the sample home tax impact which shows that for a 9
home valued at $103,500 in 2005, the City tax would be $351.58. After Ramsey County 10
increased market values by 15%, that same home would valued $119,025 with a City tax of 11
$370.88 or a difference of $19.30. This change between the two years is an increase of less than 12
4%. The City’s tax rate in 2005 was 46.966 and is proposed to be 39.688 in 2006, or a 7.278 13
drop from the previous year equaling a 15.5% decrease in the rate. In Mounds View, the median 14
taxable value in 2005 was $162,300 and in 2006 will be $186,600, an increase of $24,300 or 15
15%. He advised this is the second year in a row that the City has experienced a 15% increase in 16
taxable market values. 17
18
Finance Director Beer drew the Council’s attention to a recent Star Tribune article that looked at 19
all counties and cities within those counties and the proposed tax rate. In the article, the Mounds 20
View proposed rate was at 8% but that has now been reduced to 0% for 2006. The article 21
projected that the City taxes would go up $314 including the county, school district, and 22
miscellaneous taxing districts. However, once you factor in the lower rate of a 0% increase, the 23
taxes would go down to a $290 increase. 24
25
Finance Director Beer advised that in 2006 of every property tax dollar paid in Mounds View, 26
32.04 cents would go to Mounds View, 36.01 cents to Ramsey County, 27.19 cents to the school 27
district, and 4.76 cents to the other taxing districts. He advised that in 2005, for every property 28
tax dollar paid in Mounds View 33.5 cents went to Mounds View, 35.8 cents went to Ramsey 29
County, 26.1 cents went to the school district, and 4.7 cents went to the other taxing districts. 30
31
Finance Director Beer displayed a slide showing the per capita tax for Mounds View and 32
surrounding cities. He pointed out that Mounds View is ranked the third lowest at $298.35 per 33
capita tax. 34
35
Finance Director Beer stated some significant items that have impacted Mounds View’s budget 36
are a reduction in Local Government Aid (LGA) to the City by $477,000 in 2004, $301,000 in 37
2005, and $122,000 in 2006. At one time this made up 19% of the General Fund budget and now 38
equals 0%. He stated the Council has done an admirable job in making this budget adjustment. 39
This has been the driving force behind recent levy increases. For 2006 insurance savings, other 40
expenditure reductions, having no major constructions projects, and the sale of the golf course 41
property has allowed the City to propose no levy increase. He noted that in 2004 a voter 42
referendum approved the addition of two police officers. There was also new contracts for 43
copiers, phone service, and uniforms that reduced costs. He noted land was decertified from TIF 44
Districts which increased the tax base and there was a 2004 street project. 45
Mounds View City Council December 5, 2005
Truth in Taxation Meeting Page 4
1
Finance Director Beer explained that the budget is the outcome of a range of factors including 2
State aid, service level changes, capital projects, and inflation. The goal of the budget is to 3
efficiently apply existing City resources and new revenues to provide the service levels and 4
infrastructure desired by the citizens of Mounds View. Finance Director Beer offered to answer 5
questions of the Council. 6
7
Mayor Marty opened the Truth in Taxation Public Hearing at 6:16 p.m. 8
9
Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated this is a well structured budget. He asked about 10
the 26% increase in franchise fees and whether staff is anticipating a cold winter. Finance 11
Director Beer stated the fund is already at that level in actual dollars for 2005 so they anticipate it 12
will be at least that much for 2006. 13
14
Mr. McCarty asked if this adds what 2005 brought in. Finance Director Beer answered in the 15
affirmative. 16
17
Mr. McCarty asked about the increase of 169% in miscellaneous, although it is a small amount of 18
$30,000. Finance Director Beer stated that involves higher interest rates. 19
20
Mr. McCarty stated part of the levy reduction fund includes a temporary inspector for the 21
Medtronic project equaling $141,348. He stated his understanding there is also $15,000 for an 22
automobile, $1,000 for software, $2,000 for a computer, and $68,000 for plan reviewals, 23
equaling $95,000 set aside for the Medtronic project. He asked where those funds will come 24
from. Finance Director Beer stated those numbers are offset dollar-for-dollar by permit fees from 25
the Medtronic project. 26
27
Mr. McCarty asked if the funds will not be from tax increments of the development. He noted 28
the City will be using general fund dollars from permit fees to pay the $141,000 (plus) for 29
services to the Medtronic project. He stated that does not seem right under the requirements of 30
Chapter 469 but that can be discussed at another time. 31
32
Mr. McCarty stated he does not expect the City will continue the hearing but the Charter is clear 33
that all funds, not just the General Fund, are to be included in the budget review each year, listing 34
all revenues and expenditures for all funds. 35
36
Ken Glidden, 5240 Edgewood Drive, stated he may be the only one present to talk about his 37
personal tax bill. His first question is who directs and controls the budget process and 38
determines how much will be spent. 39
40
Mayor Marty stated it is the Council and staff. 41
42
Councilmember Thomas agreed it is a collaboration between the Council and staff and residents 43
who come in. She noted this process starts at the beginning of the year. 44
45
Mounds View City Council December 5, 2005
Truth in Taxation Meeting Page 5
Mr. Glidden asked who owns the budget. 1
2
Finance Director Beer explained that the City Administrator submits a budget early in the process 3
and through collaboration with Department Heads, citizen comments, and planning sessions, 4
priorities are set by the Council. Then, at each Council meeting it is brought up for discussion 5
where they look at expenditure lines, individual detail, determine whether it is a good 6
expenditure for the City of Mounds View, and should remain or removed and considered in 7
future years. 8
9
Mr. Glidden asked if the City Administrator pulls together the initial budget, builds the budget, 10
and then through a process an agreement is reached and the Council approves the budget. He 11
asked if the City Administrator pulls together the original budget numbers. 12
13
Mayor Marty stated the Department Heads submit their individual budgets to the City 14
Administrator who puts those numbers together. Then it is presented to the City Council for 15
review. 16
17
City Administrator Ulrich stated the process does start early in the year, such as the citizen input 18
received at the Town Meeting, the citizen survey, and budgets from Department Head which are 19
presented to him. Then he puts together the budget for the Council to review by June of each 20
year. Special work session and public meetings are held for the Council and public to review the 21
budget and then the preliminary levy is set in the first part of September. Once the preliminary 22
levy is set, the Council examines more closely the expenditures and arrives at a final levy after 23
the Truth in Taxation hearing is held. 24
25
Councilmember Thomas stated Mr. Glidden’s question is difficult to answer but she hopes the 26
budget belongs to every citizen of the City either by saying no to something or making a 27
suggestion about something. She stated it is difficult to say who the budget is in ownership to 28
since all have the ability to make suggestions. 29
30
Mayor Marty stated he has received calls at home from people who did not want to attend a 31
Council meeting but offered their suggestions. Those suggestions were then brought forward. 32
33
Mr. Glidden asked what determines what is the starting point for next year’s budget. 34
Councilmember Thomas stated it starts at the Department level and is not a zero base because 35
there are fixed expenses for each year but it also does not go off the previous year’s number with 36
an increase. 37
38
Mr. Glidden stated his understanding that the City does not begin with the previous year’s budget 39
as a basis for the next year’s budget. The City starts at the Department level on projected 40
expenses for the coming year. 41
42
Mayor Marty stated when they start to compare each of the spreadsheets it also includes the 43
previous year numbers and the Council compares each Department with what they had last year. 44
45
Mounds View City Council December 5, 2005
Truth in Taxation Meeting Page 6
City Administrator Ulrich stated they do look at trend data, for example how much it costs to 1
plow streets, whether it is increasing or decreasing, and how to be more efficient. He advised 2
that the Council scrutinized each line item and challenged staff as to whether the activity had to 3
be undertaken or the item purchased. 4
5
Mayor Marty commended the Council for questioning a number of things, and line items, as the 6
budget has been reviewed. He noted that in the past he had suggestions or questioned things but 7
then it just moved on. However, with this Council it did not just move on and the item was 8
discussed as to merits. He stated there was good consensus and scrutiny on the budget being 9
considered tonight. 10
11
Finance Director Beer concurred, noting the Council even considered amounts as small as $200. 12
13
Mr. Glidden asked what determines the amount or percentage of increase in new budget, noting 14
budgets hardly ever go down. Councilmember Gunn stated the LGA cuts of $900,000 over the 15
last three years. 16
17
Mayor Marty concurred, noting that equaled 19% of the City’s budget. Now the City is receiving 18
no State assistance. 19
20
Councilmember Thomas stated Mr. Glidden is asking what raises budget items. She noted that 21
the loss of LGA is a revenue decrease and has nothing to do with an increase of a general fund 22
budget item for expenses. She explained that if an item is needed by a Department, that is where 23
an increase comes from. 24
25
Mr. Glidden asked if those items are also scrutinized. Councilmember Thomas stated they are 26
scrutinized item by item and in recent years have involved mostly personnel costs and insurance. 27
28
Finance Director Beer stated 55% of the budget is personnel and 23% is contractural services so 29
inflation drives the increases there considerably. He noted there was a 7.5% increase in health 30
insurance this year and the salary increases were at about the same rate of inflation. He 31
explained that for three-fourths of the budget, the union contract and contractural services dictate 32
what their increases are, noting fire service went up 5.25% this year. 33
34
Councilmember Flaherty stated people get pay raises, the Council had to look at the considerable 35
increase in gas prices, and they also looked at capital expenditures and whether a vehicle is 36
needed. That is what causes a budget to increase, noting the Council does not have much control 37
over wages and insurance premium increases. 38
39
Mr. Glidden asked who balances the cost projections, the required budget amount, against what 40
the tax revenue is going to be. Councilmember Thomas stated the Council does that activity. 41
42
Finance Director Beer explained that the Council started with 8% as the proposed amount of 43
property tax increase. Councilmember Thomas stated that is correct and the Council adjusted it 44
to zero. 45
Mounds View City Council December 5, 2005
Truth in Taxation Meeting Page 7
1
Mayor Marty explained that the Council set a preliminary levy and the Council can not go up 2
from that estimate but can go down. The Council started it at an 8% increase and then adjusted it 3
down to zero. 4
5
Councilmember Thomas explained that the County provides a base number on what they 6
estimate the tax base to be that the Council can balance against what they think the revenues will 7
be. 8
9
Mr. Glidden asked if it takes into account the assessed values. Mayor Marty stated it does. 10
11
Finance Director Beer explained that assessed values are only a piece of the formula. The rate 12
factors into it and the amount of revenue that the Council is trying to generate is also factored in. 13
The Council started with an 8% increase over last year’s levy of about $4.1 million and the levy 14
to be certified is about $3.8 million. The City figures the expenses first, looks at all revenue 15
sources and estimates what will be received. The filler number is the levy and because the 16
Council was able to reduce some of the expenditures and add additional revenue sources from 17
the proposed levy, the percentage went down to zero. 18
19
Mr. Glidden asked how the Council takes into consideration the increased valuations of 20
resident’s homes that generates additional revenue. He asked how that is factored into what the 21
City’s expectations are for incoming revenue. Finance Director Beer explained the County is 22
responsible for assessed values and the City cannot control that piece of it but can control how 23
much to levy for. He advised that the base is made up of home owners, industrial property, 24
commercial property, and apartment buildings. The City is more reactive as a result of what the 25
County does but cannot control what the County does. 26
27
City Administrator Ulrich stated the City receives a preliminary estimate of the impact of the 28
market value increase which is used to establish the tax rate. 29
30
Mr. Glidden asked if there is a County Truth in Taxation meeting. Councilmember Thomas 31
advised it will be held on December 13, 2005. Finance Director Beer stated all taxing districts 32
have to hold their own Truth in Taxation hearings. Mr. Glidden stated he has never seen an 33
advertisement or notice for a County Truth in Taxation hearing. 34
35
Finance Director Beer advised that the hearing dates are on the Truth in Taxation statement. 36
Councilmember Thomas suggested they also be posted on the City’s web site. 37
38
Mr. Glidden stated his understanding of how the Council takes into account the increase in 39
assessed valuations based on data from the County. That information is used to build the first 40
budget and then the levy is adjusted accordingly to match the new assessed value. He noted if 41
you do not do that you are just taking a “windfall cut” almost by formula of assessed values. 42
43
Finance Director Beer explained that since the City lowered the rate, that is not what Mounds 44
View is doing. He stated that some cities claim they kept the rate the same and would get a 45
Mounds View City Council December 5, 2005
Truth in Taxation Meeting Page 8
windfall from any increase in assessed values. The Mounds View rate dropped by 15.5% over 1
the previous year. He offered to meet with Mr. Glidden to work through the budget calculations 2
if he would like that information. 3
4
Councilmember Thomas stated the Council does not start with the market assessed value issue, 5
but with a total dollar issue. When the total dollar is compared, last year to this year, it is the 6
same level. The assessed value of the home increase is going into the County but the City 7
decreased its rate. 8
9
Mr. Glidden stated it bothers him that he cannot get the answers in one place on his property 10
taxes. He explained he would like to have an understanding of the budget process. He stated his 11
message is that whatever the Council uses for the formula, it has to be affordable by the 12
residents. 13
14
Councilmember Gunn noted the increases are not from the City but from the County and school. 15
She stated this Council worked very hard to assure there was no increase in the City’s portion 16
over last year. 17
18
Mr. Glidden commended the Council for the work they have done. However, he stated it does 19
not matter to him because his taxes are going up 10% again and considering that and the 20
preceding years it is shocking. He stated he is recently retired. His income increases at the rate 21
of inflation and that is it so that is why he has to make sure the Council takes into account the 22
affordability of the tax revenue to be collected. 23
24
Mr. Glidden stated another citizen informed him that this meeting is really too late to effect 25
anyth ing for the 2006 budget but this is the first budget meeting he has been informed of. 26
27
Councilmember Gunn stated the budget has been on every agenda since September. 28
29
Councilmember Thomas stated that is correct and was also considered at several meetings prior 30
to September. 31
32
Mr. Glidden stated his apology and said he listened to things at the Council meeting but did not 33
understand it was part of the budget process. 34
35
Councilmember Stigney stated that although it is very late since the Council will consider 36
approving the levy on December 12, if Mr. Glidden or any residents can convince him there is 37
something more the Council should do, it can be changed. He noted that is the purpose for the 38
hearing tonight, for residents to bring things up where more cuts can be made or something more 39
thoroughly investigated. 40
41
Finance Director Beer stated the budget is also on the work session agenda for tomorrow night in 42
case something came up tonight. 43
44
Mounds View City Council December 5, 2005
Truth in Taxation Meeting Page 9
Mr. Glidden stated at a previous meeting there was a nice presentation of major budget items that 1
showed projected increases and decreases item by item. He stated the Council talked about items 2
on the list that showed major increases but he does not have that list tonight. 3
4
Mayor Marty invited Mr. Glidden to attend the work session tomorrow night to address those 5
budgeted items. 6
7
Mr. Glidden stated he understands the big tax increase he received is not coming from the City 8
but he wants to emphasize the need to compare the projected increases in costs against what 9
residents can afford to pay. 10
11
Mayor Marty stated one of the reasons the levy could be kept down is because there were no 12
street projects. However, there will probably be projects in 2007 so there will be bonding to 13
repair streets and do infrastructure work. That may mean an increase in 2007. 14
15
Mr. Glidden stated he recalls that discussion from a previous year and is upset that the City 16
skipped street maintenance for a year since it will take on additional risk. Finance Director Beer 17
corrected that the City did street maintenance but did not undertake a street reconstruction 18
project. 19
20
Councilmember Thomas stated street reconstruction is significantly behind schedule and is an 21
issue the Council deals with on the petition basis. She stated she is not sure it is something that 22
can be done for next year but the Council will have to work with the Public Works Department 23
on that issue. 24
25
Mr. Glidden questioned the difference between a street maintenance and a street reconstruction 26
cost. He asked if it is just the difference in the timescale and budget to do it. Councilmember 27
Flaherty explained that street maintenance is filling a pothole in the street or sweeping of the 28
street. Street reconstruction was proposed last year and involves tearing out the street, redoing 29
the sewer lines, and reconstructing the streets. 30
31
Mr. Glidden stated you have to expect that for any street in the City, you will need funds to 32
rebuild it. He stated he would expect there is an amount built into the budget that covers 33
reconstruction of the street as well as filling the pothole. 34
35
Councilmember Gunn stated that would involve adding millions of dollars to the budget. 36
37
Councilmember Thomas explained that is talking about the debt service, which cannot be put 38
into the budget when the debt has not yet occurred. She stated the Council has been talking 39
about a 10-year project for street reconstruction. 40
41
Mayor Marty again invited Mr. Glidden to attend the work session tomorrow night. 42
43
Brian Amundson, 3048 Wooddale Drive, stated he wanted to clarify some of the things that were 44
said tonight. He asked if the numbers on his property tax statement reflected the old levy 45
Mounds View City Council December 5, 2005
Truth in Taxation Meeting Page 10
numbers. Finance Director Beer stated that is correct. Mr. Amundson stated he wanted that 1
clarified for people who may be watching the meeting from home. 2
3
Mr. Amundson stated there is still an increase and that is what bothers most people. He stated he 4
appreciates that the rate is going down and the revenue generated is going to be equal in the 5
general fund as it was in the last year. However, there is still an increase because the property 6
value is going up. He stated that he does not understand why, if the City’s revenue is going to be 7
flat, his cost is not decreasing. Finance Director Beer stated the reason is because there are four 8
classes that property taxes get applied to and it is relative to the value increases. The home class 9
increased by 15% in the last two years, commercial and industrial properties only had a 9% 10
increase, and apartments saw a decrease. He stated the shift in the tax burden relates to the 11
increases in values. 12
13
Mr. Amundson asked about the chart showing the tax rates compared to other cities which was 14
shown in a per capita comparison instead of by per $100,000 for private homes. Finance 15
Director Beer explained that since cities all have a different median tax values, it is hard to make 16
a comparison that way and it is felt that per capita is a better comparison. 17
18
Mr. Amundson disagreed and stated if he looks at a home of the same value in another city, he is 19
still paying more in property taxes than surrounding cities. He asked if that is because of 20
population density. Finance Director Beer explained that North Oaks has a median tax value of 21
about $580,000 with a tax rate of about 8%. Mounds View has a median tax value of $186,000. 22
23
Mr. Amundson stated he is talking about real dollars paid per $100,000, noting he is paying the 24
highest rate for the suburban area. Finance Director Beer stated you cannot apply the Mounds 25
View rate to another city, noting they have a bigger population base. 26
27
Mr. Amundson stated he does not like that the chart tried to show that Mounds View pays a 28
lower property tax than other cities. Finance Director Beer stated Mounds View residents do pay 29
a lower rate per capita. 30
31
Mr. Amundson stated that in terms of real dollars for the value, Mounds View residents are 32
paying more. He stated his understanding from the Town Hall meeting that if additional 33
inspectors are needed for the Medtronic project, it would be funded from TIF. He stated he had 34
expected either the interfund transfers to be higher for that position or the position to be totally 35
funded by TIF. Finance Director Beer referenced page 9 and stated the interfund transfers, on the 36
expenditure side, did go up. 37
38
Mr. Amundson noted the City Hall remodel project is funded from the special projects fund and 39
asked how many additional other funds exist. Finance Director Beer stated there are four 40
enterprise funds, about a dozen special revenue funds, four capital project funds, and two debt 41
service funds. 42
43
Mr. Amundson asked if any of those funds get property tax revenue. Finance Director Beer 44
stated they do not. Revenue for those funds come from grants, interest income, fees, franchise 45
Mounds View City Council December 5, 2005
Truth in Taxation Meeting Page 11
fees, etc. Mr. Amundson stated his concern when he heard there was $3.5 million in a special 1
projects fund and now there are also net proceeds from Medtronic so there is $7 million sitting 2
someplace. He stated the City is still talking about a $3.8 million general fund and asked why 3
money from the other funds is not being used to pay for City general services and truly keeping it 4
a zero increase for City service increases. 5
6
Finance Director Beer explained that the special project fund is scheduled to be spent down over 7
the next four to five years on projects like the City Hall renovation and fixing the sign. 8
9
Mr. Amundson asked where he can get a copy of that information. Finance Director Beer stated 10
it is included in the Capital Improvement Plan. Mr. Amundson asked that it also be included on 11
the City’s website. 12
13
Barbara Haake, 3024 County Road I, asked about page 12, the Sample Home Tax Impact chart, 14
showing a $103,000 house and tax of $670 for the City’s portion back in 2005 and going to $697 15
now, which is a $27 difference. She asked how much the City gathered in income just from 16
home valuations in 2005 and what is projected that the City will get in 2006. Finance Director 17
Beer stated the County has not yet provided that information. 18
19
Ms. Haake stated that will be additional income and the Council is saying they are not raising the 20
levy limit but there is additional money coming in. Finance Director Beer stated the City will 21
not be getting in any additional money because the levy in 2005 was $3.8 million and in 2006 it 22
is $3.8 million. He explained that what Ms. Haake is seeing is a shift from commercial, 23
industrial, and apartment building properties to residential properties. 24
25
Ms. Haake asked what is the final budget for income received in 2005 and will be received in 26
2006. Finance Director Beer stated page 8 shows the levy for both 2005 and 2006. 27
28
Ken?? Meyer, 2812 Sherwood Road, stated the Council is saying they are not raising taxes but he 29
believes they are over taxed for the services they get compared to other cities. He asked why 30
they don’t talk about asking each department in the City for a 3% decrease. He stated the City is 31
living on a shoestring and there are no contingencies being built into the budget. Mr. Meyer 32
stated the City does not have any cash reserves and is talking about using the Medtronic money at 33
once, forgetting about the future. He stated the City does not have any cash in the bank and is 34
counting on a 12% to 15% increase in property value every year which cannot continue and may 35
go flat. 36
37
Mr. Meyer stated the City cannot expect to continually increase property values and he believes 38
the City is living from paycheck to pay check and has no cushion whatsoever. 39
40
Mayor Marty noted there was inflation this year and yet the Council was able to keep the levy at 41
the same level as last year. 42
43
Councilmember Thomas noted one resident said the City has too big of a “financial cushion” 44
because of the special project funds and another perception is now being presented that the City 45
Mounds View City Council December 5, 2005
Truth in Taxation Meeting Page 12
has no “financial cushion.” She corrected that the City is not spending the proceeds of the sale 1
and principal at this point. The City is only spending the interest. She stated the City has other 2
accounts budgeted out five to ten years for capital improvement expenditures so the money is 3
available. She stated the “cushions” are built in and the Council does not plan for one year at a 4
time but for five to ten years. Councilmember Thomas suggested that Mr. Meyer meet with 5
Finance Director Beer to discuss those funds. She stated it is a balance between how much is too 6
much to have on hand for the future and how much is too much to keep taxes down. 7
8
Mayor Marty stated the City has a five-year and a ten-year plan. 9
10
Councilmember Gunn stated when the Council goes to the Departments, staff is told to make 11
cuts of 2%, 3%, 5% and that is being done. 12
13
Mr. Meyer stated he works in a business that sells to municipalities like Mounds View. He has 14
found that at the end of the fiscal year if there is money left, it is spent. As a taxpayer, that 15
bothers him. He stated departments do not want their budget to go down from last year and they 16
do not get paid less every year. He stated the bottom line is that they do not lower their budgets 17
and if there is money in the budget, staff will spend it and there is no incentive to compensate for 18
it. 19
20
Mayor Marty stated that may have been the case in the past but since he has been on the Council 21
they have been addressing staff and departments. He stated he does not believe that has been the 22
case in Mounds View for a number of years. 23
24
Councilmember Thomas stated the budget for the Departments is not based on what they had last 25
year and they have to justify their budget line by line. 26
27
Mr. Meyer stated he sees the budget from a different side. 28
29
Councilmember Stigney stated the City will only use the interest money from the Medtronic 30
project this year. He noted if the City used the principal they would have $250,000 each year for 31
the next 20 years excluding interest and he plans to use that money for the purpose of tax levy 32
reduction. 33
34
Mayor Marty asked about the State Auditor’s information indicating Mounds View is ranked 144 35
out of 215 cities for taxes. Finance Director Beer stated those are figures from 2003, which is the 36
most current information available. 37
38
Mayor Marty stated he received several telephone calls about snowplows and will address that 39
issue at the next Council meeting. 40
41
Finance Director Beer asked if the Council would like to keep the public hearing open. 42
43
Mr. McCarty asked the Council to leave the public hearing open so staff can chart the Medtronic 44
information mentioned by Councilmember Stigney on a spreadsheet. 45
Mounds View City Council December 5, 2005
Truth in Taxation Meeting Page 13
1
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Continue the Truth in Taxation Public Hearing to the 2
December 12, 2005 Council Meeting at 7:05 p.m. 3
4
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 5
6
6. Next Council Work Session: Tuesday, December 6, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. 7
Next Council Meeting: Monday, December 12, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. 8
9
7. ADJOURNMENT 10
11
The meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m. 12
13
Transcribed by: 14
15
16
Carla Wirth 17
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 18
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL 1
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3
4
Regular Meeting 5
December 12, 2005 6
New Brighton City Hall 7
803 Old Highway 8, New Brighton, MN 55112 8
7:30 P.M. 9
10
11
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 12
13
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 14
15
3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, and Thomas 16
17
NOT PRESENT: None. 18
19
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 20
21
A. Monday, December 12, 2005 City Council Agenda 22
23
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Flaherty. To Approve the Monday, December 12, 2005 agenda as 24
presented. 25
26
Ayes –5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 27
28
5. PUBLIC INPUT 29
30
None. 31
32
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUISNESS 33
34
None. 35
36
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS 37
38
A. 7:05 p.m. Public Hearing 39
1. Continued Public Hearing from December 5, 2005, Truth in Taxation 40
41
Mayor Marty noted this public hearing was continued from the December 5, 2005 Truth in 42
Taxation meeting. 43
44
Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 2
Finance Director Beer stated everything was presented at the December 5, 2005 Truth in 1
Taxation meeting and offered to answer questions. 2
3
Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, thanked staff and indicated he recognizes how good they 4
have been in getting information to residents. He stated he has always gone through the 5
Administrator to request information and was not disappointed because the information was 6
complete and always prompt. He thanked City Administrator Ulrich as well. 7
8
Mr. McCarty questioned the revenue source for the temporary building inspector, software, 9
vehicle, and computer, all related to Medtronic at a cost of over $140,000. He stated there is no 10
increase in building permit and license fees in 2006 over 2005. Mr. McCarty stated he could not 11
follow the revenue stream for those expenditures. 12
13
Finance Director Beer explained that the permit money generated from the Medtronic project 14
will be deposited in the levy reduction fund and amounts equivalent to those expenses transferred 15
to the General Fund to cover those costs. 16
17
Mr. McCarty asked if those fees will be paid before this position starts. Finance Director Beer 18
answered in the affirmative, noting they will be paid for when Medtronic pulls the permit. 19
20
Mr. McCarty asked how long will it will take to cover those expenses. Community Development 21
Director Ericson stated the first permit fee will cover all of those expenses. 22
23
Mr. McCarty asked when the Golf Course fund will be closed. Finance Director Beer stated it 24
will be done within a week. 25
26
There being no further public input, Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. 27
28
2. Resolution 6687 Adopting the 2006 Property Tax Levy 29
30
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Thomas. To adopt Resolution 6687 Adopting the 2006 Property 31
Tax Levy. 32
33
Mayor Marty read the resolution in full and stated this is a zero percent increase levy. Last year 34
the levy was for $3,838,334 and it is exactly the same for 2006. 35
36
In response to Councilmember Flaherty’s question about The Bridges, Finance Director Beer 37
stated it would probably decrease that number so $134,000 would be the maximum and was the 38
best figure available at the time the budget was put together. 39
40
Community Development Director Ericson stated the agenda item will further clarify the cost for 41
plan review. 42
43
Councilmember Flaherty stated the original figure is $68,000 for plan review and now the 44
Council is considering $34,000. Director Ericson stated that provides for flexibility should 45
Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 3
additional plan review be necessary. But, staff will be presenting later this evening that we don’t 1
believe that will be the case. 2
3
Mayor Marty asked if the park dedication fee is due when the building permit is pulled. Director 4
Ericson answered in the affirmative. 5
6
Councilmember Flaherty asked if it will reduce the levy. Finance Director Beer stated it will not 7
because the cost for the temporary inspector is directly off set by permit revenue. 8
9
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 10
11
3. Resolution 6688 Adopting the 2006 Budgets for All Funds 12
13
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Stigney. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6688 Adopting 14
the 2006 Budgets for All Funds. 15
16
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 17
18
4. Public Hearing to Consider Resolution 6682 Adopting the 2006 Fee 19
Schedule 20
21
Assistant to the City Administrator Crane stated this action will adopt the 2006 fee schedule, 22
which was reviewed at the December 6, 2005 Work Session. She noted the changes are 23
highlighted and advised that no additional changes were made since it was reviewed at the Work 24
Session. Staff recommends the public hearing be held and the draft resolution adopted. 25
26
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. 27
28
There being no public hearing, Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. 29
30
Mayor Marty explained that staff reviewed the fee schedule and recommended adjustments in 31
select areas where they felt increases were due and warranted. 32
33
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Flaherty. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6682 34
Adopting the 2006 Fee Schedule. 35
36
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 37
38
Mayor Marty thanked staff for their work to review the fee schedule and bring this matter before 39
the Council. 40
41
B. 7:10 pm: Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6683, a Resolution 42
Authorizing Amendments to the City’s Wetland Zoning District 43
44
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:44 p.m. 45
Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 4
1
Community Development Director Ericson explained that last year the Council authorized SEH 2
to do a wetland delineation survey of the Spring Creek wetland basin. He reviewed the location 3
of the subject wetland and explained this delineation was authorized because the official wetland 4
zoning maps were created in the 1980s but were not based on a delineation. Those maps were 5
based on aerial flights, photography, and elevations. The maps were not field verified and were 6
meant to be a tool to assist the City to regulate the wetland buffer. He explained the way the 7
Code is written, the delineation goes back to the official City maps, which have not been updated 8
as the wetland information has been updated. Director Ericson noted there may be a discrepancy 9
between what the official City maps show and the true official footprint of the wetland. SEH has 10
delineated the true boundary of the wetland and that boundary was pulled in from what is shown 11
on the official City wetland zoning maps. 12
13
Director Ericson displayed a map of the Spring Creek wetland basin showing the new wetland 14
delineation and buffer map. He noted this will, in most cases, pull the wetland line farther away 15
from resident’s homes and yards. Director Ericson stated the Council is being asked to adopt a 16
resolution to identify a true delineation of where the wetland is and confirms the location. 17
18
Director Ericson explained that a resident may or may not need a wetland buffer permit if they 19
want to remodel their house or redo their driveway. If the project is within the wetland buffer, 20
then an additional $25 permit is needed. However, staff knew that in some cases the wetland 21
was not impacted and the permit was not needed. 22
23
Director Ericson stated this action would hold the public hearing, adopt the new wetland 24
delineation, and then the City’s official zoning maps will be updated. This same process will be 25
used for all wetland areas in Mounds View and will give residents a better idea of where 26
wetlands are located. Director Ericson advised that if requested, the City can print out a map of 27
the resident’s property before and after the wetland delineation. In most cases, it will show less 28
of an impact on resident’s properties. 29
30
Director Ericson stated there is now better electronic data and the maps are in digital form so it 31
will be easier to manage the wetland, print maps, and make amendments when necessary. He 32
stated this is the first time the City has taken formal action to approve a new wetland delineation 33
and offered to answer questions of the residents. 34
35
Mayor Marty asked staff to display the pre-delineation zoning map and the new wetland zoning 36
map. He noted that the old map shows the wetland impacted just about every property and that 37
their homes were either within the wetland or buffer zone. This action will identify the actual 38
location of the wetland. Mayor Marty noted that since the 1980s, the wetland areas may have 39
receded somewhat and this could be a classic case of that happening. 40
41
Mayor Marty asked residents if they would like to speak to this issue. 42
43
Gene Anderson, 2948 Wooddale Drive, stated that in April of this year the City Engineer spent 44
considerable money doing surveys and looking at the wetland in terms of developing a holding 45
Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 5
pond. He stated that money is now gone and if the holding pond had been done, this wetland 1
delineation would not be necessary since the pond would have been eight feet deep. Mr. 2
Anderson asked what is the status of that project. He stated that the new buffer zone runs 3
through his swimming pool but it was not an issue when the pool was installed. He noted it 4
appears with his property the wetland line expanded, is more of an impact, and has decreased the 5
value of his property. 6
7
Director Ericson stated he cannot speak to the holding pond issue because it and the wetland 8
delineations are completely independent from each other. 9
10
Mr. Anderson asked if the additional water holding properties were needed for a road 11
improvement project. 12
13
Mayor Marty stated whether or not the pond went in would not have change where the wetland is 14
located. Public Works Director Lee stated that is correct, the delineation has no bearing on the 15
location of the regional pond. He explained that the pond was a requirement of the street projects 16
and the requirement for water treatment by the Rice Creek Watershed District. Since that project 17
did not go forward, the pond is on hold. 18
19
Councilmember Thomas stated back in April or May the City did receive the report and it will be 20
useful to the City for three to four years so the money is not “gone.” 21
22
Richard Comben, 2832 Woodcrest Drive, stated he is glad this issue came up and asked if the 23
determination of the wetland is done through soil testing. Director Ericson explained the 24
delineation of wetlands includes a very involved process by soil and water hydrologists. They 25
look at the type of soils present, the type of vegetation that exists, the presence of water, if there 26
is not water there could still be wetland vegetation, and subsurface soil modeling that determines 27
how the wetland delineation is projected. In the 1980s that process was not used. 28
29
Mr. Comben stated he has lived there since 1972 and depending on the year or decade, the 30
wetland area goes back and forth. He wondered how realistic the shaded area on the map and 31
buffer really are. He stated the buffer goes right up to his garage and he is suspicious why the 32
City is paying attention to this matter today. He asked if there is a building project that needs 33
more runoff area. Mr. Comben stated he would feel better if the City put a 100-foot radius 34
around every wetland and sinkhole so everyone can share in this “pain.” 35
36
Director Ericson explained that by Code, the purpose of the buffer adopted in the 1980s gave the 37
City the opportunity to review what is happening adjacent to a wetland. However, the 100-foot 38
buffer is not a “magic number” for a buffer. He explained that the City requires a 100-foot 39
setback and in some cases it creates no impact because of the distinct change in elevation. 40
Director Ericson explained that the City had several property owners ask why they had to get a 41
wetland buffer permit to redo their driveway or garage so the City went forward with this 42
delineation project. He noted that in the case of the Comben property, the line was pulled back, 43
as occurred with most properties. 44
45
Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 6
Director Ericson stated in the 1980s the City realized that the wetlands were an important feature 1
for recharging the aquafore and filtering out chemicals. 2
3
Mr. Comben asked if the rules against his property are the same as the rules against all 4
properties. Director Ericson stated that is the case for all properties in the wetland buffer. 5
6
Mr. Comben asked about a storm water pond, noting it will soon have cattails growing and then 7
all of the homes around it will be within the wetland buffer. Director Ericson explained that 8
storm water management ponds are not considered wetlands but if wetland vegetation grows, the 9
Rice Creek Watershed District may consider it to be a wetland. 10
11
Mr. Comben stated there is a property on the north side of Woodcrest that is sinking as well as 12
Silver Lake Road. He suggested Woodcrest Drive be blocked off and the wetland area expanded. 13
He stated his opinion that something special had to be done with the Silver Lake Road project so 14
he would suggested it be allowed to sink and become wetland. 15
16
Public Works Director Lee explained that Ramsey County changed the grades for Silver Lake 17
Road so the grades of Woodcrest Drive will have to be changed to match them. 18
19
Councilmember Thomas noted the wetland buffer area decreased and did not increase, so before 20
the new delineation the buffer line may have gone into Mr. Comben’s garage. She noted that 21
most cities do not have updated wetland delineations and this is Mounds View’s attempt to get 22
that process started. 23
24
Mayor Marty stated the City ordered another wetland delineation by Ardan Park and LaPort 25
Meadows and that will be following this same process. He noted that the pond project 26
mentioned earlier was put on hold and this is a separate process to determine the accurate 27
wetland boundaries and buffer zone. 28
29
Mr. Comben asked if the pond would drain the wetlands and result in less wetland area. Public 30
Works Director Lee explained that the pond would not be located in the wetland but would be 31
located upland and not drain the wetland. 32
33
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 8:09 p.m. 34
35
Mayor Marty thanked Director Ericson and staff for bringing this matter forward. He explained 36
that the City’s zoning maps will be changed so, as residents do home projects, they will find this 37
to be advantageous. Currently, the City’s records would have impacted almost every home in 38
this area but with the new wetland delineation the buffer area has been pulled back. Prior to the 39
new delineation, all properties would have needed a buffer permit to redo their driveway. Now 40
only one property would be effected if they want to redo their driveway. 41
42
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6683, a 43
Resolution Authorizing Amendments to the City’s Wetland Zoning District. 44
45
Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 7
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 1
2
C. 7:15 pm: Public Hearing to Consider a Rezoning of the Property Located at 3
2617 County Road I from R-1, Single Family, to R-2, Single and Two Family 4
Residential 5
6
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 8:11 p.m. 7
8
Planning Associate Heller presented the request to rezone 2617 County Road I from R-1, Single 9
Family, to R-2, Single and Two Family Residential. She explained the applicant did an addition 10
to her home and then staff received a call to do a rental housing inspection. Staff became aware 11
of a change of intent in how Ms. Colleen planned to use the addition so she was informed of the 12
need to apply for a rezoning. 13
14
Planning Associate Heller explained the addition included a full kitchen with full-sized 15
appliances. She noted the rezoning to R-2 would be not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan 16
but may not necessarily be inappropriate since there is commercial property across the street and 17
there are other R-2 properties in the near vicinity of Ms. Colleen’s property. The Planning 18
Commission held a public hearing and they did recommend approval of this rezoning. 19
20
Joanne Colleen offered to answer questions and explained this evolved into something it was not 21
originally intended to be. She explained that her older sister and her husband wanted to live 22
there and will then take care of the yard. The space is under 700 square feet. Ms. Colleen 23
explained that when her older sister and husband retire, they plan to be in Florida for half of the 24
year. 25
26
There being no additional public input, Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. 27
28
Councilmember Flaherty asked how this request evolved from an addition to a rental unit. 29
30
Ms. Colleen stated the space was added above the garage so her son, his wife, and two children 31
could be up there since her house is small. Originally it was created as a recreational area of 7.5 32
feet by 18 feet plus a kitchenette/bar area and two small bedrooms (10 feet by 12 feet and 8 feet 33
by 12 feet) plus a bathroom. The addition was competed in July of 2004 and the refrigerator and 34
sink were installed because there was supposed to be a 6-foot bar. Then the bar did not fit so a 35
small counter was installed with two stools. The counter was affixed to the floor so it would not 36
tip over. Ms. Colleen stated a stove was added as well as some upper cupboards. Then her son 37
got a job offer at the end of December so they only lived there four months. Her son’s family 38
moved out in February of 2005. Ms. Colleen stated by May, she thought maybe she could rent it 39
out to someone. 40
41
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6695, A 42
Resolution of the City Council to deny the request to rezone 2617 County Road I from R-1, 43
Single Family Residential, to R-2, Single and Two Family Residential; Planning Case No. ZC05-44
002. 45
Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 8
1
Councilmember Stigney stated if the property is zoned R-2 it should have separate driveways and 2
garages. Also, this request for rezoning is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan so he 3
supports denial. 4
5
Councilmember Flaherty asked if this is a typical R-2 use in Mounds View. Planning Associate 6
Heller stated it can be a separate dwelling created within the home and used for rental but in most 7
cases it is a twinhome type of situation. 8
9
Councilmember Flaherty stated he also felt an R-2 use would be more typical to a twinhome than 10
an addition over a garage. He stated he does not know, however, if this addition constitutes an 11
R-2 dwelling. 12
13
Councilmember Thomas asked if the City has an option to consider other than to rezone, such as 14
a rental agreement. Director Ericson stated there is a little gray area with this case. He noted that 15
the City encourages property owners to expanded their homes to include additional living space 16
because it is considered an amenity. The point at which it became a question, was when the City 17
was notified it had potential for renting out and the inspector was going to look at the property. 18
That elevated it to the R-2 designation. He explained that property owners can rent out a room or 19
part of the basement but the moment it is a distinct and separate living space with separate 20
access, it is a separate unit and not contemplated in the R-1 zoning district. 21
22
Councilmember Thomas stated the “mother-in-law” use is allowed based on shared living space 23
and since this addition does not have a separate driveway and garage, she considers it to have 24
shared living space. She noted that having a separate door does not define a separate facility and 25
neither does having a separate refrigerator or stove. Otherwise, any bedroom with a separate sink 26
or microwave would be considered a separate living space if it had a patio door. Councilmember 27
Thomas stated she does not know how this application rises to the level of a zoning change. 28
29
Director Ericson stated the shared space, according to Code and conventional review of matters 30
such as zoning, is shared living space, not a shared garage or driveway. In this case, there is no 31
shared living space. He noted there is a connection between the addition and primary home but 32
the door can be locked and there could be no shared space if they so choose. If the property 33
owner is seeking housing inspection and certification for, perhaps, Section 8 housing, then the 34
inspector must verify Code compliance. That elevates it to a different zoning classification. 35
36
Councilmember Flaherty stated he is not convinced this is an R-2 dwelling and he agrees with 37
Councilmember Thomas that this is no more than a “mother-in-law” apartment. He stated he 38
thinks the City can satisfy Ms. Colleen’s needs without a rezoning. 39
40
Councilmember Stigney stated his understanding that once it is rezoned to R-2, it will always be 41
rental property. He explained he is concerned about creating R-2 property without a separate 42
driveway and garage to house two families. 43
44
Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 9
Councilmember Thomas stated she does not think rezoning is the proper solution and encouraged 1
staff to see if an adaptation to the Code is an option. She suggested the Council discuss this 2
matter at a Work Session to see what can be done. Councilmember Thomas noted Ms. Colleen 3
was being “above board” in notifying the City that she was going to be accepting rent for this 4
space. Councilmember Thomas stated she does not think rezoning is the answer because it 5
expands authorization well beyond where the applicant wants to be. 6
7
Councilmember Gunn asked what happens if the rezoning is denied. Director Ericson stated in 8
the correspondence with Ms. Colleen, she was provided with two options: 1) rezoning; or, 2) to 9
remove the kitchen facility. Director Ericson stated there is a gray area in the difference between 10
a “bar” and a “kitchen.” He stated the City would indicate the kitchen facility needs to be 11
removed; the full sized refrigerator, stove, and sinks. He stated that the property owner was 12
presented with those two options. 13
14
Mayor Marty stated he can see both sides of this issue and after hearing the applicant’s story 15
about how this evolved, can picture how that could have happened. However, with a rezoning it 16
is as Councilmember Stigney said, once it is rezoned to R-2 it will be constituted rental property. 17
At the present time, he concurs with Councilmember Stigney to approve the resolution to deny 18
the rezoning and then the Council can have more discussion on this issue. He noted if the stove 19
is removed then there could be a shared kitchen area and it would be more like renting out a 20
room. 21
22
Ms. Colleen stated her other option was to remove the cupboards, the stove, and the sink. She 23
stated her willingness to remove the stove but explained that the sink was installed and inspected 24
for the wet bar. She stated she did not think there was a problem with installing cupboards in 25
this location since other houses have cupboards in many locations, such as the garage or 26
bedroom. She explained that she refinanced her home three times and sold her river place to 27
build this addition. 28
29
Mayor Marty stated his house has a downstairs bar with cupboards and a refrigerator. He stated 30
he supports the resolution for denial and asked the applicant to work with staff to make a few 31
minor adjustments, such as taking out the stove to keep the property in compliance. He noted the 32
renter could still use the space, share the main kitchen, and still do the yard work for Ms. 33
Colleen. 34
35
Councilmember Thomas asked if it is enough to take out the stove. Director Ericson stated there 36
is enough of a change so it is additional living space. However, if the stove and refrigerator are 37
removed, the appearance of the kitchen would be removed and it would better satisfy the Code. 38
He stated staff can work with Ms. Colleen to make modifications short of removing the sink. 39
However, if this space is advertised for rent to a non-family member, then staff would have 40
objection. He explained the concern to not have other properties start renting out to non-family 41
members or many college students. 42
43
Director Ericson stated that staff will continue to work with Ms. Colleen to satisfy her needs if 44
the Council moves forward with the denial of the rezoning. 45
Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 10
1
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 2
3
D. 7:20 pm: Public Hearing to Consider Abating Nuisance Conditions and Non-4
Compliant Code Items at 2390 County Road 10, Property Known and 5
Operated as Premium Stop Fuel Station 6
7
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 8:35 p.m. 8
9
Housing/Code Enforcement Inspector Anderson explained that on September 21, 2005, the City 10
of Mounds View was subjected to high winds and damaging conditions. The canopy at 2390 11
County Road 10 sustained damage and was noticeably listing. Staff directed the property 12
owner/operator to make corrective actions or provide, in lieu of that, an engineering report. Mr. 13
Bteibet took corrective action in removing the canopy from the post and putting it into the shared 14
parking area with the former Donut Connection. The canopy has now been in that location since 15
mid-October. Housing/Code Enforcement Inspector Anderson explained that additionally the car 16
wash on that property, which is non-operational, sustained damage to the front window. It was 17
blown inside the building so the building is open to access through that space. The business was 18
issued a notice of violation on November 28, 2005 to CHO Investments in care of Michael 19
Cleary and to Khaldon Bteibet. Notice was delivered personally and mailed by first class mail. 20
He explained that because of the background of continued repairs not completed in a timely 21
manner, the owner was notified it would be before the City Council to request abatement. 22
Housing/Code Enforcement Inspector Anderson stated staff recommends approval of Resolution 23
698, ordering the abatement of nuisance conditions existing at 2390 County Road 10, operated as 24
Premium Stop Fuel Station, in the City of Mounds View. 25
26
Khaldon Bteibet, representing Premium Stop at 2390 County Road 10, commented that this place 27
has been a nightmare for him. He explained that he came into this place hoping it would be his 28
dream business. He got into this business through Mr. Alsade who is the subleasee from Oasis 29
Market. Up until this point, neither Mr. Alsade nor Oasis Market has given him a lease to the 30
property. Mr. Bteibet stated he has requested a lease many times and has talked to Dan Price, the 31
Director of Oasis Market, to request repairs and the lease because there are people interested in 32
leasing it or buying his business. Mr. Bteibet stated he told Mr. Price that he has had it, lost a lot 33
of money, and cannot afford to do any of the improvements plus he does not have a lease to the 34
property so he would be making the improvements to property owned by Mr. Alsade or Oasis 35
Market. 36
37
Mr. Bteibet advised that the car wash is owned by another business, Noostar. Noostar decided 38
they would not let him use the car wash so he has also lost business on the car wash business. 39
Then the canopy became damaged so he called Oasis Market and told them it was a serious 40
matter. Mr. Price showed up and took down the canopy. Mr. Bteibet explained that Mr. Price 41
promised the canopy would be taken care of this week so that is what he told Mounds View. He 42
stated he has made many phone calls to Oasis Market. 43
44
Mr. Bteibet explained that Mr. Alsade is not in the country now so he called him and begged him 45
Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 11
to talk to Oasis Market. Mr. Bteibet stated he has lost a lot of money but is willing to walk away 1
if he is not liable for anything. However, he thinks he is liable to the company and now has three 2
City offences on his record. But, he is not the person who can decide what to do. 3
4
Mr. Bteibet stated that he paid his bills but then in May decided that if they are not going to do 5
anything, he will stop paying the rent. He advised that Oasis Market didn’t even come to collect 6
the rent. Mr. Bteibet stated this is the situation he is in. He was hoping to see this become a 7
great business and came into the place to make money. He stated he tried his best to work on it 8
but things worked against him. 9
10
Councilmember Thomas explained that the abatement would be charged to CHO Investments, 11
the property owner. Director Ericson stated that is correct and if the Council authorized the 12
abatement, the City would hire the people necessary to make the corrections, and provide the 13
invoice to Mr. Bteibet and CHO Investments. Since CHO Investments is the property owner of 14
record, they would be responsible for the cost. If that cost is not paid within a certain period of 15
time, it would be assessed against the property taxes and not effect Mr. Bteibet. 16
17
Mayor Marty asked what is Mr. Bteibet’s liability if he is not the owner and he does not have a 18
lease. He stated it seems that Mr. Bteibet could lock the door and walk away. 19
20
Mr. Bteibet stated when he came to the business he applied for the proper licenses but Oasis 21
Market failed to take care of the paper work. He stated he called Dan Price so many times that 22
Mr. Hies said, “I didn’t even lease you anything.” Mr. Bteibet said he told Mr. Hies that he had 23
cashed all of the rent checks and then Mr. Hies said he has 100 other stores, the company is 24
going out of business, going bankrupt, and is having financial problems so Mr. Bteibet is not his 25
top priority. 26
27
Mayor Marty asked if the license is in Mr. Bteibet’s name. Director Ericson stated it is. Mayor 28
Marty asked if Mr. Bteibet can pull his licenses. Director Ericson stated he can lock the door at 29
any time. 30
31
Councilmember Flaherty asked Mr. Bteibet if he wants to walk away. Mr. Bteibet stated he 32
would love to get some money out of it because he has put in almost three years, lost his life 33
savings, and would come out of it with nothing. He stated he has received some interest from 34
people who want to take over his business but they want a proper lease from Oasis Market or the 35
landlord himself. Mr. Bteibet stated the interested party offered to pay for the inventory, which 36
he would like to get money from. 37
38
Councilmember Flaherty asked if the City should do the abatement and charge CHO 39
Investments, which would result in a lien on the property. Director Ericson stated that is correct. 40
41
Councilmember Thomas stated that would be the best action since it would take care of a 42
problem that Mr. Bteibet cannot resolve and maybe, during that time, the other problem will be 43
resolved. She stated she sees no other action that can occur to resolve the issues. 44
45
Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 12
Mayor Marty noted that once the abatement work is done, the property will be in better shape and 1
more marketable. 2
3
Mr. Bteibet stated the property owner was very upset that the canopy was down and would be 4
taken away. 5
6
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 8:48 p.m. 7
8
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Gunn. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6698, a 9
Resolution Ordering the Abatement of Nuisance Conditions Existing at 2390 County Road 10, 10
Operated as Premium Stop Fuel Station, in the City of Mounds View. 11
12
Mr. Bteibet stated he was in court for the nuisance and signage offences but the City prosecutor 13
was not there so it will be back on the court calendar on January 6, 2006. 14
15
Mayor Marty noted Mr. Bteibet is not the owner or leaseholder so he questioned why Mr. Bteibet 16
would be responsible in court since he has no vested interest. Director Ericson explained that 17
originally when the notices began, the notice was sent to Mr. Bteibet. The City sent three or four 18
notices and the City Building Official and Housing Inspector all attempted to contact Mr. Bteibet 19
to make the corrections. Director Ericson advised that the City did not issue a court citation 20
without first attempting those contacts. At no point after sending the multiple letters did Mr. 21
Bteibet contact the City. 22
23
Director Ericson explained that the City may not have issued the court citations if Mr. Bteibet 24
had indicated what the situation was. One notice was for a sign that Mr. Bteibet installed himself 25
and, as the business owner of Premium Stop, he was the responsible party. Director Ericson 26
stated staff can talked to the prosecuting attorney to see what should be done on this property. 27
He noted that if Mr. Bteibet had talked to the City after receiving the notice of violation, maybe 28
Mr. Bteibet would not have received the court citation. 29
30
Mr. Bteibet explained that he left the country at the end of June and came back in September. 31
One or two letters was received during that time. Then when he came back, he saw the pictures, 32
took down the sign, and thought that solved the problem. Then the City notified him about the 33
U-Haul sign, which he removed. Mr. Bteibet stated he was also willing to take down the 34
Premium Stop signs. 35
36
Director Ericson stated if the Council wishes, staff will talk to the prosecuting attorney. He 37
explained that if the Council provides direction that it wants to drop those charges or reissue 38
citations in name of CHO Investments, staff can drop all charges against Mr. Bteibet. However, 39
staff needs Council authorization because staff has already initiated the process. 40
41
Councilmember Thomas stated that is a separate issue from what is being considered tonight. 42
She stated she would like more information about those issues before taking action on that 43
matter. She noted it is a short time between now and January 6 so she is unsure if that can occur 44
before then. 45
Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 13
1
Councilmember Gunn concurred and stated she would also like more information. 2
3
Director Ericson stated the City can request a continuance beyond January 6, 2006 so the Council 4
has time to address the issues. 5
6
City Attorney Riggs explained that whether there is a written lease or not, Mr. Bteibet has a lease 7
so the citation is in order. He agreed the Council could receive additional information and 8
request the Court continue that matter to another date. 9
10
Mayor Marty asked staff to make that request of the court. 11
12
Mayor Marty stated he stopped by the station to ask why the grass was not being mowed but Mr. 13
Bteibet was not at the station. He asked Mr. Bteibet to meet with staff to sort out the issues. 14
15
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 16
17
E. Resolution 6691, Resolution in Support of Blaine Council Acceptance of Bid 18
Package #2 Recommendations for the SBM Fire Station 19
20
Fire Chief Zikmund stated this is a continuation for the Fire Department project best described as 21
the second half of the second bid package that equals about 90% of the total bid package. The 22
contracts were let in October, opened November 28, and evaluated but there was not enough time 23
to interview all the pertinent bidders. Fire Chief Zikmund reviewed the contracts that are 24
included in this bid package for a total amount of $3,313.034. He stated that on January 9, 2006 25
he will return with the second half of Bid Package #2. Then in March and April of 2006 they 26
will be requesting action on the furniture, appliances, etc. 27
28
Fire Chief Zikmund noted the bids came in approximately 4% less than the estimate. A meeting 29
was held on December 1st to evaluate the bids and alternates and two alternates are being 30
included: 1) a bi-fold door upgrade; and, 2) a geothermal system that takes advantage of the 31
earth’s constant heat. Fire Chief Zikmund stated the Spring Lake Park City Council took 32
supportive action. 33
34
Fire Chief Zikmund reported that all footings are in and backfilled, construction will move 35
materials on site, and scaffold will be erected after Christmas with the project being finished in 36
July. 37
38
Mayor Marty stated he is happy to see this come back 4% under the cost estimate, which is not 39
usually the case when you start ordering materials. He stated he sees no problems with this 40
request. 41
42
Councilmember Flaherty stated his agreement. 43
44
Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 14
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Flaherty. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6691, a 1
Resolution in Support of Blaine Council Acceptance of Bid Package #2 Recommendations for 2
the SBM Fire Station. 3
4
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 5
6
F. Resolution 6700 Waiving the Public Improvement Hearing, Holding a Public 7
Information Meeting, Ordering the Project, Approving a Contract to 8
Demolish the Existing Building at Random Park and Authorizing the 9
Preparation of Plans and Specifications for the Random Park Building 10
Replacement Project 11
12
Public Works Director Lee stated this project was discussed last week to relocate the former golf 13
course club house to Random Park. At that meeting, there was general consensus to move 14
forward since it will save the City about $100,000 over constructing a new building of a 15
comparable size and replace the building seven years sooner than scheduled in the current CIP. 16
Staff prepared a resolution with the first action being to award the demolition contract. 17
18
Public Works Director Lee reported that one quote was received in amount of $12,800, which is 19
close to the engineer’s estimate of $12,000. Staff reviewed the quotes from the Groveland Park 20
building line items of $18,200 and felt this was a good quote. If awarded, Jay Brothers would 21
start as soon as Monday, December 19, and it is estimated that it would take two weeks. They 22
would remove the foundation and handicapped ramp, remove and cap the utilities, private 23
utilities would be disconnected, the site graded off, thermo blankets put in place for two months, 24
and then a separate contractor could do excavation and construction. 25
26
Public Works Director Lee discussed the project schedule, which will be very tight. He 27
explained there are four options to move the club house. After discussing the options with 28
moving contractors, staff felt the most feasible option was to move the club house to Random 29
Park and placed it on cribbing which would be fenced. Then a separate contractor would do the 30
foundation and site work, connect utilities, and then lower the building on the foundation. 31
32
Public Works Director Lee reviewed the approximate project schedule, noting the project will be 33
back for final specification approval on January 9, and the bid awarded on February 13. The club 34
house will be moved the last week of February, and the project completed in June of 2006. He 35
noted there was discussion at the last meeting about financing the project from TIF, if an eligible 36
expense, and the rest being funded 50/50 between the Park Dedication Account and the Special 37
Project Fund. Based on that, the City would not be required to hold a formal public hearing. 38
Staff recommends the Council waive the formal public hearing but schedule an informal public 39
informational meeting. He advised that staff did notify people living within 500 feet of Random 40
Park as well as frequent users of the building so he would recommend the public be allowed to 41
speak tonight. 42
43
Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 15
Public Works Director Lee stated if the Council determines to move forward, they would order 1
the project and order plans and specifications. The resolution would authorize that action and 2
award the contract to Jay Brothers. 3
4
Mayor Marty asked the public if anyone would like to speak to this issue. 5
6
No one responded. 7
8
Councilmember Gunn asked if it is known to a certainty that this building can be moved. Public 9
Works Director Lee advised that four contractors were contacted and they felt there would be no 10
big problems with moving the building. He advised that the issue of overhead utilities will need 11
to be addressed. Four quotes were received from moving contractors who looked at the building 12
and reviewed the route to be taken. 13
14
Councilmember Gunn stated Mr. Sonterre called her and expressed concerns regarding an old 15
building versus a new building that has warrantees. His concern was that this is an older building 16
plus it is being moved and stressed, so something may happen to the building in five to ten years 17
when there are no warrantees. 18
19
Public Works Director Lee stated those issues were addressed last week and need to be weighed 20
against a $100,000 savings and being able to replace the Random Park building seven years 21
sooner. 22
23
Councilmember Gunn stated that the Random Park building would not be replaced now. Public 24
Works Director Lee stated that is correct and it would not have otherwise occurred for seven 25
years. 26
27
Councilmember Thomas noted that buildings are moved all of the time and it will be inspected 28
when the building is placed on the foundation. She stated entire businesses are developed doing 29
this type of work, which is why the City received four quotes. Councilmember Thomas noted 30
this is not a temporary building, it is a permanent building and built under Building Codes so it 31
will be a nice permanent building at Random Park once it is in place. She stated she wished 32
there were better cost comparisons for constructing a new building at Random Park but it is not 33
to the point where that can be determined. She noted that this is an asset that is available for the 34
City to use today, one she would not like to loose. 35
36
Councilmember Flaherty agreed this asset needs to be used. He stated the demolition is 37
scheduled on December 19 but then it is 60 days until the move occurs. He asked if the facility 38
could be left available for the month of January. Public Works Director Lee stated staff did look 39
at that because there were issues about people using the building. However, there is already a 40
foot of frost and what will help this project is to remove the building and get thermal blankets 41
down before the frost goes deeper. He reported that staff has been able to relocate all users of the 42
Random Park building to other facilities. 43
44
Councilmember Thomas asked whether the summer programs will occur within this building. 45
Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 16
1
Councilmember Gunn stated she thinks the summer schedule starts July 1st. 2
3
MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Stigney. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6700 4
Waiving the Public Improvement Hearing, Holding a Public Information Meeting, Ordering the 5
Project, Approving a Contract to Demolish the Existing Building at Random Park and 6
Authorizing the Preparation of Plans and Specifications for the Random Park Building 7
Replacement Project adding to #4 that the bid is awarded to Jay Brothers. 8
9
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 10
11
G. Resolution 6693, Approving a Transfer of Business License Ownership from 12
Elias Saman to Khalid Ahmed for a Tobacco and Gasoline License for the 13
Mounds View BP, located at 2155 Highway 10 14
15
Assistant to the City Administrator Crane stated this is a transfer of ownership for a tobacco and 16
gasoline license from Mr. Saman to Mr. Ahmed for the Mounds View BP. She reported the 17
applicant has submitted all the needed documents and the Fire Marshal recently inspected the 18
building but it did not do very well. She explained that this information came to light after the 19
staff report was prepared. The Council can consider approval pending satisfactory reinspection 20
or take action to postpone to January 9, 2006. 21
22
Building Official Osmonson explained this situation is similar to that of the Premium Stop in 23
working with Oasis Market and trying to get the violations corrected. She advised that one of the 24
problems is that the propane exchange station is located by the window and needs to be 25
relocated. Then, screening needs to be built around the exchange station once it is correctly 26
located. Also, the junction box is open and needs to be closed. She explained that these issues 27
need to be abated prior to the transfer being considered. 28
29
Assistant to the City Administrator Crane stated she is not aware of the lease situation. 30
31
Building Official Osmonson explained that they are operating under the other license but have 32
existing violations that staff has had trouble getting abated. This request presents the opportunity 33
to get them addressed. 34
35
Councilmember Thomas asked if it is better for the Council to consider approval pending a 36
satisfactory inspection and compliance. Assistant to the City Administrator Crane stated it 37
comes down to staff having to be in contact with them every day. 38
39
Building Official Osmonson stated her agreement and that letters to the owners will still need to 40
be sent. Mayor Marty stated these people will have to fix property that belongs to someone else. 41
42
Councilmember Stigney asked if the license would be issued to the new business owner, which 43
would put pressure on them. Assistant to the City Administrator Crane explained they will 44
continue to operate under the old ownership. 45
Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 17
1
Councilmember Gunn asked how they can operate under the old ownership. City Attorney Riggs 2
advised that if the City has evidence that the business has actually transferred, they would need to 3
cease operations. 4
5
Councilmember Flaherty stated they will not get a license for transfer until they receive a 6
satisfactory fire inspection and correction of violations. He noted that alone should be enough 7
impetus for them to comply. 8
9
Building Official Osmonson asked if staff should send them a letter stating that and indicating 10
the Council will consider the request for transfer of the business license once they receive a 11
satisfactory fire inspection. 12
13
City Administrator Ulrich noted the next Council meeting will be on January 9, 2006. 14
15
The Council directed staff to bring back this matter for action once the property receives a 16
satisfactory fire inspection. 17
18
H. Resolution 6690 Authorizing the Acceptance of a Traffic Safety Award from 19
the MN Department of Public Safety 20
21
Police Chief Sommer explained this action will accept an award from the Minnesota Department 22
of Public Safety and a $2,000 grant, which must be used for traffic safety purposes as additional 23
funding to benefit the Mounds View Police Department. 24
25
Police Chief Sommer explained that the Police Department submitted an application for this 26
year’s Safe and Sober challenge award. The application detailed the Police Department’s 27
program of participation in traffic safety enforcement and education, which included the 28
Department’s participation in the State-wide enforcement waves throughout the year, the 29
Department’s directed traffic enforcement in problem areas, and response to complaints of traffic 30
violators. The Department of Public Safety awards those police and sheriff departments from 31
throughout the State whose efforts were deemed exceptional in improving traffic safety. The 32
Minnesota Department of Public Safety judged the Mounds View Police Department’s efforts to 33
decrease impaired driving and increase seatbelt use to be exceptional and awarded the 34
Department with second place and a mini-grant in the amount of $2,000 to be used for traffic 35
safety purposes. The Police Department proposes the funds be used to purchase digital recording 36
equipment for the Intoxilyzer alcohol testing area and interview room for the processing of 37
driving while intoxicated offenders. He recommend approval of the resolution and acceptance of 38
the grant. 39
40
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Gunn. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6690 41
Authorizing the Acceptance of a Traffic Safety Award from the MN Department of Public 42
Safety. 43
44
Staff was asked to correct a typographical error in the last paragraph to indicate “Be it further 45
Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 18
resolved,” not “result.” 1
2
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 3
4
I. Resolution 6694 Authorizing an Agreement with Hagedorn-Gove Building 5
and Fire Consultants to Provide Plan Review Services Associated with the 6
Medtronic CRM Phase 1 Development 7
8
Community Development Director Ericson explained that Mounds View will require additional 9
plan review assistance with the Medtronic project because of the complexity of the plans and 10
design of the buildings. It is far and above what has been seen in Mounds View and many areas 11
of the metro area. He advised that he and Building Official Osmonson have talked about what 12
would be beneficial in providing plan review services and requested quotes from area inspection 13
and plan review firms and the State of Minnesota. He noted the rate fee schedule and advised the 14
State would charge 75% of the plan review fee or $102,000. The problem is that they cannot 15
guarantee when it would be done so it could be months since they are currently backlogged. 16
Staff then contacted private inspection firms that would require 75-80% of the plan review fee. 17
Staff also requested a quote from Gary Hagedorn and Katherine Gove who are fully qualified to 18
do the work. 19
20
Director Ericson noted that Mr. Hagedorn and Ms. Gove provided the City with an agreement to 21
conduct the Phase 1 plan review work and plan review for mechanical, fire suppression, fire 22
pump and standpipe, and other issues that the other entities would have an extra charge to 23
review. They would also be available for inspections and telephone consultations, and would 24
work with Building Official Osmonson as she reviews the plans. Mr. Hagedorn and Ms. Gove 25
can do the work for 25% of the plan review fee and in three weeks or less. The benefit of 26
working with these two individuals is that they are already familiar with the City of Mounds 27
View as well as with the Fire District. Another benefit is that Building Official Osmonson can 28
also take part in the plan review and become educated in the finer points of these plans and 29
potentially take on the review of Phase 2. Staff and Building Official Osmonson recommend 30
adoption of the resolution, which would authorize the letter of understand with Gary Hagedorn 31
and Katherine Gove for plan review of the Phase 1 project including building review and fire 32
suppression as well. He stated this is a wonderful opportunity for Mounds View and the fees 33
would be directly relating to the plan review fees from Medtronic. 34
35
Councilmember Thomas noted that one quote is dramatically less than the others, which raises a 36
“red flag” to her. She asked what allows this contractor to do it for so much less and noted they 37
are also able to predict when their review will be done. She asked if there is confidence the work 38
will be completed at that price. 39
40
Mayor Marty noted the cost is one-third of the next closest plan review company. 41
42
Director Ericson stated that is correct and whenever the City receives bids, staff looks at that and 43
the explanation. In this case, the low bid is from two highly trained individuals who are certified 44
and excited to be part of the plan review process and to work with Building Official Osmonson. 45
Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 19
Thus, it is less of a “red flag” and more of a wonderful opportunity to share with these two 1
individuals. 2
3
Building Official Osmonson pointed out that they do not have staff or an office to support and 4
have full time jobs so they will be doing it as consultants. She stated they have 44 years of 5
related experience and she sees it as “four more eyes” to help her do the plan review. She stated 6
Medtronic is a wonderful company and she wants to make sure they get their permit value dollar 7
and the best service possible. 8
9
Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated this is talking about two individuals and asked if 10
they have errors and omissions insurance and liability insurance. He also asked if they are 11
insured should they make a bad mistake that falls back onto the City. 12
13
Building Official Osmonson stated the bottom line is that she will be doing the plan review and 14
signing the plan, and these two are consultant to see if there is something she may have missed. 15
16
Mr. McCarty asked if the City is “on the hook” for staff mistakes. Director Ericson stated the 17
City is always “on the hook” whether it is reviewed by staff, consultants, or the State of 18
Minnesota. 19
20
Mr. McCarty stated if the consultant has errors and omissions insurance, then the City can collect 21
from them even if “on the hook.” 22
23
City Administrator Ulrich stated Mr. McCarty brings up a good point that should be discussed 24
with the League of Minnesota Cities. 25
26
City Attorney Riggs advised of the City’s immunity with building inspections. He stated the City 27
will not sign a contract unless the League is comfortable with that agreement. 28
29
Mr. McCarty stated when consultants make a recommendation that the plans are acceptable then 30
it leaves the City in the “cat bird seat” in terms of responsibility regardless of what the architect 31
has done. He stated his opinion that when the City certifies the plans are good, they are “on the 32
hook.” 33
34
City Attorney Riggs stated that is not entirely correct and the Legislature has said that inspection 35
services are not individual applied to that development but applied to the public as a whole. 36
37
Mr. McCarthy stated he understands that and went through it with the golf course, but it can 38
depend on the interpretation of the judge who hears the case. 39
40
Councilmember Thomas stated she wants to assure it is an apples-to-apples comparison and a 41
service that compares to the other bids. She stated she is not sure she has that information. 42
43
Director Ericson stated it is not an apples-to-apples comparison and reflects the fact that Building 44
Official Osmonson will be doing the plan review as well. With the other options they would take 45
Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 20
the plans, walk away, and provide back to the City the plans with their signature saying they have 1
reviewed them. The price differential reflects the fact that Building Official Osmonson will be 2
involved in the plan review. 3
4
Councilmember Thomas stated she then feels comfortable because the price differential is not as 5
great if the cost for Building Official Osmonson’s review is added to the bid price. She stated 6
that Medtronic is getting a break on the price because the City would be providing another staff 7
person for the review. Councilmember Thomas stated she would like to see references for these 8
two people on the other work they have done. 9
10
Director Ericson stated staff will provide the Council with a follow up from the League of 11
Minnesota Cities on the City’s exposure and will work with the City Attorney to provide 12
additional supporting information by the next Council meeting. He stated that it will make the 13
time frame tighter but not jeopardize anything. 14
15
Building Official Osmonson asked if a recommendation from the League will be enough and 16
what the Council is looking for on references. 17
18
Councilmember Thomas requested information on how the costs break down, job 19
responsibilities, liability, and League approval. 20
21
Mayor Marty stated he has talked with staff about hiring another building inspector so Building 22
Official Osmonson can be the lead inspector on the Medtronic project. He stated he wanted to 23
see about getting more training for Building Official Osmonson in this type of construction 24
before the project gets started. However, Building Official Osmonson is already scheduled for 25
some training. 26
27
Building Official Osmonson stated she does not think Medtronic will take 40 hours a week. She 28
pointed out that she is certified in Minnesota and does continuing education every year. She 29
explained that the issue is the magnitude of the project and noted this project requires special 30
inspections in structural steel and concrete. Building Official Osmonson advised of the 31
associations to which she belongs, that she has testified for Code changes, and helped to create 32
the Code. 33
34
Mayor Marty stated he wants to be sure that Building Official Osmonson is “up to speed” for this 35
project. 36
37
Building Official Osmonson stated there will be an annual school but, for the record, she wants 38
to be clear that the City will not be losing her for building inspections. She advised that during 39
the Medtronic project in Fridley, they were on the site 2-4 hours per day or 20 hours a week. She 40
stated it will be great to get a full-time inspector on staff to follow through on some of the 41
projects. 42
43
Mayor Marty stated that Council action will be delayed until January of 2006, when staff 44
provides additional information. 45
Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 21
1
8. CONSENT AGENDA 2
3
Councilmember Stigney asked to remove Consent Agenda Item H, Resolution 6692 Severance 4
Payment for Mary Burg, Golf Course Manager. 5
6
A. Resolution 6685 Approval of Office Furniture Purchase for the Police 7
Department Renovation Project. 8
B. Resolution 6686 Approval of the Purchase of 800 MHz Mobile Radios for Use 9
on the Regional 800 MHz system. 10
C. Resolution 6689 Authorizing the City’s Participation in a County Wide 11
Hazard Mitigation Planning Process. 12
D. Resolution 6696 Authorizing a Cost of Living Adjustment and Insurance 13
Contribution Adjustment for the City of Mounds View Non-Union 14
Employees. 15
E. Resolution 6697 Setting the 2006 Meeting Dates to City Council. 16
F. Cancellation of the Tuesday, December 27, 2005, City Council Meeting. 17
G. Resolution Establishing a Public Hearing at 7:05 PM, Monday, February 13, 18
2006 to Consider the Proposed Adoption of a Modification to the Project 19
Plan for the Mounds View Economic Development Project and the Proposed 20
Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment 21
Financing District No. 5. 22
H. Resolution 6692 Severance Payment for Mary Burg, Golf Course Manager. 23
I. Resolution 6701 Approving Rent Abatement for Creative Kids Day Care 24
Center. 25
26
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Gunn. To Approve the Consent Agenda A-G and I, as presented. 27
28
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 29
30
H. Resolution 6692 Severance Payment for Mary Burg, Golf Course Manager 31
32
Councilmember Stigney stated this action is to approve a severance payment of $14,036.48, 33
which includes two years of severance pay in addition to what is normally 80 hours at $34.34 or 34
$2,747.20. He stated he asked for this item to be pulled from the Consent Agenda because he 35
has a problem with supporting two years of paid severance for Ms. Burg who has been 36
unprofessional and shown inappropriate conduct. 37
38
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Flaherty. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6692, 39
Severance Payment for Mary Burg, Golf Course Manager. 40
41
Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 42
43
9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 44
45
Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 22
Councilmember Flaherty asked about Page 9, other professional services, The Bridges 1
Redevelopment, in the amount of $24,098.35. City Attorney Riggs stated that is reimbursable 2
from Medtronic. 3
4
Councilmember Flaherty asked about a charge on Page 13 for golf cart parts. City Administrator 5
Ulrich explained that staff followed that up with the vendor and found it was for work done in 6
July. 7
8
Councilmember Flaherty asked about the Wall Street Journal subscription. City Administrator 9
Ulrich stated the City has a subscription for that newspaper and it was ordered in the past for use 10
by the Finance Director to keep up on interest rates. 11
12
Councilmember Stigney asked if this same information can be obtained via the internet. City 13
Administrator Ulrich stated he will check with Finance Director Beer. 14
15
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Thomas. To approve the Just and Correct Claims as Presented. 16
17
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 18
19
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 20
21
A. November 28, 2005 City Council Meeting Minutes 22
23
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Flaherty. To Approve the November 28, 2005 City Council 24
meeting minutes as corrected. 25
26
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 27
28
B. November 14, 2005 Executive Session Meeting Minutes 29
30
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Flaherty. To Approve the November 14, 2005 Executive Session 31
meeting minutes as corrected. 32
33
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 34
35
C. November 28, 2005 Executive Session Meeting Minutes 36
37
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Flaherty. To Approve the November 28, 2005 Executive Session 38
meeting minutes as corrected. 39
40
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 41
42
11. REPORTS 43
44
A. Reports of Mayor and Council 45
Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 23
1
None. 2
3
B. Reports of Staff 4
5
1. County Road J Improvement Project Agreement 6
7
City Administrator Ulrich reported that a meeting was held this morning and it was discussed 8
that the original language in the grant was missing to get the money to the County at the right 9
time to purchase property along County Road J. There was a complicated discussion about how 10
to get that cash available. City Administrator Ulrich advised that a commitment was made by 11
Commissioner Bennett that the County would cash flow the project for land acquisition in the 12
amount of $5 million that would be paid back by grant monies once the language is worked out 13
with the Statute during the next legislative session. He explained that the cash is not available 14
now so it is hoped the County will step up to provide the funding and then the language will be 15
amended during the next session. 16
17
City Administrator Ulrich advised that this road project is on a tight time schedule so the County 18
needs to rush to get money forwarded. It is proposed to open this road in 2007 in conjunction 19
with the Medtronic project so it would condense a four year road project into two years. He 20
commented that it is very important to keep it on track and moving along. 21
22
Mayor Marty stated there were a number of minor problems and sub-issues in acquiring the 23
different properties. As far as acquiring properties, the $5 million given to the City of Mounds 24
View was to be passed on. But, the City of Mounds View cannot buy property located in Blaine 25
or Anoka County with those funds so there was discussion of a joint powers agreement 26
arrangement. Then the issue of relocation costs came up and where funds would come from 27
since it is covered by State and Federal law. Mayor Marty stated that issue will also have to go 28
back to the Legislature. 29
30
City Administrator Ulrich stated there is another $1.5 million for relocation benefits that are not 31
covered by bond money, to allow the right-of-way to be purchased by Ramsey County. A lot of 32
solutions were discussed but the most simple option would be if the County up-fronts the money 33
and allows time for the Legislature to correct the problems. 34
35
Mayor Marty stated the money needs to be 100% available to be paid out by March 20 but the 36
next Legislative session will not start until the beginning of March. 37
38
Councilmember Thomas stated she deals with this type of issue on a regular basis and the level 39
of aggregation is elevated by the shortness of time. However, it is not uncommon to have to 40
modify language to accommodate what is needed. It is an issue of finding language to allow 41
some things to occur. 42
43
C. Reports of City Attorney 44
45
Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 24
None. 1
2
Mayor Marty wished all a happy holiday season and safe New Year. 3
4
12. Next Council Work Session: Tuesday, January 3, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. 5
Next Council Meeting: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 City Council 6
Meeting is Canceled 7
Next Meeting will be on Monday, January 9, 8
2005 at 7:00 p.m. 9
10
13. ADJOURNMENT 11
12
The meeting was adjourned at 10:04 p.m. 13
14
Transcribed by: 15
16
17
Carla Wirth 18
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 19
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Executive Session
Date: 12/12/05
New Brighton City Hall
803 Old Hwy 8 NW, New Brighton
Time: 6:00 pm
1. 6:25 pm - EXECUTIVE SESSION IS CALLED TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL:
Mayor Marty, Council Members Stigney, Flaherty, Gunn, Thomas.
3. DISCUSSION
The Mounds View City Council held a closed executive session at the
New Brighton City Hall, located at, 803 Old Hwy 8 NW, New Brighton
Minnesota. The purpose of the meeting is to consider allegations or
charges against an individual subject to City Council authority.
The City Council reviewed and discussed the matter in question with
the City Attorneys. It was concluded that no action would be taken in
regard to the individual subject to Council authority. The City Attorney
was directed to file clarifying statements of the complainant as an
addendum to Police Incident Report 05-0050000 dated 09/21/05.
4. 6:50 pm MEETING ADJOURNED
Respectfully Submitted:
Kurt Ulrich
City Administrator
Item No: 11 B 1
Meeting Date: January 9, 2006
Type of Business: Reports
Administrator Review: ____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Review Court Citations Issued to Khaldon Bteibet,
2390 County Road 10
Introduction:
At the Council’s December 12, 2005 meeting, the operator of the Premium Stop gas station
and convenience store—Khaldon Bteibet—approached the Council regarding Ramsey
County Court Citations that had been issued to him regarding the condition of the subject
property. Mr. Bteibet expressed frustration that he has no lease and no ownership interest in
the property and does not want to have court citations blemish his “record.” The Council
indicated it would consider the issue at a future meeting and directed staff to request a
continuance of court hearings that had been scheduled to address the violations. The
hearings which were scheduled for January 6th were continued to February 16 to give the
Council an opportunity to review the matter.
Discussion:
Beginning in the summer of 2004, City staff has been actively working to correct ongoing
violations at the subject property. The violations have involved nuisance codes, zoning codes,
business license codes, sign codes and fire codes. Staff inspected the property numerous
times throughout the year and made repeated contacts with store managers and Mr. Bteibet.
Beginning in November of 2004, staff formalized the communication in writing requesting
correction of all outstanding violations. Since that time, multiple letters have been sent to Mr.
Bteibet in an effort to correct the violations and to prevent further decline and blight of the
property. The following represents a partial timeline of actions conducted related to the cited
individual:
November 18, 2004: Sent letter to Mr. Bteibet after witnessing mansard roof demolition
on building. Requested that Mr. Bteibet inform City of his plans and
timeline for completion. Sent permit application. Mr. Bteibet did not
respond to letter.
February 14, 2005: I spoke with Mr. Bteibet; he confirmed the property had fallen into
disrepair and that he would make an attempt to make
improvements. Conducted a follow up site inspection of the property
and obtained photographic documentation.
March 16, 2005: Fire Marshal Kathi Osmonson conducted a fire inspection and noted
several violations. A letter was sent to the subject outlining the
violations and requesting compliance.
March 17, 2005: Regarding the condition of the building, after no further progress had
been made, I sent another letter to Mr. Bteibet reiterating the need
to make immediate improvements to the property.
April 4, 2004: Mounds View Fire Marshal Osmonson sent a letter to Mr. Bteibet
regarding the outstanding fire code violations.
April 8, 2005: Spoke with Mr. Bteibet about the need to maintain his property and
repair the partially demolished mansard roof extension. Failure to
comply would result in citations being issued. Mr. Bteibet
acknowledged his responsibilities.
May 16, 2005: Sent letter to subject after observing that advertising signs had been
erected on the retail and car wash buildings. Roof mounted signs
are prohibited in the City, and had Mr. Bteibet obtained a permit for
the work, staff could have informed him of this prior to their
installation. Requested subject obtain a permit and install the signs
in compliance with City Code. Mr. Bteibet did not respond to this
letter
July 7, 2005: Sent letter informing subject that his business license was in
jeopardy for failing to correct the fire code violations.
July 11, 2005: Sent letter addressing the sign code violations, continued
degradation of the building and grounds and also potential violation
of the conditional use permit which prohibits outside sales and
rental. Again requested compliance with all codes.
July 18, 2005: Conducted an inspection of the property, observed that no progress
had been made; non-conforming signs still present, roof remained in
a partial state of demolition, site and grounds overgrown with weeds
and tall grass.
August 22, 2005: Conducted a reinspection, still no progress in any regard.
August 29, 2005: Inspected the property, spoke with gas station attendant, asked
when the lawn would be cut, as it is in violation of City Code.
Attendant indicated grass would be cut the following day.
Documented with a Notice of Violation.
September 2, 2005: Issued Mr. Bteibet Ramsey County Court Citation 905113121
documenting three specific violations:
• Section 607.04, Subd. 1, which states that “Buildings, fences and other structures which
have been so poorly maintained that their physical condition and appearance detract from
the surrounding neighborhood are declared to be Public Nuisances.”
• Section 1008.12, Subd. 3, which prohibits roof mounted signage.
• Section 1114.04, Subd. 3b, which provides for the conditions under which a motor fuel
station may operate, specifically, maintaining the building and grounds so as to not
become a blighting influence
Bteibet Report
Jan 9, 2006
Page 3
Summary
Clearly Mr. Bteibet is in a difficult position in that he has no vested interest in the property
aside from his city-issued licenses. The property is owned by an investment group with an
office in Idaho, who leased the site to Oasis Stores. From there it is not clear if Oasis
subleased the store to Mr. Bteibet or to another individual from whom Mr. Bteibet then made
arrangements. That being said, Mr. Bteibet is the responsible party for the store as
evidenced by the business licenses. Had Mr. Bteibet responded to the letters leading up to
the court citation, perhaps a much different outcome would have been achieved.
Recommendation:
While staff understands that Mr. Bteibet is not the owner of the property, he is the
responsible party regarding the business. With regard to the placement of the signage, had
Mr. Bteibet applied for a permit, he would have been told that the proposed locations would
not comply with the code. No permit was obtained thus the signs were erected illegally and
in conflict with code provisions. As for the charges relating to the appearance and condition
of the building, no plan was ever presented to staff that addressed renovation or correction of
the blighting conditions which persist yet today. That said, staff would be reluctant to
recommend dismissing the court citation issued to Mr. Bteibet.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
COURT MEMORANDUM
MEMO TO: Ramsey County Court
FROM: James Ericson, Community Development Director
DATE: September 2, 2005
SUBJECT: ISSUANCE OF A RAMSEY COUNTY COURT CITATION TO
KHALDON BTEIBET DOING BUSINESS AT 2390 COUNTY
ROAD 10 AS “THE PREMIUM STOP”
ISSUANCE OF CITATION TO:
Khaldon Bteibet
The Premium Stop
2390 County Road 10
Mounds View, MN 55112
CHARGES: Violations of Mounds View Municipal Code
• Section 607.04, Subd. 1, which states that “Buildings, fences
and other structures which have been so poorly maintained that
their physical condition and appearance detract from the
surrounding neighborhood are declared to be Public
Nuisances.”
• Section 1008.12, Subd. 3, which declares “roof mounted
signage” as prohibited in the City of Mounds View.
• Section 1114.04, Subd. 3b, which provides for the conditions
under which a motor fuel station may operate, specifically,
maintaining the building and grounds so as to not become a
blighting influence
REQUEST: The City of Mounds View Requests fines be assessed upon the
cited individual for the identified charges and requests that the
cited individual be required to bring the property into compliance with all Mounds View
business, nuisance, building, sign, fire and zoning codes, and that any work for which
permits are required to bring property into compliance are obtained.
Memo to Ramsey County Court
RE: Khaldon Bteibet
September 2, 2005
Page 2
BACKGROUND: The City has been attempting to resolve and correct these and
other various ongoing nuisance, business, fire, zoning, sign
and building code violations since November of 2004. Since that time, multiple letters
have be sent to Mr. Bteibet in an effort to correct the violations and to prevent further
decline and blight of the property. The following represents a partial timeline of actions
conducted related to the cited individual:
November 18, 2004: Sent letter to Mr. Bteibet after witnessing mansard roof
demolition on building. Requested that Mr. Bteibet inform
City of his plans and timeline for completion. Sent permit
application. Mr. Bteibet did not respond to letter.
February 14, 2005: I spoke with Mr. Bteibet; he confirmed the property had fallen
into disrepair and that he would make an attempt to make
improvements. Conducted a follow up site inspection of the
property and obtained photographic documentation.
March 16, 2005: Fire Marshal Kathi Osmonson conducted a fire inspection and
noted several violations. A letter was sent to the subject
outlining the violations and requesting compliance.
March 17, 2005: Regarding the condition of the building, after no further
progress had been made, I sent another letter to Mr. Bteibet
reiterating the need to make immediate improvements to the
property.
April 4, 2004: Mounds View Fire Marshal Osmonson sent a letter to Mr.
Bteibet regarding the outstanding fire code violations.
April 8, 2005: Spoke with Mr. Bteibet about the need to maintain his property
and repair the partially demolished mansard roof extension.
Failure to comply would result in citations being issued. Mr.
Bteibet acknowledged his responsibilities.
May 16, 2005: Sent letter to subject after observing that advertising signs had
been erected on the retail and car wash buildings. Roof
mounted signs are prohibited in the City, and had Mr. Bteibet
obtained a permit for the work, staff could have informed him
of this prior to their installation. Requested subject obtain a
permit and install the signs in compliance with City Code. Mr.
Bteibet did not respond to this letter
July 7, 2005: Sent letter informing subject that his business license was in
jeopardy for failing to correct the fire code violations.
Memo to Ramsey County Court
RE: Khaldon Bteibet
September 2, 2005
Page 3
BACKGROUND
July 11, 2005: Sent letter addressing the sign code violations, continued
degradation of the building and grounds and also potential
violation of the conditional use permit which prohibits outside
sales and rental. Again requested compliance with all codes.
July 18, 2005: Conducted an inspection of the property, observed that no
progress had been made; non-conforming signs still present,
roof remained in a partial state of demolition, site and grounds
overgrown with weeds and tall grass.
August 22, 2005: Conducted a reinspection, still n progress in any regard.
August 29, 2005: Inspected the property, spoke with gas station attendant, asked
when the lawn would be cut, as it is in violation of City Code.
Attendant indicated grass would be cut the following day.
Documented with a Notice of Violation.
PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION:
Photo taken February 14, 2005
Memo to Ramsey County Court
RE: Khaldon Bteibet
September 2, 2005
Page 4
PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION
Photo taken February 14, 2005
Memo to Ramsey County Court
RE: Khaldon Bteibet
September 2, 2005
Page 5
PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION
Photo taken September 2, 2005