HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2006/02/13
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
NEW BRIGHTON CITY HALL
Monday, February 13, 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
A. Senator Betzold and Representative Bernardy would like to speak to the City
Council about the upcoming 2006 Legislative Session.
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. 7:05 Public Hearing and Consideration of a Modification to the Project Plan for
the Mounds View Economic Development Project and the Proposed Modification
of Tax Increment Financing District No. 5
B. Resolution 6729, Authorizing to Advertise the Cable Tech/Communications
Coordinator.
C. Resolution 6730 Awarding the Contract for the Purchase of Furniture and
Fixtures for the City Hall Remodel Project.
D. Resolution 6731 Authorizing Severance Payment for Ken Manthis, Former
Bridges Clubhouse Manager.
E. Resolution 6732 Authorizing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a Mounds View
Salary Compensation Study and Pay Equity Report.
F. Resolution 6733 Authorizing the Abatement of Nuisance Conditions at 2408-2410
County Road I
G. Resolution 6736 Approving Change Orders No. 1-3 and Authorizing a Contract
for Network Cabling for the City Hall Rehabilitation Project
H. Reconsideration of Resolution 6726 Awarding a Contract for the Installation of a
Security Card Reading System at City Hall and the Community Center
I. Resolution 6740 Awarding a Construction Contract for the Random Park Building
Replacement Project
J. Resolution 6737 Supporting the County Road 10 Trailway Project and
Consequent Department of Natural Resources Trailway Grant Application
K. Resolution 6741 Setting a Public Improvement Hearing Date for the Silver Lake
Road Sidewalk Project
L. Resolution 6743 Adopting City Vision and Mission Statement, Goals Program,
Values Statement, Rules of Conduct, and Action Plan
City Council Agenda
February 13, 2006
Page 2
8. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Licenses for Approval
B. Resolution 6727 Approval to Purchase on Replacement Squad Car, and One
Replacement Administrative Staff Car for the Police Department.
C. Resolution 6728 Authorizing to Advertise for a Police Officer Position.
D. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, February 27, 2006 at 7:05 pm to Consider an
Amendment to the Belting Office PUD.
E. Resolution 6735 Approving the Purchase of a Replacement 1-Ton Truck with
Dump Box
F. Resolution 6738 Acceptance and Final Payment Approval for the Hidden Hollow
Street and Utility Improvement Project
G. Resolution 6739 Authorizing the Preparation of a Preliminary Feasibility Report
and Consultant Selection for the Hidden Hollow South Street and Utility
Installation Project
H. Resolution 6742 Approving a Contract Extension for the 2006 Tree Removal
Program
I. Resolution 6744 Authorizing to Advertise and Contract for a Minute Taker for the
Park and Recreation and Forestry Commission Meetings
J. Authorize Acquisition of Staff Vehicle for Community Development
K. Resolution 6746 Authorizing Execution of the County Road J Improvement Plans
9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. January 23, 2006 City Council Meeting
B. October 10, 2005 City Council Meeting
11. REPORTS
A. Reports of Mayor and Council
B. Reports of Staff
1. Police Department 2005 4th Quarter Report
2. Finance 4th Quarter Report
3. Red Oak Estates #3 Update
C. Reports of City Attorney
12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, March 6, 2006 @7pm
Next Council Meeting: Monday, February 27, 2006 @ 7pm
Item No: 07B
Meeting Date: February 13, 2006
Type of Business: CB
Administrator Review: ____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6729, Authorizing to Advertise for the Communications
Coordinator/Cable Technician Position
Background
It was discussed at the last City Council Work Session the need for the Communications
Coordinator position/ Cable Technician. This position would be a full time exempt
position, and will be a union position under the AFSCME Union Contract. Attached is the
position description for your reference. This new position was established to assist in city
communications to include cable television support, web page updates, and the city
newsletter to name a few.
The funding parameters of this position would be based upon the approximate amount of
time the employee would spend on various activities and would split the Cable TV Fund
(75%), the General Fund (16%), the Water Sewer Funds (3.5% each), the Street Light
and Storm Water Funds (1% each). Based upon this allocation formula no additional
General Fund monies would need to be appropriated.
Labor Relations did a market HAYS points analysis on this position, and the step
progression (as recommended by Labor Relations) is as follows:
Step One $17.78/hr
Step Two: $18.89/hr
Step Three: $20.00/hr
Step Four: $21.11/hr
Step Five: $22.22/hr
Following our standard personnel policy practice, the candidate would begin employment
at Step 1, with an increase to Step 2 after six months of employment. Step 3 would occur
after 12 months of employment with Steps 4 and 5 due 12 months thereafter,
respectively. Below, is the proposed hiring schedule. Staff anticipates the candidate to
start employment on or about April 12, 2006.
Council Authorization to Advertise Position: Feb 13, 2006
Submit Advertisement in the Focus News
MV/NB Bulletin and Sunday edition of the
Pioneer Press: Feb 14, 2006
Deadline for Submitting Applications: March 3, 2006
Review all Applications: March 6-March 7, 2006
Top 5 Candidates Decided; March 8, 2006
Interviews: March 13-March 17, 2006
Top Candidate Presented to City Council: March 27, 2006
Candidate starts employment: on or about April 12, 2006
Staff has discussed this new position with the AFSCME Union representatives, and the
representatives are in agreement with the job description and wages. Staff would draft a
Memorandum of Understanding confirming this agreement, and the position would be
added to the 2006-2007 AFSCME Union Contract.
Recommendation:
Staff is requesting Council approval of Resolution 6729 authorizing the advertisement for
the position Communications Coordinator/Cable Technician in the Administration
Department. Once a qualified candidate is selected, staff would seek authorization from
the City Council to hire the individual. No offer of employment would be made until such
authorization is granted by the City Council.
RESOLUTION 6729
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OR RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AUTHORIZING TO ADVERTISE FOR THE
COMMUNICATIONS COORDINATOR/ CABLE TECHNICIAN
WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View Administration Department has a need to
fill a full time exempt position; and
WHEREAS, the Communications Coordinator/Cable Technician would assist in
city communications to include cable television support, web page updates, and the city
newsletter; and
WHEREAS, Staff has discussed this new position with the AFSCME Union
representatives, and the representatives are in agreement with the job description and
wages; and
WHEREAS, Staff would draft a Memorandum of Understanding confirming this
agreement with AFSCME, and the position would be added to the 2006-2007 AFSCME
Union Contract; and
WHEREAS, in accordance to the standard personnel policy practice, the
candidate would begin employment at Step 1, with an increase to Step 2 after six months
of employment. Step 3 would occur after 12 months of employment with Steps 4 and 5
due 12 months thereafter, respectively.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Mounds View authorizes staff to prepare and post an advertisement for a full-time exempt
position of “Communications Coordinator/Cable Technician” within the Administration
Department.
Adopted this 13th day of February, 2006.
__________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
POSITION DESCRIPTION
Position Title: Communications Coordinator/Cable TV Technician
Department: Administration
Accountable To: City Administrator
Status: Full Time Exempt
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF POSITION:
To provide the community with effective and proactive public communications utilizing
the tools of government access programming through the technical preparation of Cable
TV, program production, cable casting, video technical expertise, web page, newsletter,
positive press relations, and producer-type work for community programming.
SUPERVISION RECEIVED
Works under the general guidance and direction of the City Administrator.
SUPERVISION EXERCISED
None. May supervise additional cable help.
ESSENTIAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Cable Television
• Cable casts all regular and special City Council meetings and ensures that the
tapes are replayed at scheduled times.
• Cable casts other special public information meetings as directed.
• Sets monthly meetings with the Cable Committee for planning monthly programs.
• Arranges producer type work regarding Cable TV programs.
• Performs editing as necessary for special programs.
• Performs technician taping procedures for programs intended for viewing.
• Prepares messages for the Cable monitor.
• Maintains the Cable TV equipment, material and supplies so that they are in
good working order.
• Catalogues and stores tapes in the tape resource library.
• Maintains an inventory of Cable TV equipment.
• Purchases supplies as needed for production and technical work.
• Assists in preparation of an annual budget.
• Supervises the use of equipment.
• Prepares grants for Cable TV equipment or programming projects.
• Coordinates an integrated communications program with the public via Cable TV.
• Coordinates programming with Channel 33 and other programs that would
benefit the community.
• Schedules crew members for tapings as necessary.
• Arranges use CTV15 facilities, and use of the mobile van for special programs
such as the Festival Parade.
2. Coordinates the production of the City Newsletter including editing, format, layout
and content.
3. Assists in the distribution of routine press releases
4. Updates the Mounds View Website on a Daily Basis
5. Organizes and tracks multi-departmental committees to ensure effective
communications and building operations throughout City Hall.
6. Manages and Updates the Mounds View Electronic Board
PERIPHERAL DUTIES
• Assists in other areas as designated, including website maintenance
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS
(A) High school diploma or GED equivalent.
(B) Two years vocational/technical school or AA Degree
(C) Ability to operate all TV and video equipment.
(D) Two years experience in established cable TV system.
NECESSARY KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ABILITIES
(A) Considerable knowledge of the equipment, facilities, operations and techniques
used in a comprehensive government access programming;
(B) Skill in operation of listed tools and equipment;
(C) Ability to develop, coordinate, and direct varied activities involved in government
access programming; Ability to establish and maintain effective working
relationships with employees, supervisors, vendors, contractors, participants, and
the general public.
(D) Knowledge and ability to update and develop City Web Page.
(E) Proficient with computers and modern office practices and procedures. This
includes proficiency in Microsoft Applications.
(F) Writing and editing skills
(G) Organized
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
Valid state driver's license.
TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT USED
Video, audio, computer and cable related equipment, calculator; copy and fax machine;
phone; automobile
PHYSICAL DEMANDS
The physical demands described here are representative of those that must be met by
an employee to successfully perform the essential functions of this job. Reasonable
accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the
essential functions.
While performing the duties of this job, the employee is frequently required to walk, sit
and talk and hear. The employee is frequently required to use hands to finger, handle,
feel or operate objects, tools, or controls; and reach with hands and arms. The
employee is occasionally required to climb or balance; stoop, kneel, crouch, or crawl.
The employee must occasionally lift and/or move up to 50 pounds. Specific vision
abilities required by this job include close vision, color vision, and the ability to adjust
focus.
WORK ENVIRONMENT
The work environment characteristics described here are representative of those an
employee encounters while performing the essential functions of this job. Reasonable
accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the
essential functions.
While performing the duties of this job, the employee occasionally works in outside
weather conditions. The employee is occasionally exposed to wet and/or humid
conditions, toxic or caustic chemicals.
The noise level in the work environment is usually quiet while in the office, and
moderately loud when in the field.
SELECTION GUIDELINES
Formal application, rating of education and experience; oral interview and reference
check; job related tests may be required.
The duties listed above are intended only as illustrations of the various types of work
that may be performed. The omission of specific statements of duties does not exclude
them from the position if the work is similar, related or a logical assignment to the
position.
The job description does not constitute an employment agreement between the
employer and employee and is subject to change by the employer as the needs of the
employer and requirements of the job change.
Approval: ______________________ Approval: ____________________
Supervisor Appointing Authority
Effective Date: Revision History: 8/05
12/05
HAYS Points: 261
Item No. 07D
Meeting Date: February 13, 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: Resolution 6731 Authorizing Severance Payment for Ken
Manthis
Background
Ken Manthis was hired by the City as the Clubhouse Manager/Instructor on August 12, 1996. Due
to the golf course redevelopment, a layoff notice was hand carried to Ken Manthis on October 27,
2005.
Discussion
The City Council adopted a severance package for all three regular full-time golf course
employees on August 22, 2005, with the passage of Resolution 6585. This resolution allowed
payout of vacation and sick leave in accordance with the current personnel policy, and allowed
accumulated flex-time to be used by employees. The Council also determined that there be
additional severance pay of one week per year of service, which is also outlined in Resolution
6585.
Layoff Notices were hand carried to all three full-time golf course employees on October 27, 2005.
Their last day of employment for all three golf course employees was Thursday, November 10,
2005 at 430pm.
Ken Manthis used his accumulated flex-time per Resolution 6585, and his last day on payroll was
January 25, 2006. Section 4.25D of the Personnel Manual indicates that an employee will be
compensated for accrued vacation time and 50% of accrued sick leave.
Below is his severance package in accordance of Section 4.35 of the Personnel Manual and
Resolution 6585:
Ken Manthis
Hourly Rate: $22.73/hour
Vacation: 308.80 hours X $22.73 = $7,019.03
Sick:: 778.80 hours X 50% X $22.73 = $8,851.07
9-Year Severance: 360 hours X $22.73 = $8,182.80
Total Severance: $24,052.90
Recommendation:
Staff recommends severance payment for Ken Manthis in accordance with Section 4.35D of the
City’s Personnel Manual and Resolution 6585.
RESOLUTION 6731
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AUTHORIZING SEVERANCE PAYMENT FOR KEN MANTHIS
WHEREAS, Ken Manthis was laid off from his position as Clubhouse Manager/Instructor
effective November 10, 2005; and
WHEREAS, Resolution 6585 was passed on August 22, 2005, allowed payout of
vacation and sick leave in accordance with the current personnel policy, allowed accumulated
flex-time to be used by employees, and additional severance pay of one week per year of
service; and
WHEREAS, Section 4.35D states that an employee will be compensated for accrued
vacation time and 50% of accrued sick leave upon separation; and
WHEREAS, the balance of accrued and unused vacation time is 308.80 hours; and
WHEREAS, the balance of accrued and unused sick leave time is 778.80 hours; and
WHEREAS, Ken Manthis was with the City for nine years, which authorizes him nine
weeks of pay per Resolution 6585; and
WHEREAS, the maximum potential payout of vacation time will be 308.80 hours X
$22.73 = $7,019.03 and the maximum payout of sick leave will be 778.80 hours X 50% X
$22.73 = $8,851.07, and an additional maximum payout of 9 weeks for 9 years of service will be
360 hours X $22.73 = $8,182.80 for a total of $24,052.90; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council approve a
one-time payout of accrued and unused vacation time in the amount not to exceed $7,019.03, a
50% of accrued and unused sick leave in an amount not to exceed $8,851.07, and maximum
payout of 9 weeks for 9 years of service with the city in an amount not to exceed $8,182.80 to
Ken Manthis.
Adopted this 13th day of February, 2006.
_____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No. 07E
Meeting Date: February 13, 2006
Type of Business: CB
City Administrator Review _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6732 Authorizing a Request for Proposals
(RFP) for a Mounds View Salary Compensation Study and
Pay Equity Report
Introduction
A RFP for a Mounds View Salary Compensation Study and Pay Equity Report was discussed
at the last Human Resources Committee and on the February Work Session on January 30,
2006. Per your request, attached is the RFP for your review.
Discussion
The Human Resources Committee has been pursuing a compensation study that puts into
consideration population, city market value, and taxable tax capacity instead of just using
Stanton 6 cities (population 10,000 – 25,000) as outlined in the Personnel Manual. The
City Council also agreed to these parameters at the February Work Session on January 30,
2006. The attached RFP puts these parameters as part of the compensation study. The
study would encompass all positions within the City (both union and non-union). Any
compensation adjustments resulting from this study could then be negotiated into new
contracts and/or included in budgets for 2007.
In addition to the salary compensation, the Request for Proposal also requests that a Pay
Equity Report be completed. The State of Minnesota's Pay Equity Law requires that:
. . . "every political subdivision of this state shall establish equitable
compensation relationships between female-dominated, male-dominated, and
balanced classes of employees in order to eliminate sex-based wage disparities
in public employment in this state." (Minn. Stat. § 471.992, subd. 1)
The term “equitable compensation relationship” means that the compensation for female-
dominated classes is not consistently below the compensation for male-dominated classes
of comparable work value . . . (Minn. Stat. §. 471.991, subd. 5). The Mounds View Pay
Equity Report is due to the Department of Employee Relations by January 31, 2007.
Recommendation
Review the RFP and make any changes that my be necessary. Staff recommends
adopting Resolution 6732 approving the RFP for Position Classification/Salary
Compensation System and authorizing its distribution.
RESOLUTION NO. 6732
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AUTHORIZING A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR A MOUNDS VIEW SALARY
COMPENSATION STUDY AND PAY EQUITY REPORT
WHEREAS, it has been discussed by the Mounds View Human Resources
Committee to revise the Mounds View Personnel Policy in regard to salary compensation;
and
WHEREAS, the Human Resources Committee recommends a salary
compensation study that puts into consideration population, city market value, and taxable
tax capacity instead of just using Stanton 6 cities (population 10,000 – 25,000) as outlined
in the Personnel Manual; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is also in agreement with the Human Resources
Committee and has reviewed the proposed RFP for a Mounds View Salary Compensation
Study and Pay Equity Report; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has established a timeline for review of proposals
and anticipates selecting a firm on ________________, 2006.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council approves the RFP
attached to this resolution as Exhibit A and authorizes its distribution.
Adopted this 13th day of February, 2006.
___________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)
POSITION CLASSIFICATION
AND
COMPENSATION SYSTEM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL LETTER…………………………………
GENERAL INFORMATION AND CONDITIONS………….. ………..
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND GOALS……………………………..
SCOPE OF WORK……………………………………………………….
CONSULTANT SUBMITTAL…………………………………………..
PROJECT COMPLETION……………………………………………….
OTHER…………………………………………………………………...
PROPOSAL RATE SHEET………………………………..…………...
JOB POSITION TITLES BY DEPARTMENT…………………………
_____________ (date)
Dear Consultant:
Enclosed is the background information necessary to provide a proposal for compensation
consulting for the City of Mounds View .
The end report must conform to the standards set by the Minnesota Department of Employee
Relations (DOER) for pay equity reporting. If, after reviewing the data provided, you think this
is possible, please submit a proposal. This proposal must be submitted by 4:30 PM on
_________________.
Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions concerning the specifications, etc.
please contact me at 763. 717-4016.
Sincerely,
Desaree M. Crane
Assistant to the City Administrator
Enc.
GENERAL INFORMATION AND CONDITIONS
1. The City Council of the City of Mounds View is accepting proposals for a Compensation
Review of the current position descriptions, classifications, equity, compensation, and
evaluation process for its full-time, part-time, seasonal, interns, and temporary
employees.
2. All proposals should attempt to equal the market rate for each position submitted. Any
deviations should be identified in writing. Your proposals should be submitted on the
“Proposal Rate Sheet” or in a similar format. An Officer of your Company should sign
the “Proposal Rate Sheet”.
3. It is expected the Consultant will furnish detailed data informational material for all
affected positions. Include your normal administrative materials for reporting and
payment if appropriate.
4. It is the City’s desire to present findings and recommendation during August for any
necessary changes to Council and employees. Please outline your requirements for
presentation, timing, and fee structure. A representative may be expected to provide or
assist in conducting these informational meetings, if deemed necessary.
5. Minor revisions to original proposals, if requested by the City, may be negotiated
following the proposal deadline and prior to being submitted to the Council for approval.
6. All proposals must comply with Federal and State regulations pertaining to compensation
standards, including but not limited to pay equity legislation, ADA, and FLSA.
7. Eight copies of your proposal will be accepted until 4:30p.m. on _______________ in the
office of the following: The City of Mounds View, ________________________,
Mounds View , MN 55309. Proposal should be labeled “Proposal-Compensation Study
2006.”
8. After a thorough review of the proposals the results will be presented to the City Council.
If you have any questions concerning the specifications, etc. please contact
_________________, (763) 717-4016.
9. The City reserves the right to accept or reject any and all proposals that are in the best
interest of The City and its employees. The consultation award will be based upon, but
not necessarily limited to, rates, options methodology, project design, timeline, and the
experience of the carrier with municipalities and similar governmental instrumentalities
and labor markets.
PROJECT
The City of Mounds View is soliciting proposals for professional services for the development
and implementation of a job evaluation and compensation system that meets Federal and State
Compensation Standards.
I. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND GOALS
The City of Mounds View currently has in place a job evaluation and compensation system that
was reviewed and updated in 2002 for pay equity compliance. Mounds View is a growing Twin
Cities, fourth ring suburb with a population of approximately 12,000. The City has
approximately 28 position descriptions (a listing of position titles is enclosed) of which
approximately 28 classifications are subject to the State of MN Pay Equity Compliance
requirements.
Mounds View employs _____ full-time and _____ part-time employees. Of this, ____
employees are organized in the following unions:
• AFSCME
• Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc., Local 232
• Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc., Local 204
• Public Works Collective Bargaining Unit
The collective bargaining agreement is a two -year contract and will expire on
_________________.
Non-exempt, exempt, and union positions are paid on a step program. The City has been in
compliance with pay equity requirements, but will need confirmation that this is still the case.
There may be a series of jobs that skew the equity. Internal equity is currently based on the
HAYS points evaluation system. The City is interested in implementing another system to
match other area municipalities to include population, city market value and city tax capacity for
comparison purposes.
Throughout the last several years there have been several changes in position classifications, new
position additions and compensation schedule adjustments. The City does however; recognize
the need to establish a method for determining classification for newly established positions.
There is also a need to have the entire job evaluation and compensation system reviewed by an
outside professional consultant. A method for determining the validity of requests for position
and thus compensation re-classifications is also of interest. New management may also want to
explore various methods of payment such as merit vs. step systems while creating consistency
throughout.
The goal would be to comprise a complete plan and process audit to achieve the new plan and
process development including:
• Evaluating each position utilizing an up to date job description.
• Creating opportunity for management and employee input through utilizing key
participants
• Compile and analyze market comparables and competitive data
• Ensure regulatory compliance
• Draft new design according to City philosophy
• Create a transition and implementation plan
• Provide necessary tools to manage program going forward
Employee and management involvement through participation and informational meetings on
the process and outcomes will be an integral component to the success and acceptance of any
outcome.
II. SCOPE OF WORK
A. Provide professional services with integrative support services to evaluate and
analyze needs, design, develop, and implement a position evaluation and
compensation system that includes the following milestones:
• Evaluation and analysis of City needs and philosophy.
• Thorough evaluation of each position to determine a job value, by assigning
points to the position based on standard factors; or, a thorough review of the
current position evaluations with recommendations for necessary revisions.
• Objective classification ranking of each position and the provision of internal pay
equity.
• Evaluation of existing job descriptions and the recommendations of revisions to
assure compliance with ADA and other State and Federal requirements.
• Provide a wage/labor market survey and the analysis of as supporting data for the
development of a pay structure while assuring internal and external equity and
compliance with State Pay Equity Compensation Standards.
• Provide recommendations and options for a newly designed evaluation and
compensation system. Include the feasibility of implementing a performance
based compensation system or a performance based component of the system.
• Provide system testing to assure compliance.
• Provide recommendations on a system for determining the validity for requests
for reclassification and/or compensation changes.
• Determine exempt and non-exempt status for each position.
• Provide implementation support and maintenance training on the system.
• Post contract services involving review of new job descriptions and determination
of points and salary for the new position as well as assistance with the first State
Pay Equity report following compensation review to assure compliance.
B. Establish and provide concrete schedules for each of the above proposed
developments.
C. Present findings and recommendations, including written and oral reports and
policies at various meetings such as employee and City Council meetings.
D. Propose solid contract terms. Including an itemized fee schedule for work included in
the scope of work and a payment plan based on measurable contract milestones.
III. CONSULTANT SUBMITTAL
The proposal shall contain the following information:
A. Provide references of municipalities in the State of Minnesota who have implemented
and are currently utilizing the compensation system being proposed or a similar system
designed, developed, and implemented by your organization. Include the name and
phone number of the contact person at each municipality, as well as a description of the
services performed, implementation date, and the names of the personnel from your
office that worked on the project at each municipality.
B. Names and relative backgrounds of the personnel to be assigned to the project.
C. Information stating your organization’s approach to the development of a compensation
system for the City of Mounds View . Include information and outcome documents on
the job evaluation system being proposed as well as sample job descriptions, policies and
procedures, and questionnaires employees will be required to complete. Also include
information on how your organization will handle each aspect identified in the job
description and questionnaires.
D. Identify your approach to creating union and non-union involvement with the
development of the position classifications and compensation schedules.
E. Identify a concrete, but reasonable timeline for the completion of each component in the
process as well as implementation guidelines.
F. The proposal should clearly define the timelines, proposed fees, and the scope of services
to be provided during each of the following specific project components:
1. Introduction and Project Orientation
2. Position Analysis
3. Position Descriptions for full-time, part-time, temporary, seasonal, and
internships.
4. Position Classifications/Ranking/Grades/Evaluation
5. Wage/Labor Benchmarks/Market Pricing
6. System Structure Development according to Mounds View philosophy
7. System testing for equity and fairness
8. Preparation of final documents for the plan, including presentation, policy,
guidelines and procedures for administration (such as how the plan is adjusted for
cost of living and how employees advance through the ranges and any other
pertinent information). Any written and computerized data and supporting
information must be submitted as appropriate.
9. Training on the system maintenance and updating such as position additions and
wage structure updates
10. System Implementation
11. Future help that can be provided
a) Proposals shall clearly define additional services and/or reimbursable
costs not included in the basic fees, including any hourly rates or fees for
post contract services.
b) Proposals shall include a “not to exceed” lump sum fee protection.
c) Identify cost estimates for all aspects including potential areas in which
the City of Mounds View ’s staff can provide assistance resulting in cost
savings to the City.
PROJECT COMPLETION
It is the intent of the City to provide as much support and assistance to the consultant to ensure
that the project is completed by __________ _____, 2006.
IV. OTHER
A. Questions regarding this Request for Proposal should be directed to:
Desaree M. Crane
Assistant to the City Administrator
City of Mounds View
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View , Minnesota 55112
Telephone: 763.717-4016
FAX: 763.784-2462
B. The City of Mounds View reserves the right to reject any and or all proposals for any, or
no reason, and furthermore reserve the right to accept any proposal deemed to be in the
best interest of the City.
C. Eight (8) copies of the proposal are to be submitted by 4:30 p.m. on _________,
___________, 2006, to Desaree Crane at the above address.
D. Finalists may be requested to make a presentation to an employee committee and/or City
Council/employee sub-committee for evaluation
PROPOSAL RATE SHEET
DATE OF SUBMISSION:
NAME OF CONSULTANT SUBMITTING PROPOSAL:
PROJECT BREAKDOWN WITH CONCRETE TIMELINE DATES:
PROPOSAL:
RATES INCLUDING SAVINGS EXTENDED FOR CITY STAFF ASSISTANCE;
ANTICIPATED TOTAL COST OF SERVICES BROKEN DOWN BY MILESTONE
COMPONENT, INCLUDING THE LUMP SUM NOT TO EXCEED PROTECTION:
OUTCOMES INCLUDING ALL DOCUMENTS THAT WILL BE PROVIDED:
FUTURE HELP POSSIBILITIES INCLUDING TIMELINES AND RATES:
SUBMITTED BY: (officer of company)
JOB POSITION TITLES BY DEPARTMENT
1. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
• Community Development Director
• Building Official/Fire Marshall/Fire Fighter
• Building Inspector (Temporary Assignment)
• Economic Development Coordinator
• Planning Associate
• Communication Development Administrative Assistant
2. ADMINISTRATION
• City Administrator
• Assistant to the City Administrator
• Receptionist/Clerical Assistant
3. PUBLIC WORKS
• Public Works Director
• Public Works Supervisor
• Parks Supervisor
• Public Works Administrative Assistant
• Senior Water Sewer
• Public Works Maintenance
• Community Center Custodian
4. FINANCE
• Finance Director
• Accountant
• Payroll/Utility Technician
• Accounts Payable Technician (1/2 time)
5. POLICE
• Police Chief
• Deputy Police Chief
• Investigator
• Police Sergeant
• Police Officer
• Police Administrative Assistant
• Police Senior Clerk Typist
• Public Service Officer (1/2 time)
Item No:7F
Meeting Date:02-13-06
Type of Business: CB
Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Jeremiah Anderson, Housing/Code Enforcement Inspector
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6733 Authorizing Abatement of Nuisance
Conditions at 2408-10 County Rd I
Date of Report: February 2, 2006
Background:
On December 28, 2005 a notice of violation was issued and served upon the responsible
parties for violations of the City Code present at 2408-10 County Rd I, AKA Sam’s food
market and a self serve laundry.
Discussion:
The notice of violation dated December 28, 2006 cited a garbage dumpster located
outside of the enclosure and graffiti painted on the exterior of the building in several
locations. A follow up inspection conducted shortly thereafter revealed the dumpster had
been relocated inside the enclosure; however, in regards to the graffiti, corrective actions
had not been completed. To date, the graffiti remains visible on the exterior of the
building and staff has not received communication from the building owner.
Section 607.02 Subdivision 1 of the City Code defines a nuisance a condition that:
“maintains or permits a condition that unreasonable annoys, injures or endangers the
safety, health, comfort or repose of members of the public”. Graffiti is a visual symbol of
disorder eroding public safety, contributing to a downward spiral of blight and decay,
lessening property values, business viability and ultimately tax revenues and, as such, is
inconsistent with the city’s property maintenance goals and aesthetic standards.
Therefore, the failure to maintain one’s property by removing graffiti within a reasonable
period of time is injurious to the public health, safety, and general welfare of the residents
of the city and constitutes a public nuisance under this section.
Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of Resolution 6733, authorizing abatement of nuisance
conditions present at 2408-10 County Rd I
Respectfully submitted,
Jeremiah Anderson
Housing/Code Enforcement Inspector
Attachment
RESOLUTION NO. 6733
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDERING THE ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE CONDITIONS EXISTING AT 2408-10 COUNTY RD I, OPERATED AS SAMS FOOD MARKET AND SELF SERVE LAUNDRY, IN THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
WHEREAS, the Housing Inspector of the City of Mounds View has determined that
conditions present at 2408-10 County Rd I in the City of Mounds View constitute a nuisance
within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 561.01, 561.02, and Mounds View City Code
Chapter 607.
WHEREAS, based on the investigation of the Housing Inspector it is recommended that
conditions described in a notice of violation dated December 28, 2005 are abated; and
WHEREAS, in a letter to the responsible parties dated January 31, 2006 staff notified the
responsible parties of its intent to appear before the Mounds View City Council to request
authorization to abate nuisance conditions at 2408-10 County Road I; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 561.03 and Mounds View City Code, Section
607.09 Subdivision 5 authorize the City of Mounds View to correct said violations by abatement at
the expense of the property owner, occupant, or other responsible party.
WHEREAS, the City has complied with the notification requirement for nuisance
abatement in Section 607.09, Subdivision 5b of the Mounds View Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, Sadiq Punjani, the listed taxpayer of 2408-10 County Rd I, will be liable to
the City for the costs of such abatement, including administrative costs pursuant to Section
607.09, Subdivision 7 of the Mounds View Municipal Code; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds View as
follows:
1. The City of Mounds View finds that conditions existing at 2408-10 County Rd I,
know and operated as Sam’s Food Market and a Self Serve Laundry, constitute a nuisance within the
meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 561.01, 561.02 and Mounds View City Code Chapter 607.
2. Graffiti shall be abated in the most practical manner
3. The City Attorney is authorized to take all necessary legal steps to abate said
conditions.
4. Any unpaid portion of the abatement costs after 30 days of the date on the invoice
may be certified as special assessments against the property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Section 429.101 and Section 607.09, Subd. 7 of the Mounds View Municipal Code.
Dated this 13th day of February 2006, by the City Council of the City of Mounds View.
__________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk/Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No. 7H
Meeting Date: February 13, 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: Reconsideration of Resolution 6726 Awarding a
Contract for the Installation of a Security Card
Reading System at City Hall and the Community
Center
Background:
On January 23, 2006, the City Council approved Resolution 6726 awarding a
contract for the installation of a security card reading system at City Hall and the
Community Center. Attached is a copy of the Staff report and Resolution for
Council’s review.
At the Work Session on January 30, 2006, a request was made to bring this item
back for reconsideration. It was also requested that Staff research whether other
cities were using this system. At this meeting, it was indicated by three City
Council members that their vote for awarding a contract for this project would not
be changed. Based on this, Staff received direction to have the contractor
continue with the installation of the system.
Discussion:
Staff was unable to conduct a metro-wide survey to determine what cities use a
security card reading system. Staff did however contact the City of Roseville’s IT
Department and UHL Inc. (the contractor who was awarded the contract) and
was asked what cities utilize a security card reading system. Their responses
are attached.
Recommendation:
Staff is looking for direction on this matter. Specifically, Staff is looking for
Council input on whether the City Council is interested in reconsidering their vote
on this resolution.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item No. 7I
Meeting Date: January 23, 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 6726 Awarding a Contract for the
Installation of a Security Card Reading System at
City Hall and the Community Center
Background:
As part of the
A security card reading system is an access system whereby to gain access to a
building, a card, similar in size to a credit card, is used instead of a traditional
key. Benefits of this system include the ability to record access information into a
City database to record who is accessing the building and when. Other benefits
included access management for new and former employees – no key to collect
from former employees, their access rights are simply removed from the system.
Discussion:
It is proposed that the cards to access these building will also function as
employee identification cards, with name and picture identification. The proposal
is to have two card reading access points at City Hall and two at the Community
Center. The access points at City Hall would be the main entrance and the police
entrance. The access points at the Community Center would be the main
entrance and the southwest entrance (near the Chamber of Commerce offices).
As previously mentioned, a security card reading system was planned to be
installed with the City Hall Project. However, our consultant informed Staff that it
would be more cost effective if the city did not have this item included in the
overall bid for the City hall Project since the general contractor would be
subcontracting this out and adding a surcharge onto that bid. For this reason,
Staff sought quotes for this item.
Review of Quotes –. Since this date is past the date this report was due, results
will be presented to the City Council at the meeting.
A total of three (3) quotes were solicited for this aspect of the project.
A complete quote summary is as follows:
Quoter’s Name Total Quote
UHL Company $17,800.00
Pro-Tec Design Inc. $19,838.58
TCH Integrated Access Systems $20,667.00
The low quote was received from UHL Company in the amount of $17,800.00.
All three quotes were for the same access control system.
The Special Projects Fund (Account No. 280-4160-7050) is recommended to
fund this installation.
Staff recommends that the City Council approve a contact with UHL Company for
installation of a security card reading system at City Hall and the Community
Center.
City Hall Project Adjustments
In September of 2005, when the City awarded the construction contract for the
City Hall Project, it was stated that with a project of this nature, it is inevitable that
there will need to be minor adjustments to the scope of the project. These
adjustments are a necessary way to ensure that this project is completed in a
timely manner and that the City gets the maximum benefit from this project.
Attached is a list of these adjustments that are recommended by Staff and the
City’s consultant and are being considered at this time. These adjustments are
referred to as Architectural Supplemental Information (ASI’s). These are common
in all architectural projects and are even more prevalent in re-model projects.
Many of these items are simple adjustments that do not requite additional work
from the contractor. These are noted as “NC” – no charge. Other adjustments are
listed as “pricing” which means the contractor will be providing a cost to the City
to perform this extra work or provide additional materials.
There are three items that we currently have prices for:
ASI-17 is for all the electrical changes throughout the entire building. Most of the
items in this adjustment are a result of additional changes in the audio/visual
system that will be included in the Council chambers. At the time the plans were
completed, an exact audio/visual plan was not available. The portion of the costs
of this adjustment that are associated with the audio/visual system can be
assigned to the Cable TV Account.
ASI-25 is for disposal of the lighting ballasts. At the time the plans were
completed the City indicated that we would retain some lighting fixtures. The
exact amount was not known.
ASI-26 is removing concrete floor in the former well room that was thicker than
estimated.
Recommendation:
It is recommended the City Council approve Resolution 6726 awarding a contract
for the installation of a security card reading system at City Hall and the
Community Center.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
RESOLUTION 6726
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A SECURITY CARD
READING SYSTEM AT CITY HALL AND THE COMMUNITY CENTER
WHEREAS, plans for the City Hall Rehabilitation Project included a
security card reading system to be installed at City Hall, as well as the
Community Center; and
WHEREAS, quotes for the installation of a security card reading system at
City Hall and the Community Center were solicited; and
WHEREAS, quotes for installation of a security card reading system at
City Hall and the Community Center were solicited and a total of three (3) quotes
were received with the low quote submitted by UHL Company in the amount of
$17,800.00; and
WHEREAS, the Special Projects Fund (Account No. 280-4160-7050) is
recommended to fund this installation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
1. A contract for the installation of a security card reading system at
City Hall and the Community Center is awarded to UHL Company
in the amount of $17,800.00.
2. The Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized and
directed to enter into a contract with said contractor, contingent on
City legal Counsel approval.
3. The funds to administer the aforementioned contracts associated
with the security card reading system are to be derived from the
Special Project Account (Account No. 280-4180-7050).
Adopted this 23rd day of January 2006.
(ATTEST) ____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
(SEAL)
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
-----Original Message-----
From: Terrence Heiser
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 9:43 AM
To: Jim Hess
Subject: RE: Card Access systems
Roseville
Oakdale Fire
City of Oakdale
Arden Hills
Maplewood
Saint Anthony Police
Lakeville
Redwing
All sites also use keys for interior doors into offices.
In Roseville we use card access for two doors into City Hall (main and
rear exit). The police department uses card access everywhere they need
to monitor access; all external entrances, ammunition storage, vehicle
garage, and the property room.
Maplewood and Oakdale are pretty much the same as Roseville.
Arden Hills has card access for the office area perimeter which is also
alarmed.
Oakdale Fire has card access for external entrances plus internal
equipment rooms.
Saint Anthony Police run their own card access system for police
department doors only in order to log access.
Many of the other cities use keypad locks. Lino Lakes and North St.
Paul use pad locks for perimeter doors and internal doors into main
office areas. Individual offices are still secured with a key.
I think that's it. The others use keys but none of these cities have
police departments (Little Canada, Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, White
Bear Township, North Oaks)
Terre
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Hess
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 9:24 AM
To: Terrence Heiser
Subject: Card Access systems
Terre,
Do you know what other cities in the metro-inet also have a card acces
system?
One of our council members wants this info.
Thanks,
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: Corey Stauffeneker [mailto:coreys@uhlco.com]
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 11:27 AM
To: Jim Hess
Subject: RE: Card Access systems
Coon Rapids has AMAG card access. Andover has one. City of Golden valley. Honestly pretty
much every city.
Corey Stauffeneker
Security Division Manager
Uhl Company
9065 Zachary Lane N
Maple Grove, MN 55369
Main: 763.425.7226
Cell: 612.360.0351
Fax: 763.425.7336
E-mail: coreys@uhlcompany.com
Web Site: www.uhlcompany.com
Item No. 7K
Meeting Date: February, 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 6741 Setting a Public Improvement
Hearing Date for the Silver Lake Road Sidewalk
Project
Background:
On March 22, 2004, the City Council authorized the preparation of a Preliminary
Feasibility Report and consultant selection for the Silver Lake Road Sidewalk
Project. This project is to construct a 6 ½ foot wide concrete sidewalk along
Silver Lake Road, from County Road H to County Road I. The construction of this
sidewalk is consistent with City’s Comprehensive Trail and Sidewalk Plan.
On January 3, 2006, a draft Preliminary Feasibility Report for this project was
submitted for the City Council’s review. On February 2, 2006, a neighborhood
informational meeting on this project was conducted.
Discussion:
Neighborhood Informational Meeting
There were thirteen (13) residents in attendance at the Neighborhood
Informational Meeting held on February 2, 2006. At this time, Staff has had one
telephone conversation, received five (5) emails, and three “Feedback Forms”.
All responses are in favor of the project, and all those who have indicated a
preference of which side Silver Lake Road to construct the sidewalk have
indicated the east side as their preference. A deadline of February 22, 2006 has
been set to return “Feedback Forms” that were distributed at the Neighborhood
Meeting. All comments received will be submitted to the City Council at the
February 27, 2006 meeting.
Set Public Improvement Hearing – Although not required by State Statute,
Staff is recommending that a public hearing be conducted to allow the public to
learn about the proposed project and to provide comments.
A hearing date of February 27, 2006 will afford the necessary time to publish
legal notices.
Following the hearing, should the City Council wish to proceed with this project, a
Staff report and resolution approving the report, ordering the project, and
authorizing the creation of detailed plans and specifications will be presented for
City Council consideration.
Recommendation:
It is recommended the City Council approve a resolution setting a Public
Improvement Hearing date for the Silver Lake Road Sidewalk Project.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
RESOLUTION 6741
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
SETTING A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT HEARING DATE FOR THE SILVER
LAKE ROAD SIDEWALK PROJECT
WHEREAS, on March 22, 2004, the City Council authorized the
preparation of a Preliminary Feasibility Report and consultant selection for the
Silver Lake Road Sidewalk Project; and
WHEREAS, on January 3, 2006, a draft Preliminary Feasibility Report for
this project was submitted for the City Council’s review; and
WHEREAS, on February 2, 2006, a neighborhood informational meeting
on this project was conducted; and
WHEREAS, a Public Improvement Hearing is not required by State
Statute for this project; however, Staff is recommending that a Public
Improvement Hearing be conducted to allow the public to learn about the
proposed project and to provide comments; and
WHEREAS, a Public Improvement Hearing date of February 27, 2006, will
afford the necessary time to publish legal notices.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
1. A public improvement hearing for said improvement is hereby set
for 7:00 pm on February 27, 2006 at the New Brighton City Hall.
Adopted this 13th day of February 2006.
(ATTEST) ____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
(SEAL)
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item No: 07L
Meeting Date: 02/13/06
Type of Business: CB
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6743 Adopting City Vision and Mission Statement, Goals Program,
Values Statement, Rules of Conduct, and Action Plan
Introduction
On February 6th and 7th, the city council and department heads held a “leadership – planning – team
building” retreat. The retreat was held at the Mounds View Community Center and facilitated by Don
Salverda, an outside consultant.
Over the two evenings of the retreat, the Council and Department Heads discussed the past, present
and future, and responded with revised organizational goals and an action plan to respond to the
opportunities facing the City of Mounds View over the next two years.
Discussion
The group reaffirmed a shared vision for success, by agreeing on the current vision and mission
statement. The vision statement reads:
We see Mounds View as a proactive community that takes pride in its achievements. We are
responsive to the changing needs and interests of our residents and businesses. As a result,
our community thrives and prospers.
The mission statement reads:
Provide high quality public services that effectively address changing citizen and community
needs in a fiscally responsible and customer-friendly manner.
The group also worked on a variety of other items including; improving communication, identifying
future issues and opportunities, reviewing individual roles and responsibilities, identifying organizational
values, establishing goals, and creating an action plan.
Recommendation
As part of the retreat follow-up, it is recommended that the Council formally adopt the City Vision and
Mission Statement, Goals Program, Values Statement, Rules of Conduct, and Action Plan. The
attached Resolution 6743, adopting these items, is presented for council consideration and
recommended for approval.
RESOLUTION 6743
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ADOPTING THE CITY VISION AND MISSION STATEMENT, GOALS PROGRAM, VALUES
STATEMENT AND RULES OF CONDUCT
WHEREAS, in February of 2006, the City Council and Department Heads held a “Leadership –
Planning – Team Building” retreat; and
WHEREAS, the City Council and Department Heads discussed the past, present, and future
and responded with a plan to respond to the opportunities facing the City of Mounds View over the
next two years; and
WHEREAS, the City Council and Department Heads developed a shared vision for success by
agreeing on a formal revised vision, mission statement, values statement, rules of conduct, and an
action plan.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View City Council hereby adopt the
City of Mounds View Vision Statement (Exhibit A), Mission Statement (Exhibit B), Goals Program
(Exhibit C), Values Statement (Exhibit D), Rules of Conduct (Exhibit E), and Action Plan (Exhibit F)..
Adopted this 13th day of February, 2006.
_________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
(EXHIBIT A)
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
VISION STATEMENT
ADOPTED FEBRUARY 13, 2006
We see Mounds View as a proactive Community that takes pride in its achievements.
We are responsible to the changing needs and interest of our residents and
businesses. As a result, our community thrives and prospers.
ATTEST:
Mayor Rob Marty
Councilmember Stigney Councilmember Gunn
Councilmember Flaherty Councilmember Thomas
City Administrator Ulrich
(seal)
(EXHIBIT B)
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
MISSION STATEMENT
ADOPTED FEBRUARY 13, 2006
Our Mission is to provide high quality services that effectively address changing citizen
and community needs in a fiscally responsible and customer-friendly manner.
ATTEST:
Mayor Rob Marty
Councilmember Stigney Councilmember Gunn
Councilmember Flaherty Councilmember Thomas
City Administrator Ulrich (seal)
(EXHIBIT C)
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
GOALS PROGRAM
ADOPTED FEBRUARY 13, 2006
Goal 1: Follow through on City goals with better execution and implementation
Goal 2: Improve the City’s street and utilities infrastructure and develop a financing plan for
these improvements
Goal 3: To finalize and implement the redevelopment and revitalization plan for County
Highway 10
Goal 4: Develop an economic development philosophy, including alternatives to TIF to
stimulate economic development address TIF issues and develop a revised TIF policy
Goal 5: Improve communications with the public
Goal 6: Continue to provide quality service with limited resources
Goal 7: Keep property taxes as low as possible and enhance the City’s financial resources
Goal 8: Develop a five-year capital improvement plan and to plan for parks and recreation
Goal 9: Improve the City’s effectiveness in the delivery of services.
Goal 10: Make the Mounds View Community Center self-sufficient
ATTEST:
Mayor Rob Marty
Councilmember Stigney Councilmember Gunn
Councilmember Flaherty Councilmember Thomas
City Administrator Ulrich
(seal)
(EXHIBIT D)
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
VALUES STATEMENT
ADOPTED FEBRUARY 13, 2006
The following values are fundamental to the City of Mounds View’s success and the fulfillment
of our mission:
1. Excellence and Quality in the Delivery of Services
We believe that service to the public is our reason for being and strive to deliver quality
services in a highly professional and cost-effective manner.
2. Fiscal Responsibility
We believe that fiscal responsibility and the prudent stewardship of public funds is
essential for citizen confidence in government.
3. Ethics and Integrity
We believe that ethics and integrity are the foundation blocks of public trust and
confidence and that all meaningful relationships are built on these values.
4. Treating Citizens with Respect
We believe that citizens are to be treated with courtesy and respect and deserve the
best services we can provide.
5. Open and Honest Communication
We believe that open and honest communication is essential for an informed and
involved citizenry and to foster a positive working environment for employees.
6. Cooperation and Teamwork
We believe that the public is best served when departments and employees work
cooperatively as a team rather than at cross purposes.
7. Professionalism
We believe that continuous improvement is the mark of professionalism and are
committed to applying this principle to the services we offer and the development of our
employees.
ATTEST:
Mayor Rob Marty
Councilmember Stigney Councilmember Gunn
Councilmember Flaherty Councilmember Thomas
City Administrator Ulrich
(seal)
(EXHIBIT E)
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RULES OF CONDUCT
ADOPTED FEBRUARY 13, 2006
Rule#1 Council Members treat each other, the staff and the public with respect and
dignity.
Rule #2 Council Members maintain the highest standards of honesty and integrity in their
public and private dealings.
Rule #3 Council Members recognize the interdependency of the Council and the
Professional Staff.
Rule #4 Council Members are courteous in their dealings, and do not interrupt other
Council Members, the Staff or Citizens when they are speaking at Council meetings.
Rule #5 Council Members respect the individuality and contribution that other Council
Members and Staff Members bring to the City.
Rule #6 Council Members respect the majority vote of the Council, and do not undermine
or sabotage implementation of ordinances, policies, and rules passed by the majority.
Rule #7 Council Members respect and do not belittle, the minority opinions and votes of
Council Members who are not part of the majority vote on key issues.
Rule #8 Council Members praise in public and criticize and discipline in private.
Rule #9 Council Members focus on the “Big Picture of the City,” thinking and acting
strategically.
Rule #10 Council Members set an example for others to follow.
ATTEST:
Mayor Rob Marty
Councilmember Stigney Councilmember Gunn
Councilmember Flaherty Councilmember Thomas
City Administrator Ulrich
(EXHIBIT F)
CITY COUNCIL AND CITY STAFF
2006 – 2007 ACTION PLAN
VISION: We see Mounds View as a proactive community that takes pride in its achievements. We are
responsive to the changing needs and interests of our residents and businesses. As a result, our
community thrives and prospers.
MISSION: To provide high quality public services that effectively address changing citizen and community needs
in a fiscally responsible and customer-friendly manner.
GOALS: Goal 1: Follow through on City goals with better execution and implementation
Goal 2: Improve the City’s street and utilities infrastructure and develop a financing plan for
these improvements.
Goal 3: To finalize and implement the redevelopment and revitalization plan for County Highway
10
Goal 4: Develop an economic development philosophy, including alternatives to TIF to stimulate
economic development address TIF issues and develop a revised TIF policy
Goal 5: Improve communications with the public.
Goal 6: Continue to provide quality service with limited resources
Goal 7: Keep property taxes as low as possible and enhance the City’s financial resources
Goal 8: Develop a five-year capital improvement plan and to plan for parks and recreation
Goal 9: Improve the City’s effectiveness in the delivery of services
Goal 10: Make the Mounds View Community Center self-sufficient
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
2006 – 2007 ACTION PLAN
ADOPTED FEBRUARY 13, 2006
CITY COUNCIL AND CITY STAFF
2006 – 2007 ACTION PLAN
Goal 1: Follow through on City goals with better execution and implementation
Staff Leader: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
ACTION STEPS TARGET
DATE(S)
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE WORKING WITH
Identify goals February 2006 City Council/staff Eachother
Justify goals February – May
2006 w/ Constant
monitoring
City Council/staff Eachother
Action Plan February 2006 w/
Constant
monitoring
Staff – K. Ulrich Department Heads
Develop Timelines February 2006 w/
Constant
monitoring
Staff – K. Ulrich Department Heads
Take Action/Implement February 2006 w/
Constant
monitoring
City Council – Vote Staff
CITY COUNCIL AND CITY STAFF
2006 – 2007 ACTION PLAN
Goal 2: Improve the City’s street and utilities infrastructure and develop a financing plan for
these improvements
A. Construction Program
Staff Leader: Greg Lee, Public Works Director
ACTION STEPS TARGET DATE(S) PERSON
RESPONSIBLE WORKING WITH
Hold neighborhood meetings March 15 – 31, 2006 Greg Lee Staff and consultants
Narrow and define project April 10, 2006 City Council Action Greg Lee
Order feasibility report April 24, 2006 City Council Action Greg Lee
Hold neighborhood meetings: citizen input
and information
May 22 – 31, 2006 Greg Lee Staff and consultants
Feasibility report due November 1, 2006 Greg Lee Consultants
Neighborhood meetings: present report to
residents
November 1 – 10, 2006 Greg Lee Consultants
Council approves report, holds public hearing,
orders project and authorizes plans and specs
December 11, 2006 City Council Greg Lee
Approve plans and specs/ set bid date April 9, 2007 City Council Greg Lee
Receive bids May 14, 2007 City Council Greg Lee
Hold assessment hearing and award contract June 11, 2007 City Council Greg Lee
Start construction of Phase 1 June 18, 2007 Greg Lee Contractor and consultants
Hold neighborhood meetings for 2009 – 2010
construction projects
October 1 – 19, 2007 Greg Lee Staff and consultants
B. Financing Plan
Staff Leader: Mark Beer, Finance Director
ACTION STEPS TARGET
DATE(S)
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE WORKING WITH
Analyze financing options (e.g., tax levy, TIF, Bonding,
assessment, Levy Reduction Fund, Street Improvement Fund,
utility funds)
March 6, 2006 Mark Beer Greg Lee, Jim Ericson, Consultants,
and City Council
Narrow and define financing options April 3, 2006 City Council Staff and consultants
Seek public input at town meeting April 29, 2006 Mark Beer City Council
Finalize financing plan May 8, 2006 City Council action Mark Beer
Implement into current street project June 2007 Mark Beer Greg Lee
CITY COUNCIL AND CITY STAFF
2006 – 2007 ACTION PLAN
Goal 3: Finalize and implement the redevelopment and revitalization plan for County Highway
10
Staff Leader: Greg Lee, Public Works Director
ACTION STEPS TARGET
DATE(S)
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE WORKING WITH
Define project and prioritize segments February 27,
2006
City Council Greg Lee
Reintroduce plans to public at neighborhood meeting March 9, 2006 Greg Lee Council and staff
Update report to Council regarding neighborhood
meeting
March 27, 2006 Greg Lee
Approve feasibility report and order plans and specs April 10, 2006 Greg Lee Consultants
Presentation at town hall meeting April 29, 2006 Greg Lee Consultants and staff
Active Living Ramsey County walkability workshop May 11, 2006 Heidi Heller Consultant student group
Approve plans and specs August 14, 2006 City Council action Greg Lee
Accept bids August 28, 2006 City Council action Greg Lee
Award contract August 28, 2006 City Council Action Greg Lee
Begin Construction September 11,
2006
Contractor Greg Lee and consultants
CITY COUNCIL AND CITY STAFF
2006 – 2007 ACTION PLAN
Goal 4: Develop an economic development philosophy, including alternatives to TIF to stimulate economic development,
address TIF issues and develop a revised TIF policy
A. Economic Development Policy
Staff Leader: Jim Ericson, Community Development Director
ACTION STEPS TARGET
DATE(S)
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE WORKING WITH
Review current economic development policies (e.g.,
TIF, business subsidy, tax abatement).
March 6, 2006 Jim Ericson City Council/EDA
Review and discuss recommended changes to current
policies.
April 3, 2006 Jim Ericson City Council/EDA
Develop an economic development philosophy. May 1, 2006 City Council/EDA Jim Ericson, Aaron Backman
Introduce draft ED policy for feedback/review May 12, 2006 Jim Ericson Aaron Backman, EDC, public
Adoption of City ED policy June 12, 2006 City Council Action Jim Ericson
Revise City comprehensive plan. April 2007 Jim Ericson Planning Commission
B. TIF Policy
Staff Leader: Jim Ericson, Community Development Director
ACTION STEPS TARGET
DATE(S)
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE WORKING WITH
Review TIF Numbers - financing discussion with
regard to other projects.
March 6, 2006 Jim Ericson City Council, Aaron Backman
Define questions: decide what City should include in
TIF policy.
March 13, 2006 City Council action Jim Ericson, Aaron Backman
Integrate into other City policies (e.g., economic
development policy, street financing, housing stock
rehabilitation).
April 3, 2006 Jim Ericson City Council
Review recommendations from staff (review other
city’s policies).
May 8, 2006 City Council Jim Ericson, Aaron Backman
Finalize TIF policy. May 22, 2006 City Council action Jim Ericson, Aaron Backman
CITY COUNCIL AND CITY STAFF
2006 – 2007 ACTION PLAN
Goal 5: Improve communications with the public
Staff Leader: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
ACTION STEPS TARGET
DATE(S)
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE WORKING WITH
Hire Communications Coordinator. March 27, 2006 City Council Action Kurt Ulrich, Des Crane
Develop clear expectations for Communications
Coordinator
May 1, 2006 City Council Kurt Ulrich
Monitor performance of communications Quarterly City Council Kurt Ulrich
Review responsibilities and define communications
action plan (web site, news letter, newspaper, web-
streaming, cable TV productions)
June 5, 2006 Communications
Coordinator
City Council, Cable Committee,
Kurt Ulrich
Monitor Council meeting performance: listen with
open mind, be polite, and consider additional town
hall meetings.
On-going City Council Kurt Ulrich
Goal 6: Continue to provide quality service with limited resources
Staff Leader: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
ACTION STEPS TARGET
DATE(S)
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE WORKING WITH
Continue to upgrade technology. Continuous Kurt Ulrich City Council and Staff
Continue to hire good, qualified people. Continuous City Council Kurt Ulrich
Provide positive work environment. Continuous Kurt Ulrich City Council and Staff
Continue to innovate in providing service delivery. Continuous Kurt Ulrich City Council and Staff
Investigate performance measurement options. 3rd Quarter, 2006 Kurt Ulrich City Council and Staff
CITY COUNCIL AND CITY STAFF
2006 – 2007 ACTION PLAN
Goal 7: Keep property taxes as low as possible and enhance the City’s financial resources
A. Property Tax
Staff Leader: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
ACTION STEPS TARGET
DATE(S)
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE WORKING WITH
Continue to review budgets on a regular basis. Ongoing Kurt Ulrich Mark Beer, City Council and staff
Develop list of City service priorities e.g., wants vs.
needs).
June 5, 2006
Establish budget targets. July 3, 2006 City Council Staff
Establish preliminary property tax levy. September 11,
2006
City Council Staff
Establish final tax levy after public hearing. December 11,
2006
City Council Staff
B. Financial Resources
Staff Leader: Mark Beer, Finance Director
ACTION STEPS TARGET
DATE(S)
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE WORKING WITH
Seek additional grant applications. Ongoing Mark Beer Department heads
Redevelop and upgrade property within the City. Ongoing Jim Ericson City Council, EDC, staff
Evaluate and enhance fees and charges. Ongoing Mark Beer Department heads, staff
Utilize technology. Ongoing Department heads City Council
Contract for service. Ongoing Department heads City Council
Develop partnerships with other governments and/or
private sector.
Ongoing Kurt Ulrich City Council, department heads,
other cities
CITY COUNCIL AND CITY STAFF
2006 – 2007 ACTION PLAN
Goal 8: Develop a five-year capital improvement plan and to plan for parks and recreation.
Staff Leader: Greg Lee, Public Works Director
ACTION STEPS TARGET
DATE(S)
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE WORKING WITH
Implement current CIP into annual budget/work plans. January 2006 Greg Lee Mark Beer, Department heads and
staff
Conduct parks needs analysis. May 2006 Greg Lee Park and Recreation Commission,
City Council, and staff
Work session: review updated CIP plan. June 5, 2006 City Council Greg Lee and Department Heads
Conduct public hearings and approve 5-yr CIP June 26, 2006 City Council action Greg Lee and other staff
Review and approve long-term plan. July 24, 2006 City Council action Greg Lee and staff
Integrate CIP into annual budget. August 2006 and
annually
Mark Beer Greg Lee,City Council and
department heads
Goal 9: Improve the City’s effectiveness in the delivery of services.
Staff Leader: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
ACTION STEPS TARGET
DATE(S)
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE WORKING WITH
Adopt new technologies. Ongoing Kurt Ulrich City Council and Staff
On-line bill pay. 3rd quarter 2006 Mark Beer City Council and staff
Alternate forms of payment (e.g., e-commerce). 4th quarter 2006 Mark Beer City Council and staff.
Goal 10: Make the Community Center self-sufficient
Staff Leader: Kurt Ulrich
ACTION STEPS TARGET
DATE(S)
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE WORKING WITH
Form task force to review options. January 2006 Kurt Ulrich City Council
Task force submits report to Council. March 6, 2006 Task Force City Staff
Solicit public input. April 29, 2006
and other dates
City Council City staff
ATTEST:
Mayor Rob Marty
Councilmember Stigney Councilmember Gunn
Councilmember Flaherty Councilmember Thomas
City Administrator Ulrich
(seal)
Item No: 8A
Meeting Date: January 23, 2006
Type of Business: CA
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Barb Benesch, Administrative Assistant
Item Title/Subject: CONTRACTOR LICENSES FOR APPROVAL
Please consider the following contractor licenses for approval. All contractor licenses will
expire on December 31, 2006. All applicants have submitted appropriate fees and proof of
insurance. Those companies that are “new” include applicants that have never been licensed
with the City or they may have been licensed with the City in the past, but were not licensed in
2005. Those companies renewing their license were licensed, at a minimum, in the year 2005.
The type of license they are applying for follows the company name.
4 Seasons Tree Care, Inc. Tree Trimming/
Removal
Renewal
Bonfe’s Plumbing, Heating & Air Services HVAC Renewal
Dependable Indoor Air Quality, Inc. HVAC Renewal
Guyer’s Builder Supply, Inc. HVAC New
Hussman Corporation HVAC Renewal
Suburban Air HVAC Renewal
T. A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc. Asphalt Renewal
Twin City Roofing Construction Specialists General (Comm.) Renewal
White Bear Mechanical HVAC Renewal
Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested.
Reviewed by City Administrator: ________
Item No. 8B
Meeting Date: January 13, 2006
Type of Business: CA
Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Mike Sommer, Police Chief
Item Title/Subject: Purchase of Replacement Police Squad Cars for
2006
Date of Report: January 13, 2006
NATURE OF REPORT: The police department budgeted $23,000 for the
replacement of one squad car, and $19,000 for the replacement of staff vehicle
(1994 Ford Taurus) in 2006. Elk River Ford was awarded the state bid for the
2006 Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor. The Crown Victoria is being sold at
a price of $22,200, including, registration, tax, and license. Car Truck City was
awarded the state bid for the Chevrolet Impala (non police package.) The
Chevrolet Impala is being sold at $16,900 including registration, tax and license.
This cost does not include necessary equipment and set up and expenses, which
have been budgeted separately.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval for the replacement of two
police cars under the state bid through Elk River Ford, for the 2006 Ford Crown
Victoria Police Interceptor, and through Car Truck City for the 2006 Chevrolet
Impala at an estimated total cost of $39,100 for the two vehicles including tax,
registration and license.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________
Mike Sommer
Police Chief
RESOLUTION 6727
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING 2006 VEHICLE PURCHASE FOR THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Police Department planned and budgeted for replacement
of one squad car and one staff car in 2006, and;
WHEREAS, the replacement cost of one squad car was budgeted in 2006 at an
estimated cost of $23,000, plus equipment and set up, and the replacement cost for the staff car
(1994 Ford Taurus) was budgeted at an estimated cost of $19,000 plus equipment and set up,
and;
WHEREAS, Elk River Ford was awarded the state bid for the 2006 Ford Crown Victoria
Police Interceptor Package for 2006 at an approximate cost of $22,200, and Car Truck City was
awarded the state bid for the 2006 Chevrolet Impala (non-police package) at an approximate cost
of $16,900.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council for the City of Mounds
View authorizes the purchase of one 2006 Ford Crown Victoria police vehicle under the state bid
at an approximate cost of $22,000, and the purchase of one 2006 Chevrolet Impala under the
state bid at an approximate cost of $16,900 for a total cost of $39,100, including tax, registration,
and license fees.
Adopted this 13th day of January 2006.
____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST: ____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No: 8C
Meeting Date: 2-13-06
Type of Business: Council Business
Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Chief of Police, Mike Sommer
Item Title/Subject: Authorization to advertise for new Police
Officer Position.
Date of Report: February 13, 2006
Background:
The Mounds View Police Civil Service Commission maintains an eligibility list for
the position of police officer. This list has now expired and the police department
anticipates an opening for police officer due to the retirement of an Investigator this
spring. Therefore, it is necessary to create a new eligibility list so this vacancy can
be filled when the opening occurs.
The police department has had a personnel shortage of one officer for nearly the
past year due to an officer being out on workers compensation. This has created
coverage issues, scheduling difficulties, excessive use of overtime to fill the
vacancy, and made it difficult for officers to utilize their vacation, because of the
limited scheduling coverage abilities. The police department would like to fill the
new vacancy (created by a retirement) as soon as possible after the new opening
occurs, as an unnecessary delay in hiring a replacement will place further strain,
on our scheduling ability. Having a replacement officer in place at the time of the
retirement is critical to maintaining uninterrupted continuity of functional Police
operations.
The process of hiring new police officers is anticipated to take at least two months.
It begins with advertising to fill the positions. Minnesota rules, 6700.0700 sets legal
requirements for selection standards for peace officers, and The State of
Minnesota Peace Officer Standards and Training Board regulates the procedures
for hiring a peace officer. The required hiring process has several steps including:
1. Advertisement of positions
2. Police Civil Service Approval
3. Written Testing
4. Interviews of applicants
5. Scoring of written tests and interviews
6. Final selection of candidates
7. Psychological Examination of selected candidates
8. Test of physical strength and agility to measure job related skills
9. Medical examination by a licensed physician
10. Candidate fingerprints to be sent to the BCA and FBI
11. Applicants are checked to confirm they have successfully completed all
training and licensing examinations.
12. Applicants must submit to a thorough background investigation including
searches by local, state, and federal agencies.
13. Final appointment by City Council
Recommendation:
I recommend approval be granted to advertise and begin the process of hiring a
Police Officer.
Respectfully submitted,
Mike Sommer, Chief of Police
RESOLUTION NO. 6728
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADVERTISING TO FILL POLICE OFFICER
POSITIONS
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Police Civil Service Commission maintains
an eligibility list for Police Officer Positions, and;
WHEREAS, this list has now expired, and the police department
anticipates an opening this spring as a result of a retirement, and;
WHEREAS, the police officer position is an essential position to the
operations of the Police Department, and having a replacement officer in place at
the time of the retirement is critical to maintaining uninterrupted continuity of
functional Police operations, and;
WHERAS, the replacement officer shall be hired from the new Civil
Service eligibility list.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City
Council does hereby approve advertising to create a new eligibility list for the
position of police officer for the City of Mounds View.
Adopted this 13th day of February 2006.
________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No. 8E
Meeting Date: February 13, 2006
Type of Business: CA
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: Tim Pittman, Public Works Supervisor
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6735 Approving the Purchase of a
Replacement 1-Ton Truck with Dump Box
Background:
In 1991, the City purchased a 1991 Chevrolet 1 ton truck with a dump box. This
Truck was originally purchased for the street department for hauling smaller
loads of materials such as bituminous, sand, gravel, rock, brush, etc.
The City has a practice of replacing trucks on a ten-year cycle. The replacement
practice has been as follows:
When a truck becomes ten years old, a new truck with similar specifications is
purchased. In an effort to maximize the full potential and usage of the truck fleet,
the ten-year old truck is not traded in. Instead, it is compared to other trucks that
the City owns that have the same options and capabilities and are older than ten
years of age. The City then selects a truck within this group that has the least
value for the City and trades it in. By using this trade in method, the City
maximizes the use of each truck.
Discussion:
This truck was scheduled for replacement in 2001; due to budget situations Staff
recommended keeping this truck in the fleet to optimize its longevity. This is the
only truck of this style in the fleet. This truck has surpassed its replacement date
and has met its full potential for the City of Mounds View.
Staff is recommending that Unit No. 128 be replaced with a similar truck with
similar equipment and options and that Unit No.128, a 1991 Chevrolet 1 ton
truck, be sold at the next government surplus auction opportunity.
The 1-ton truck chassis can be purchased under state contract, foregoing the
requirement of acquiring additional bids. A 2006 Ford F-350 4x2 regular cab and
chassis dual rear wheels can be purchased from Elk River Ford under state
contract for $17854.60. Tax, license, and transfer fees would cost an additional
$1,160.54.
The truck that will be auctioned off is Unit No.128, a 1991 Chevrolet 2X4 1-ton
with a dump box. It is currently in a usable condition and retains a salvage value
due to the City’s extensive maintenance program. This truck will go to the next
government auction as soon as the City acquires the new truck.
In addition to the truck itself, additional equipment and options are necessary to
fully utilize the truck. These include: a dump box, strobe lights and City of
Mounds View logos. These items can be purchased from Crysteel Truck
Equipment for $7,353.73. Tax would cost an additional $477.99.
A summary of the proposed truck replacement is as follows:
• 2006 Ford F-350 4x2 regular cab and chassis
with dual rear wheels $17,854.60
• Tax, License, and Transfer Fees $1,160.54
Subtotal $19,015.14
• Dump box, and accessories $ 7,233.73
City logo $ 120.00
• Tax, License, and Transfer Fees $ 477.99______
Subtotal $ 7,831.72
• Sub – Total $26,846.86
• Auction (reserve) $2,000.00
TOTAL $24,846.86
The 2006 General Fund, Pavement Management, Vehicle Account (Account
100-4472-7030) has $28,000.00 budgeted for this truck purchase.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the purchase of a 2006 Ford F-
350 4x2 Regular Cab and Chassis with Dual Rear Wheels Truck under state
contract and award a contract to Elk River Ford in the amount of $19,015.14 for
the purchase of this truck, including tax, license, and transfer fees.
Staff also recommends that the City Council approve the purchase of equipment
for the 2006 Ford F-350 4x2 regular cab and chassis with dual rear wheels from
Crysteel Truck Equipment in the amount of $7,703.92 and City of Mounds View
Logo for $127.80, including tax.
Finally, Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Unit No.128, a 1991
Chevrolet 4X2 1-ton truck to go to government auction as soon as the
aforementioned truck is put into service. The trade-in amount is estimated to be
$2,000.00 to $3,000.00. The amount sold for at government auction is not
established until date of sale. However, the City can put a reserve minimum bid
on the truck to guarantee a sale of no less than $2,000.00. This would represent
a final net City cost of $24,846.86 to purchase the 2006 Ford F- 350 truck and
accessories.
Respectfully Submitted,
Tim Pittman, Public Works Supervisor
RESOLUTION 6735
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF A REPLACEMENT 1-Ton 4X2 TRUCK
WHEREAS, the City Council previously approved the purchase of a 2006
Ford F-350 4x2 regular cab and chassis with dual rear wheels truck; and
WHEREAS, said truck has surpassed its ten year replacement schedule;
and
WHEREAS, said truck can be replaced with a similar specification truck;
and
WHEREAS, a 2006 Ford F-350 4x2 regular cab and chassis with dual rear
wheels truck can be purchased from Elk River Ford under state contract for
$17,854.60. Tax, license, and transfer fees would cost an additional $1,160.54;
and
WHEREAS, the existing Unit No.128, a 1991 Chevrolet 4x2 1-ton truck,
can be auctioned off at the next available opportunity and retains an estimated
salvage / trade-in value of $2,000.00; and
WHEREAS, additional equipment such as a dump box, strobe lights, and
City logo necessary to fully utilize truck; and
WHEREAS, said equipment can be purchased from Crysteel Truck
Equipment for $7,703.92, and the City of Mounds View Logo for $127.80,
including tax; and
WHEREAS, the 2006 General Fund, Pavement Management, Vehicle
Account (Account 100-4472-7030) has $28,000.00 budgeted for this truck
purchase.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
1. The purchase of a 2006 Ford F-350 Series 4X2 Regular Cab and Chassis
with Dual Rear Wheels Truck under state contract is hereby approved.
2. A contract to Elk River Ford in the amount of $19,015.14 for the purchase
of said truck, including tax, license, and transfer fees is hereby awarded.
3. The purchase of equipment such as dump box and strobe lights for the
Ford F-350 Series 4X2 truck is hereby approved.
4. A contract with Crysteel Truck Equipment in the amount of $ 7,703.92
including tax for the purchase and installation of said equipment and
options is awarded.
5. The trade-in or salvage of the existing Unit No.128, a 1991 Chevrolet 4x2
1-Ton Truck is hereby authorized to be auctioned at the next available
opportunity.
6. The trade-in / salvage / disposal of the existing Unit No.128, a 1991
Chevrolet 4x2 1-Ton Truck, at a government auction at the next available
opportunity is hereby authorized.
Adopted this 13th day of February 2006.
(ATTEST) ____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
(SEAL)
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item No. 8G
Meeting Date: February 13, 2006
Type of Business: CA
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 6739 Authorizing the Preparation of a
Preliminary Feasibility Report and Consultant
Selection for the Hidden Hollow South Street and
Utility Installation Project
Background:
For the last several months the City has been working with Dan Saplis,
Incorporated, to develop a parcel of land located on the north side of the west
end of Woodale Drive.
Dan Saplis, Incorporated has submitted a preliminary plat along with grading and
utility plans for review by the City.
Discussion:
Preliminary Report - The first step in a public improvement process is the
preparation of a preliminary engineering report. It is recommended that the
preliminary report be ordered at this time to determine the need and feasibility,
both physical and economic, of providing the necessary public improvements.
On January 24, 2006, City Staff met with the Dan Saplis, the developer of Hidden
Hollow South. At that time, the developer submitted an executed petition for
public improvement. The developer also submitted the necessary financial
security with this petition to ensure that the City will be reimbursed for fees
associated with creating the report.
Consultant Selection – There are several engineering consultants within the
City’s “consultant pool” from whom services could be obtained. Staff
recommends that the Council retain the services of the engineering firm of
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik, and Associates (BRAA) to assist in the preparation
of the preliminary engineering report and other aspects of this project, as directed
by City Council. It should be noted that BRAA was the consultant for the Hidden
Hollow Street and Utility Installation Project.
Recommendation:
It is recommended the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the preparation
of a preliminary feasibility report and the selection of a consultant for the Hidden
Hollow South Street and Utility Installation Project.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
RESOLUTION 6739
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF A PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY
REPORT AND CONSULTANT SELECTION FOR THE HIDDEN HOLLOW
SOUTH STREET AND UTILITY INSTALLATION PROJECT
WHEREAS, Dan Saplis, Incorporated has submitted a preliminary
plat along with grading and utility plans for review by the City; and
WHEREAS, the first step in a public improvement process is the
preparation of a preliminary engineering report; and
WHEREAS, a petition for public improvement and associated
financial security to ensure that the City will be reimbursed for fees associated
with creating the report has been submitted by the developer; and
WHEREAS, there are several engineering consultants within the
City’s “consultant pool” from whom services could be obtained; and
WHEREAS, Staff recommends that the Council retain the services
the engineering firm of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik, and Associates (BRAA) to
assist in the preparation of the preliminary engineering report and other aspects
of this project, as directed by City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
1. It is hereby authorized that the preliminary report for the Hidden Hollow
South Street and Utility Installation Project be prepared. Said
preliminary report shall include an analysis as to whether the proposed
improvements are necessary, cost effective, and feasible.
2. The services of the engineering firm of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik,
and Associates (BRAA) shall be retained to assist in the preparation of
the preliminary engineering report and other aspects of this project, as
directed by City Council.
Adopted this 13th day of February 2006.
(ATTEST) ____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
(SEAL)
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item No. 8H
Meeting Date: February 13, 2006
Type of Business: CA
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 6742 Approving a Contract Extension
for the 2006 Tree Removal Program
Background:
Annually, bids are received for tree removal, as needed, throughout the City. This
is done as part of the Joint Powers Agreement the City of Mounds View has with
the City of New Brighton.
On March 7, 2004 bids were received for the 2005 season. The bidding process
is set up to differentiate between two operational scenarios: one whereby vehicle
and equipment access is available to the site where the trees to be removed are
located; the other for cases where access with vehicles is not possible.
A total of three bids were received. A summary of the quotes follows:
Company Bid (with access) Bid (without access)
4 Seasons Tree Care $15.00 / diameter inch $26.00 / diameter inch
All Tree Service $15.00 / diameter inch $25.00 / diameter inch
Miller Tree Service $22.00 / diameter inch $19.75 / diameter inch
There were two low bidders for trees with access: 4 Seasons Tree Care and All
Tree Service, both with a bid of $15.00 / diameter inch. It is recommended that a
contract be awarded to both companies. This may allow the City’s Forester to
assign tree removal (with access) to the company that will provide the best
response time and service to the City.
The low bidder for trees without access was Miller Tree Service with a bid of
$19.75 / diameter inch. Miller Tree Service has successfully completed contracts
for Mounds View in the past and possesses the required equipment and
personnel to do the work.
On March 28, 2005, The City Council approved Resolution 6486 approving
contract awards to 4 Seasons Tree Care, All Tree Service, and Miller Tree
Service for the 2006 Tree Removal Program.
Discussion:
For 2006, the aforementioned companies have agreed to extend the 2005
contract to 2006 and retain the same unit prices. These contractors have
performed well in 2005 and assisted the City of Mounds View with the September
2005 storm damage clean-up activities. It is recommended by the City Forester
to extend the 2005 contract to December 31, 2006.
The total amount of tree removal work contracted annually by the City of Mounds
View is typically in the range of $15,000 to $20,000. The 2006 budget has
$20,500 allocated for tree removal (Account 100-4380-3520).
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve extending the 2005 tree removal
contract to December 31, 2006.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
RESOLUTION 6742
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING THE CONTRACT EXTENSION FOR THE 2006 TREE REMOVAL
PROGRAM
WHEREAS, annually bids are received to perform tree removal as needed
throughout the City; and
WHEREAS, this service was budgeted for in 2006; and
WHEREAS, for 2006, 4 Seasons Tree Care, All Tree Service, and Miller
Tree Service have agreed to extend the 2005 contract to 2006 and retain the
same unit prices; and
WHEREAS, these contractors have performed well in 2005 and assisted
the City of Mounds View with the September 2005 storm damage clean-up
activities; and
WHEREAS, it is recommended by the City Forester to extend the 2005
contract to December 31, 2006.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Mounds View City Council
does hereby approve extending the 2005 tree removal contract to December 31,
2006.
Adopted this 13th day of February 2006.
(ATTEST) ____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
(SEAL)
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item No. 8I
Meeting Date: February 13, 2006
Type of Business: CA
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 6744 Authorizing to Advertise and
Contract for a Minute Taker for the Park and
Recreation and Forestry Commission Meetings
Background:
In recent years the Public Works Director has been creating minutes for the Park
and Recreation and Forestry Commission Meetings. This has been done by one
of two methods: take minutes and conduct the meeting at the same time, then
type up the minutes afterwards -or- conduct the meeting then review the tape at
a later date and type up the minutes.
This perhaps may not be the most cost effective use of staff time.
Discussion:
The Park and Recreation and Forestry Commission has recommended that the
City budget include funds for facilitating minute taking of their meetings. The
adopted 2006 Budget has $700 included in the parks budget for this activity
(Account 100-4360-3030).
The proposal is to contract with an individual to take the minutes. The process
would include an individual picking up the meeting tape shortly after the monthly
meeting or watching the cable broadcast of the meeting and creating the minutes
using his or her own equipment. The minutes would then be emailed back to the
City to be included in the information packet for the next meeting. The City would
then submit payment to the individual in the recommended amount of $10 per
page. The volume of minutes per meeting is estimated to be 4 to 6 pages.
For financial comparison purposes, the City currently contracts with Timesaver to
take minutes for the City Council meeting and the Planning Commission
Meetings. The 2005 and 2006 rates are 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
The City is paying Time saver $24.75 per hour AND $11.25 per page. In
reviewing these rates, Staff believes that meeting minutes for the Park and
Recreation Commission Meetings could be produced cheaper with a slight /
minimal reduction in professional quality.
As previously stated, the adopted 2006 Budget has $700.00 allotted in the
professional services account of the parks department in the General Fund
(account 100-4360-3030) for this item.
Recommendation:
It is recommended the Council adopt a resolution authorizing to advertise and
contract for a minute taker for the Park and Recreation and Forestry Commission
Meetings.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
RESOLUTION 6744
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AUTHORIZING TO ADVERTISE AND CONTRACT FOR A MINUTE TAKER
FOR THE PARK AND RECREATION AND FORESTRY COMMISSION
MEETINGS
WHEREAS, in recent years the Public Works Director has been
creating minutes for the Park and Recreation and Forestry Commission
Meetings; and
WHEREAS, this perhaps may not be the most cost effective use of
staff time; and
WHEREAS, there is a proposal to contract with an individual to
take the minutes at a rate of $10 per page of minutes; and
WHEREAS, the adopted 2006 Budget has $700 allotted in the
professional services account of the parks department in the General Fund
(account 100-4360-3030) for this item.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
1. That the Public Works Department is authorized to advertise for an
individual to take minutes for the Park and Recreation and Forestry
Commission
2. That the Public Works Department is authorized to contract with
said individual to take minutes for the Park and Recreation and
Forestry Commission at a rate of $10 per page of minutes.
3. That the funds to finance this contract will be derived from the
professional services account of the parks department in the
General Fund (account 100-4360-3030).
Adopted this 13th day of February 2006.
(ATTEST) ____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
(SEAL)
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item No. 8K
Meeting Date: February 13, 2006
Type of Business: CA
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 6746 Authorizing Execution of the
County Road J Improvement Plans
Background:
Ramsey County has ordered plans and specification for the County Road J
Improvement Project.
Discussion:
SEH, the consultant for Ramsey County has completed the plans for the County
Road J Improvement Project. As this is a collaborative effort involving the State,
Ramey County, Anoka County, the City of Blaine, the City of Shoreview, and the
City of Mounds View, it is required that the engineer representing these
government entities sign the plans.
Ramsey County will be presenting the plans to the City Council on February 27,
2006.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Public Works Director to
execute for the plans for the County Road J Improvement Project.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
RESOLUTION 6746
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE COUNTY ROAD J IMPROVEMENT
PLANS
WHEREAS, Ramsey County has ordered plans and specification for the
County Road J Improvement Project; and
WHEREAS, SEH, the consultant for Ramsey County has completed the
plans for the County Road J Improvement Project; and
WHEREAS, this is a collaborative effort involving the State, Ramey
County, Anoka County, the City of Blaine, the City of Shoreview, and the City of
Mounds View, it is required that the engineer representing these government
entities sign the plans.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Mounds View City Council
does hereby authorize the Public Works Director to execute for the plans for the
County Road J Improvement Project.
Adopted this 13th day of February 2006.
(ATTEST) ____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
(SEAL)
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL 1
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3
4
Regular Meeting 5
January 23, 2006 6
New Brighton City Hall 7
803 Old Highway 8, New Brighton, MN 55112 8
7:41 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, and Thomas 16
17
NOT PRESENT: Flaherty 18
19
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 20
21
A. Monday, January 23, 2006 City Council Agenda 22
23
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Thomas. To Approve the Monday, January 23, 2006 agenda as 24
presented. 25
26
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 27
28
5. PUBLIC INPUT 29
30
Khaldon Bteibet approached the Council regarding the issues with the gas station located on 31
2390 Highway 10. He stated that he had building violations and there is a court date set for 32
February 16, 2006. He stated that he wished to have the violations removed from his record and 33
walk away from Mounds View with a clean record. He reported that the signs have been taken 34
down on all the sides of the building, and there is no grass over eight inches long remaining. He 35
stated that the issues with the canopy and the car wash were bigger than him and that he was not 36
cited for those items. He explained that the City cited him for the signs on the building and the 37
grass. Mr. Bteibet stated that he took care of those issues, and requested the Council to remove 38
the citations from his record. 39
40
Mayor Marty questioned when the signs were taken down. Community Development Director 41
Ericson responded the signs were taken down last week. 42
43
Mounds View City Council January 23, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 2
Mayor Marty stated that Mr. Bteibet approached the Council in December and it was noted that 1
removal of the signs was part of the citation. Mayor Marty questioned Mr. Bteibet why he 2
waited until last week to remove the signs. 3
4
Mr. Bteibet stated that his ladder was stolen from the back of building, and he could not get to 5
the back of the roof as he did not want to hire someone to do it and pay the costs. He stated that 6
he recently did get someone to take the signs down for $100. 7
8
Mayor Marty stated that he recalled this issue in a lengthy Council discussion that Mr. Bteibet 9
was unable to attend. Mayor Marty stated Mr. Bteibet has been cited numerous times over a long 10
period of time and no responses were received by letter or phone. Mayor Marty explained that 11
the fire marshal cited Mr. Bteibet for fire code violations and there was no correction or response 12
to those violations. 13
14
Mayor Marty recalled that the first time Mr. Bteibet approached the Council was at the beginning 15
of December to plead his case. Mayor Marty stated the Council listened and referred Mr. Bteibet 16
on to another meeting. Mayor Marty stated that last month when the issue was discussed again, 17
the signs still had not been taken down and there were no corrective actions taken. Mayor Marty 18
stated neither Mr. Bteibet nor a representative attended that meeting. He added that the City had 19
sent letters and contacts from the building inspector, fire inspector, and so forth, with little to no 20
response, so at that time the Council decided to refer it on. 21
22
Mayor Marty stated that even though it was a month ago, as Mr. Bteibet stated, the signs only 23
came down recently while the citations were given last fall or summer, so Mr. Bteibet would 24
have had a ladder up to a month ago. Mayor Marty stated that Mr. Bteibet would need to show 25
that he is willing to work and cooperate with the City, as actions up to this point have been rather 26
minimal. 27
28
Mr. Bteibet stated that he did not disagree with what Mayor Marty is saying, and he apologized 29
and admitted that he did not take fast or good action as far as the signs. Mr. Bteibet stated that he 30
has tried many routes in business, only to reach dead-ends. He stated he has visited Director 31
Ericson in City Hall and discussed different options on how to approach the problem. Mr. 32
Bteibet stated that he also talked to Oasis Market and they advised him that he could transfer the 33
lease if he found some people interested in investing in the business. He stated that he does not 34
just want to walk away, and that he is not here just to try to take the citations off his record, but 35
he is trying to be responsible by continuing to stay in business and keeping the gas station open 36
every day. Mr. Bteibet apologized for not taking the signs down right away and stated it was not 37
because he did not want to. 38
39
Director Ericson added that Mr. Bteibet is asking the Council to delay the enforcement of the 40
abatement provisions on his property regarding the removal of the canopy and the boarding up of 41
the window. Director Ericson stated that the City has received bids and are able to award the 42
contract tomorrow to abate the property in regard to the canopy and the windows. Director 43
Ericson pointed out that Mr. Bteibet is asking the Council for time to arrange for financing or the 44
investment group to reattach the canopy so it’s back over the gasoline pumps. Director Ericson 45
Mounds View City Council January 23, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 3
stated that it is not something he can do but if the Council wants to delay awarding that contract, 1
the Council has the power and ability to do so. 2
3
Councilmember Thomas stated that she agreed with the majority that the main point of the 4
citation is to get the action taken care of. She stated that if Mr. Bteibet can present everything he 5
was cited for and explain how it was taken care of and dealt with, at that point, consideration 6
could be given about dropping any other action. She stressed that everything the citation noted 7
would have to be completed. She stated that if the citations were significantly unaddressed, there 8
would be something else to discuss. 9
10
Councilmember Thomas stated that she does not know how long the Council should be willing to 11
wait on the canopy as the timeframe is unknown for finding investors, but she does know the 12
new business next door is affected because of the canopy is a blight issue for that business. She 13
stated that the time frame needs to be limited due to safety considerations and cannot be delayed 14
for more than a couple of weeks. 15
16
Mr. Bteibet stressed he was not cited for the issues with the canopy and car wash, and stated that 17
he does not want to walk away from this issue, even if investors can be found to fix the gas 18
station and get it going. Mr. Bteibet stated that nothing would be in it for himself. 19
20
Councilmember Thomas stated it will need to be shown to the City that all of the items that Mr. 21
Bteibet was specifically cited have been resolved. Mr. Bteibet stated that to his knowledge, the 22
three items he was cited for have been taken care of, and apologized for the delay in the remedy 23
of these citations. 24
25
Mayor Marty inquired if the fire code violations have been included. Director Ericson stated that 26
it was his understanding that they have been corrected. He stated that the partially dismantled 27
roof has been completely dismantled and removed. He stated that the two signs that were erected 28
without permits have been removed and are no longer an issue. He also noted that by removing 29
the partially demolished roof treatment, this has helped to address the issue of the blight of the 30
building. He stated that Mr. Bteibet has addressed those violations. 31
32
Mayor Marty stated that having the canopy sitting in the parking lot blocks the new business that 33
is next door. 34
35
Mr. Bteibet stressed that he has a couple of individuals that approached him to invest in the 36
business. He stated that he was honest with the potential investors that there are issues with the 37
lease and the City. He stated that if the issues are resolved, the investors would be open to 38
paying the costs of fixing the canopy and turning it into a presentable business. 39
40
Mayor Marty inquired whether this issue should be discussed at the January 30, 2006 Work 41
Session. City Administrator Ulrich stated that the work session agenda is fairly full. Mayor 42
Marty stated that he would like to look into the issue a little more at a different time. 43
44
Mounds View City Council January 23, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 4
City Administrator Ulrich stated that one of the things that he has not heard is the timeframe 1
involved. He questioned Mr. Bteibet regarding what the timeframe is and how long enforcement 2
would need to be delayed. Mr. Bteibet responded that two weeks would be more than enough, 3
and he stressed that he is trying to resolve this issue for whoever takes over the business. 4
5
Mayor Marty asked when the City is willing to act on the bids, and Council stated it would be 6
tomorrow. 7
8
City Administrator Ulrich asked Director Ericson how long the bids are valid. Director Ericson 9
stated that there is probably a 30 or 45 day window, but he will double check. 10
11
Councilmember Gunn questioned if the highest bidder would still be able to complete the project 12
immediately if the issue is pushed out two weeks. Director Ericson replied there were three bids 13
received, and if the low bidder is unavailable to do the work, the next lowest bidder would be 14
selected. 15
16
Mayor Marty asked if the bids are relatively close. Director Ericson stated that there is a $2,000 17
difference between the two lowest bids. 18
19
City Administrator Ulrich proposed to give Mr. Bteibet until the February 13 Council meeting. 20
He stated this would give him a three week time frame, the bids still would be good and it would 21
give him more time to make the corrections. City Administrator Ulrich pointed out that the 22
canopy damage was a result of the storm and not neglect by the business operator. He stated that 23
in itself calls for leniency with anticipation that the property owner would make corrections by 24
that time. 25
26
Councilmember Gunn asked if there would need to be a court date if the citation items are taken 27
care of. Mayor Marty stated that it would be up to the Council, and he would like to have more 28
discussion at the January 30, 2006 Work Session. 29
30
Councilmember Gunn pointed out that if the Council waits until the February 13, 2006 meeting, 31
it would be only one day before the court date. Mayor Marty confirmed that the Council should 32
let the courts know ahead of time. 33
34
Councilmember Stigney stated that if progress has been made before the next meeting, Mr. 35
Bteibet could give City Administrator Ulrich an update as to where he is at in the progress. 36
37
Councilmember Gunn stated that the citation from Ramsey County is already done and Mr. 38
Bteibet is not involved with that. 39
40
Mayor Marty stated that Mr. Bteibet is asking for the citations that he was specifically charged 41
with to be removed from his record. Mayor Marty confirmed that the canopy and the car wash 42
are not part of the action needed. 43
44
Mounds View City Council January 23, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 5
Councilmember Stigney questioned if the case needs to go to court if it has been corrected. 1
Director Ericson followed up with the analogy if one speeds and gets a ticket and then slows 2
down to the speed limit, one would still need to pay the ticket. 3
4
Director Ericson stated that the intent of writing a court citation is to seek compliance. He stated 5
this does not mean that if compliance is achieved, the ticket would be waived. He stated that this 6
is a decision that the Council needs to make. 7
8
Councilmember Stigney and Mayor Marty asked Mr. Ericson for recommendation of the next 9
action. Director Ericson stated that if it is the issue of waiving the ticket, it is recommended the 10
decision be made tonight because nothing will change between now and then about the 11
violations. He stated if the Council wanted to wait to get canopy erected or other issues 12
corrected, then the issue could wait until the work session. Director Ericson stated that the 13
decision should be made tonight. 14
15
Mayor Marty proposed that the item be added as Agenda Item K at the end of Council business. 16
17
Councilmember Stigney asked Director Ericson for his recommendation. Director Ericson stated 18
that there is no problem if the Council waives the court citation, because the corrections have 19
been made. He stressed that his concern is the canopy and it needs to be removed or re-erected 20
over the gasoline pumps. 21
22
Councilmember Gunn asked if there is a dollar fine that goes with the court citation. Director 23
Ericson replied that the decision is completely at the discretion of the judge. 24
25
Councilmember Gunn asked if the decision can be made within a week about the investors in the 26
gas station. Mr. Bteibet responded that he could call the investors tomorrow to see if he can get 27
an answer. He stated he is trying to get citizenship and this issue can affect his application for 28
citizenship. 29
30
Councilmember Thomas restated that the purpose of a citation purpose is to achieve compliance 31
and not to be a punitive body. She stated it would be a waste of City and staff time to proceed. 32
She stated that she was fine with dropping the charges as long as compliance has been made. 33
34
Councilmember Stigney agreed and stated that the Council should concentrate on the canopy 35
issue. 36
37
Councilmember Gunn agreed and stated that two weeks is too long to wait for resolution on the 38
canopy and car wash. 39
40
Councilmember Thomas suggested that the canopy and car wash issue be added to the January 41
30, 2006 Work Session agenda. Mayor Marty agreed to add the item to the work session, and 42
Councilmember Stigney and Councilmember Gunn pointed out that Mr. Bteibet can provide an 43
update at that time. 44
45
Mounds View City Council January 23, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 6
Mayor Marty told Mr. Bteibet that he understood the position he was in, and pointed out that Mr. 1
Bteibet does not own or lease the property or the building, and only has a license from the City. 2
Mayor Marty stated he has known Mr. Bteibet for several years and recognizes that he is trying to 3
make the business work. Mayor Marty stated he concurred with the Council to not take the issue 4
to court and asked staff to let the prosecuting attorney know. He stated that this issue along with 5
the canopy and car wash issues will be added to the January 30, 2006 Work Session agenda. 6
7
Mr. Bteibet stated that he would provide Director Ericson with any updates, as well as attend the 8
January 30, 2006 work session meeting. 9
10
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Marty. To waive the court date for Mr. Khaldon Bteibet and 11
discuss the issues regarding the canopy and car wash at the January 30, 2006 Work Session. 12
13
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 14
15
Mr. Bteibet thanked the Council. 16
17
Stan Meyer, 2812 Sherwood Road, voiced his concern with Steve’s Appliance. Mr. Meyer stated 18
that he would like the business owner to get rid of the appliances in the front and on the side of 19
the building, as it looks quite trashy. Mr. Meyer asked if it would be possible for the Council to 20
ask Steve’s Appliance to tidy up his property, as he has property right behind the business and 21
they should be able to store it someplace else. 22
23
Mayor Marty stated this has been an issue for years. 24
25
Mr. Meyer stated he does not like seeing everything outside the building when he drives by, and 26
he has to be a good neighbor, too. 27
28
Mr. Meyer added that regarding the canopy in the last case, it should be put back up right away, a 29
lien should be placed on the property, and charged interest on it so it falls under the responsibility 30
of the property owner. Mayor Marty stated this issue would be discussed at the January 30, 2006 31
work session. 32
33
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, asked what the phrase “Please limit your comments to three 34
minutes” means. He stated that one person got up four times in the last Council meeting, and one 35
or two persons took up the whole EDA meeting tonight. He stated that there should be some 36
order in these meetings. Mr. Jahnke stated that during the last meeting, as was requested, he 37
spoke directly to Mayor Marty, while the City Building Inspector talked directly to the person 38
that asked questions and did not face Mayor Marty, and he wanted to know if this was 39
acceptable. 40
41
Mayor Marty stated that the Building Inspector should have directly responded to him rather than 42
to the person asking the question. He stated that in regard to the time limit, the time City Council 43
or City staff spends answering the question is not counted towards the time limit. Mayor Marty 44
stated that the Council tries to adhere to the three minute guideline for the public input part of the 45
Mounds View City Council January 23, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 7
meeting. He added that if there is an agenda item that is being discussed, the three minute 1
guideline is used if there is a full house. Mayor Marty stated that if there are only a handful of 2
people in attendance, the Council gives more leniency to let residents communicate their 3
thoughts. 4
5
Councilmember Thomas stated that Mr. Jahnke made a good point and it is well taken, as the 6
Council is currently significantly behind on the agenda. 7
8
Mr. Jahnke stated that people have a lot of questions, and he does not blame them for this, but 9
suggested that some of the questions be asked during the week. Mr. Jahnke suggested that 10
residents call City Administrator Ulrich, as he has always been more than happy to answer 11
questions and if he cannot answer the question, he finds out how to answer it. Mr. Jahnke stated 12
this would save time at the meeting. 13
14
Mayor Marty stated that this would be a good option if citizens had the opportunity to talk to Mr. 15
Ulrich during the week. 16
17
Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, commented that in the Mounds View City Charter, it 18
states that for any public meeting, the Council should not prohibit but place reasonable 19
restrictions on citizens’ comments and questions. Mr. McCarty questioned if three minutes is 20
reasonable. 21
22
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS 23
24
None. 25
26
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS 27
28
A. 7:05 p.m. Public Hearing for the Second Reading on Ordinance 767, an 29
Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Xcel Energy Electric and 30
Natural Gas Operations within the City of Mounds View for the Year 2006. 31
32
Finance Director Beer explained that this is an ordinance to receive a second reading at a public 33
hearing tonight. He stated that a notice of the public hearing and second reading was published 34
in the January 4, 2006 edition of the New Brighton-Mounds View Bulletin. 35
36
Finance Director Beer explained that this ordinance continues the agreement with Xcel Energy 37
under which Xcel Energy will collect a franchise fee in the amount of 4% of Xcel’s electric and 38
natural gas gross operating revenues for services within the City of Mounds View during the year 39
2006. 40
41
Finance Director Beer stated that Ordinances 517 and 518 passed on October 13, 1992 originally 42
enacted the franchise fee agreement. 43
44
Mounds View City Council January 23, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 8
Finance Director Beer reported franchise fees of $265,000 for the General Fund and $265,000 for 1
the Street Improvement Fund are included in the 2006 budget. 2
3
Finance Director Beer stated that if approved by the City Council, the ordinance will then be 4
published in the New Brighton-Mounds View Bulletin and take effect 30 days after publication. 5
6
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 8:14 p.m. 7
8
There being no public input, Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 8:14 p.m. 9
10
Councilmember Stigney questioned staff if Xcel Energy is agreeable to remove the language in 11
the ordinance regarding waiving fees for ensuing years. Finance Director Beer stated that it has 12
not been discussed yet. 13
14
Councilmember Stigney requested legal interpretation. City Attorney Riggs stated that the 15
ordinance that goes into effect follows the franchise agreement and includes an agreement that 16
the language can be taken out. He stated that this does not mean there might not be somewhat of 17
an argument, but it is in control of the City. 18
19
Mayor Marty stated this item was prepared a little late this year. 20
21
Councilmember Stigney stated that once things take effect, sometimes it is kind of hard to correct 22
them. 23
24
City Attorney stated that Finance Director Beer discussed the issue with Mark Vose and with 25
Excel Energy. 26
27
Mayor Marty stressed next year this item should be taken care of in the fall. Finance Director 28
Beer stated that it is on his calendar for August 1, 2006. 29
30
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Thomas. To waive the reading and adopt Ordinance 767, an 31
Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Xcel Energy Electric and Natural Gas Operations 32
within the City of Mounds View for the Year 2006. 33
34
ROLL CALL VOTE: 35
36
Mayor Marty Aye 37
Councilmember Gunn Aye 38
Councilmember Stigney Aye 39
Councilmember Thomas Aye 40
41
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 42
43
Mounds View City Council January 23, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 9
B. 7:10 p.m. Public Hearing for the Second Reading on Ordinance 768, an 1
Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Center Point Energy Natural 2
Gas Operations within the City of Mounds View for the Year 2006 3
4
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 8:17 p.m. 5
6
Finance Director Beer explained that this is an ordinance to receive a second reading at a public 7
hearing tonight. He stated that a notice of the Public Hearing and second reading was published 8
in the January 4, 2006 edition of the New Brighton-Mounds View Bulletin. 9
10
Finance Director Beer explained that this ordinance continues the agreement with Center Point 11
Energy under which Center Point Energy will collect a franchise fee in the amount of 4% of 12
Center Point’s natural gas gross operating revenues for services within the City of Mounds View 13
during the year 2006. 14
15
Finance Director Beer stated that Center Point Energy has agreed to waive the time requirements 16
for notice to continue collecting the franchise fee. 17
18
Finance Director Beer explained that franchise fees collected under this agreement are minimal 19
due to Center Point Energy’s small customer base within the City of Mounds View. He stated 20
that it is not a significant amount of revenue for the City. 21
22
Finance Director Beer stated that if approved by the City Council, the ordinance will then be 23
published in the New Brighton-Mounds View Bulletin and take effect 30 days after publication. 24
25
There being no public input, Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 8:18 p.m. 26
27
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Gunn. To waive the reading and adopt Ordinance 768, an 28
Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Center Point Energy Natural Gas Operations within 29
the City of Mounds View for the Year 2006. 30
31
ROLL CALL VOTE: 32
33
Mayor Marty Aye 34
Councilmember Stigney Aye 35
Councilmember Gunn Aye 36
Councilmember Thomas Aye 37
38
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 39
40
C. Review Request from Tom Belting to Allow Proof of Parking at the 41
Community Center 42
43
Community Development Director Ericson stated on October 10, 2005, the City Council 44
approved Resolution 6633, which approved a single story, 8,300 square foot office development 45
Mounds View City Council January 23, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 10
for Dr. Greg Belting. Mr. Ericson explained that the building is located in between Mounds 1
View Community Center and Walgreens. 2
3
Director Ericson explained that there is a provision in the resolution of approval that requires the 4
Beltings to execute a cross access, joint parking and maintenance agreement with the adjoining 5
Walgreens site. Director Ericson stated that Walgreens is not willing to consent to such an 6
agreement at this time. He also stated that the local management of the Walgreens store said that 7
overflow parking is not a big deal; however, this has not been obtained by writing. 8
9
Director Ericson noted that the Belting building is seven stalls short on parking. Based on the 10
square footage of the building and parking requirements, the building requires 50 parking stalls 11
and there are currently 43 stalls. He is asking the Council for consideration as to where the seven 12
additional stalls can be located. 13
14
Director Ericson stated that the Council considers three options relating to the parking dilemma. 15
He explained that the first option is to allow parking in seven stalls in the Community Center 16
parking lot. Director Erickson explained that there is adequate parking at the Community Center, 17
but he is not sure the Community Center wants to start to obligate or parcel off parking spots. He 18
stated that the Beltings have indicated they will likely never need the stalls, and if they do, they 19
would park as far away from the Community Center as possible. 20
21
Director Ericson explained that the second option is to waive the requirement to provide the 22
additional seven stalls. He stated that this it not typically done and it opens the door for 23
precedent for other entities to ask for the same type of consideration in the future. 24
25
Director Erickson stated that the third option is for the applicants to apply for a variance process 26
with the Planning Commission. He stated there may be some hardship in this option as the 27
development was approved with the vision of joint parking and recognition that there would be 28
some overflow parking for either site. 29
30
Director Ericson stated that the Beltings are asking for relief and it is his personal opinion that 31
the building will never need the seven stalls. He stated that he hesitates for the City Council to 32
waive the requirement for the seven stalls. He stated the PUD process was created and intended 33
to allow for flexibility. He stated it allows for joint planning and looking at development on a 34
more comprehensive basis and that is why the parcel on the site was developed for interplay with 35
two uses. 36
37
Director Ericson stated that joint parking was intended in the development agreement, but it 38
cannot be documented in writing because the Walgreens owners do not agree. 39
40
Director Ericson stated that the Beltings would like some consideration from City Council 41
regarding this issue. He explained that the alternative to not being able to park in the Community 42
Center lot would be either to have a waiver of the additional seven stalls or an amendment to the 43
PUD. He added that if these alternatives cannot be achieved, the Beltings would have to cut off 44
Mounds View City Council January 23, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 11
part of the building space to equal 43 stall for the ratio, and while it can be done, it is certainly 1
not Belting’s top choice. 2
3
Director Ericson stated that staff recommends something be done since the development is a 4
master plan site; it may be straight forward to amend PUD document to reflect 43 parking spots 5
for this site. 6
7
Tom Belting and Dr. Greg Belting, 1525 Sherman Lane North, Lino Lakes, approached the 8
Council and offered to answer question. 9
10
Councilmember Gunn asked what kind of businesses would be located in this building. Greg 11
Belting replied that the building will be an office condominium that will house professional 12
businesses such as his. He stated that part of the easement agreement is the issue is locked down 13
tight with restrictions on certain businesses such as gifts, gift wrapping, flowers, and so forth that 14
might compete with Walgreens. Mr. Belting stated that Walgreens will not want any of those 15
types of businesses in the building. 16
17
Councilmember Gunn asked if the whole parking lot might have ten to twenty cars. Mr. Greg 18
Belting stated that for his business, it would be himself, his employees, and perhaps five patients 19
at a time. 20
21
Tom Belting, 122 Backwood Street, explained he has been working under an easement 22
agreement, which was enacted prior to the development agreement. He stated that the easement 23
agreement was created in 2001. Mr. Tom Belting stated it is restrictive and it was their 24
understanding as well as the City’s understanding that cross parking would be allowed. He 25
explained that it actually says that it is not allowed. He stated that they had to get Walgreens to 26
sign off on an 86,000 foot building that they have now approved. Mr. Tom Belting stated that in 27
good faith, he talked to the manager about the parking stalls. He stated his agreement with 28
Director Ericson that amending the PUD agreement is the best option. 29
30
Councilmember Thomas stated that this is a tough spot to be in. She stated that parking 31
requirements are closely watched, as there are several issues problematic, even at the required 32
levels. She stated when looking at the development, there is no street parking. She stated that no 33
matter what is done, in practical reality, people will continue to park at Walgreens and the 34
Community Center, in whatever spot is closest to the place they are going, no matter what the 35
legal agreement says. Councilmember Thomas stated that as part of the agreement, the Council 36
understood that this site did not have enough room without sharing overflow parking with the 37
other site. She stated that this was the intent when it was done. She explained that this was 38
discussed, but it never occurred to the Council that Walgreens would have difficulty with putting 39
it in writing. 40
41
Councilmember Thomas stated that as the PUD, the Council needs to realize it never intended 42
that many stalls. She stated that it is not actually changing the PUD, as the PUD is accurate as 43
far as how many stalls there are expected to be. She stressed that in practical reality, the City 44
should closely watch for parking problems, as people will park where they can that is most 45
Mounds View City Council January 23, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 12
convenient. She stated she is unaware of any other choice than to amend the PUD to accurately 1
reflect what was intended at the time. 2
3
Councilmember Stigney stated that another option is to have the Beltings go to the Planning 4
Commission for a variance. He referenced the third option regarding amending the PUD and that 5
it may not be feasible to have a sidewalk. Councilmember Stigney asked Director Ericson to 6
give the Council a report. 7
8
Director Ericson stated he looked at the location of the proposed sidewalk noting the fourth page 9
of the staff report shows an extension leading to the parking lot. He commented what would 10
actually work is if the sidewalk was swung around the north side of the building which would be 11
perfectly in line with the front of the Community Center. Director Ericson commented staff has 12
investigated placement around the north side of the building and it would not interfere with 13
parking because at that point there is no parking and it would lead right into the front of the 14
Community Center. He mentioned that the Beltings are willing to provide that sidewalk 15
connection. 16
17
Councilmember Stigney asked if it is implied that parking is being funneled to the Community 18
Center. Director Ericson stated it is staff’s position that it provided for inner connectivity 19
between the two uses; to allow people at the Community Center to go to the Belting building or 20
vice versa. He explained that it would provide a means of access at either building, as opposed 21
to using Edgewood Drive, and it would promote connectivity. 22
23
Councilmember Stigney stated by putting a sidewalk there, parking is being promoted. 24
25
Mayor Marty stated there is a path from Walgreens to the front of the Community Center. He 26
stated that having this sidewalk that could be cleared in the winter would be an amenity. 27
28
Councilmember Thomas stated her agreement with Councilmember Stigney that this would 29
funnel parking to the front spots of the Community Center that are already heavily used. She 30
stated the City is asking for more problems and this would be unfair to the users of the 31
Community Center. 32
33
Councilmember Gunn suggested that appropriate signage could be placed to indicate 34
“Community Center Parking Only.” 35
36
Mayor Marty stated that there are approximately ten parking spots in front of the Community 37
Center, and approximately 15 parking spots on the north side. He noted that these spots always 38
fill up and no one wants to park by the basketball courts and trek all the way around the building. 39
Mayor Marty suggested that signage stating “Violators Will Be Towed” should be placed on the 40
front parking spots. 41
42
City Administrator Ulrich stated the Mounds View Community Center Task Force is considering 43
future uses of the building and how some of those may change. He stated that another alternative 44
is converting the parking to make it a cash contribution basis. He stated that it could be 45
Mounds View City Council January 23, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 13
calculated how much it would cost to build seven parking stalls and put that into an account 1
where the City could use it to either expand parking on the Community Center or City Hall lot, or 2
by building sidewalks in appropriate locations. City Administrator Ulrich noted that this presents 3
another alternative so not only is consideration given, but a cash contribution would be taken in 4
lieu of looking at future parking and pedestrian circulation needs for the entire site. 5
6
Mayor Marty stated that the site was originally proposed for a restaurant, which would generate a 7
lot more traffic than professional office businesses. He explained that it was presumed that 8
Walgreens would share the parking lot because Walgreens was supposed to be helping attract a 9
restaurant business, but that did not happen. 10
11
Mayor Marty stated that he can see the need for a sidewalk in that area as well, as these are prime 12
spots for parking for the Community Center. He noted that these spots would be most 13
advantageous for the office building. He stated that he can see three sides to the issue. Mayor 14
Marty agreed with Councilmember Thomas that it is a PUD and he is a little surprised that 15
Walgreens did not step up to the plate, but as was stated earlier, this was never really intended to 16
shoulder all the parking responsibilities. He pointed out that as Councilmember Thomas also 17
stated, if there are not enough parking places, people will find a parking place anyhow. 18
19
Mayor Marty stated that he had not thought about the Community Center Task Force. He stated 20
perhaps some more parking can be created at the Community Center somewhere, because he has 21
seen times where the lot has been full and people will park across the street at City Hall, and also 22
at Walgreens. 23
24
Mayor Marty asked City Administrator Ulrich what he would suggest and asked when the 25
Community Center Task Force will meet next. City Administrator Ulrich stated that the meeting 26
is scheduled for next Tuesday. He commented that part of the agenda is to look at the exterior of 27
the Community Center to see what the grounds are and what they are used for. He noted that 28
they could touch on the parking issue to see if recommendations to City Council could come 29
forward from the Task Force. 30
31
Mayor Marty asked the Beltings if there is a time frame for this issue. Mr. Tom Belting 32
responded that they had hoped to get going right away, but there has been the delay from 33
Walgreens. He referenced the concern with parking at the Community Center, and said that staff 34
had been informed that the parking there would only be emergency overflow from employees. 35
Mr. Belting specified that there is only office space there, so if they need overflow parking, then 36
employees of the building would park at the far end of the Community Center, but they do not 37
anticipate clients parking there. 38
39
Mayor Marty explained that the Council has run into parking issues before, such as when a 40
building was built and then had a change in tenants and the parking lot was full all the time. He 41
explained that it became a safety issue with people parking on the streets, so the Council is well 42
aware of what the parking issues could be and may be. 43
44
Mounds View City Council January 23, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 14
Dr. Greg Belting stated that although he has not been able to get Walgreens, Inc. to sign off on 1
the parking, the people that manage the building told them in good faith that they do not have a 2
problem with overflow parking. He explained it is Walgreens Corporate that refuses to sign off 3
and it is not a local management issue. Mr. Tom Belting stated there was an agreement in place 4
in 2001 that they were not aware of until lately that prohibits jointed parking. 5
6
City Administrator Ulrich asked for a map of the Community Center property. He stated there is 7
no connection to the trailway other than through the parking lot. He explained that the initial 8
discussion was to perhaps run the trailway segment on the east side of the parking lot that 9
connects to the wooded area. He stated that when people are using the Community Center to 10
take a loop walk, they can get right on the trail and walk around. 11
12
City Administrator Ulrich stated that the Community Center Task Force can look at the situation 13
and make a recommendation where an improvement might be made. He suggested that the City 14
should look at the cash alternative, as it would be the most liquid to the City and it could be used 15
to meet whatever needs are identified, as well as allowing the developer to move ahead. City 16
Administrator Ulrich stated it makes a fair trade transaction if the amount can be agreed upon. 17
He stated this would allow flexibility for the City and for the development to move forward. 18
19
Councilmember Thomas stated that she thinks it would be unfair to ask the Task Force to make a 20
decision on this issue. She stated the Task Force has just begun and she does not know that it 21
would be ready to do this type of recommendation. She recommended that the decision be 22
pushed back to the City for a decision regardless. Councilmember Thomas stated that the issue is 23
not enough parking, and the decision on how to solve that issue needs to come from the City 24
Council. She stated that a particular solution cannot come from the Task Force. 25
26
Councilmember Thomas stated that there needs to be a workable solution to find another way to 27
do something that would address future problems. She commented that it cannot be assumed 28
from a development standpoint that the same owners will occupy the building in the future, so 29
the Council will still need to deal with the issue of whether there is enough parking for the 30
building. She stated that she gets nervous when parking starts to be cut down, especially since 31
there is no written agreement with Walgreens. 32
33
Councilmember Thomas stated she likes the alternative of providing for a future way of doing 34
things if the City needs to. She commented that for right now, the building has what it needs. 35
She stated that she likes the option so if there is a problem in the future, better recommendations 36
can be made, and recommendations can be allowed to develop as they need to. She stated that 37
holding up the development at this point would be problematic. 38
39
Mayor Marty asked if the trailway that comes into the lot is a dead end or if it comes down the 40
east side. Director Ericson stated that the trail works its way through wetland area and hooks up 41
with the trailway that is on County Road 10. 42
43
Mounds View City Council January 23, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 15
Councilmember Thomas stated that she is sure it is something that will be in discussion at the 1
Community Center Task Force, but she just does not think it is something that the City can make 2
the Beltings wait for. 3
4
Mayor Marty asked if there is any way the City can contact Walgreens, Inc. to remind them as to 5
what their original plans were. Director Ericson stated that the problem is when the documents 6
were originally executed and the approvals were granted by the City, the other party involved 7
was Told Development Company and Walgreens did not own the site. He explained Walgreens 8
currently does not own the site either, but it is a different entity than Told Development. Director 9
Ericson explained that the issue is dealing with the second and third parties that weren’t privy to 10
the original discussion and the original planning to this site. Director Ericson stated it is difficult 11
to try to force new requirements on a developer or property owner that was not aware of what the 12
City was intending. He stated the discussion will continue with the current property owner and 13
staff will seek additional discussion. 14
15
Councilmember Thomas stated that while she likes the idea of banking parking credits, she 16
thinks there might be legal issues to look into. She stated she does not know if the City could 17
make a formal vote tonight without looking into that. She suggested this information should be 18
put together and returned for Council consideration. 19
20
City Attorney Riggs stated that Councilmember Thomas is correct, as there could be some issues 21
with payments in lieu of, if there is not enough authority established ahead of time. He explained 22
that there have been some significant court cases that have come down that even if it is in the 23
agreement, it can be somewhat problematic. He mentioned that when dealing with the developer, 24
they are usually good to their word and staff could put something together that deals with the 25
issue. City Attorney Riggs stated that it should not take that long, and staff could have a 26
response by next week. 27
28
Dr. Greg Belting stated the closing was delayed because of the REA document with the owner of 29
the Walgreens property and because of Walgreens itself with the easement issues. He stated that 30
the transaction did not close until December 21, 2005. Dr. Greg Belting stated that they would 31
like to start having materials delivered before frost restrictions. 32
33
Councilmember Stigney stated he was opposed to parceling off part of the Community Center 34
parking lot. He stated that whether the City sells it or rents the parking, a sidewalk will still be 35
placed through there. 36
37
Councilmember Stigney asked what option the City would have more leverage in if additional 38
parking is required in the future, whether it be asking for a variance or a change in the PUD for 39
43 spaces. Councilmember Stigney suggested that if the building gets new owners, the parking 40
issue would need to be addressed at that time. City Attorney Riggs stated that it would have to 41
be in the PUD document. He explained once the variance is in place, it exists at that time and 42
moves forward, so it would be a PUD amendment that staff has been talking about. 43
44
Mounds View City Council January 23, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 16
Councilmember Stigney stated that he favors the PUD route with some constraints in there if 1
there are problems with proof of parking, it will be identified in a legal form. He stated his 2
opposition to a sidewalk to the Community Center. 3
4
Councilmember Gunn and Mayor Marty stated their support for amending the PUD. 5
6
City Administrator Ulrich questioned the easements for the sidewalk to allow the flexibility to do 7
that later. Director Ericson stated staff will put something together for the next Council agenda. 8
9
Councilmember Thomas asked for clarification if the Council should have the City Attorney 10
work on whether or not further credits are needed to be issued and what will be done in the 11
future. She stated her concern with future owners as far as what the City can do. 12
13
City Attorney Riggs stated arguably yes, it can be worked into the document, but there have been 14
significant issues with pilot type payments. 15
16
Councilmember Thomas stated that perhaps it would not be a pilot payment. City Attorney 17
stated that it would be an exchange of land use right. 18
19
Councilmember Thomas asked if cash would need to change hands until it was needed. City 20
Attorney Riggs stated he would work with Director Ericson on the issue. 21
22
Councilmember Thomas confirmed that changing the PUD is the bottom line and any further 23
need for seven more stalls will be written into the PUD. 24
25
The Beltings thanked the Council. 26
27
D. Resolution 6721 Step Increases for Sgt. Steve Menard and Officer Peter 28
Berling 29
30
Assistant to the City Administrator Crane explained that Sergeant Steve Menard and Officer 31
Peter Berling are current employees with the City. Their supervisor has reviewed their 32
performances as it relates to the responsibilities contained in their job description. It was 33
determined that both Sergeant Menard and Officer Berling have more than satisfactorily 34
performed in the capacity of their position. Step increase wage adjustment is consistent with the 35
personnel Manual and Labor Agreements and recommended for approval. 36
37
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Thomas. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6721 Step 38
Increases for Sgt. Steve Menard and Officer Peter Berling. 39
40
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 41
42
E. Resolution 6722 Adopting the Advertising and Mounds View Newsletter 43
Policy 44
45
Mounds View City Council January 23, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 17
Assistant to the City Administrator Crane reviewed that at the January 3, 2006 Work Session, 1
staff provided a report from the Minnesota State Auditor in regard to newsletter publication. In 2
light of this report, Staff recommended to the City Council to adopt a formal policy in order to 3
assist in compliance with future newsletters. Staff added this policy to the Mounds View 4
Advertising Policy, which was adopted by the City Council on November 24, 2003. Staff 5
recommends approval of Resolution 6722 adopting the advertising and Mounds View Newsletter 6
Policy. 7
8
Mayor Marty commented that it appeared the report was missing a couple of newsletter dates. 9
Administrative Assistant Desaree Crane stated that the February/March edition was deleted from 10
the list as the deadline has passed. 11
12
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6722 Adopting 13
the Advertising and Mounds View Newsletter Policy 14
15
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 16
17
F. Resolution 6719 Writing Off Uncollectible Accounts 18
19
Finance Director Beer explained that during the course of business, the City receives checks from 20
individuals and businesses as payment for services and also bills individuals and businesses for 21
some services. He stated some of these checks are returned by the bank for insufficient funds 22
and some invoices are never paid. 23
24
Finance Director Beer explained that with the closing of 2005 and the approaching 25
implementation of new accounting software, staff feels that the NSF checks and uncollectible 26
debts should be written off. Finance Director Beer stated that many of the NSF checks are 27
related to the golf course, and the City will no longer will have any insufficient checks from that 28
entity. He stated that recommendation is for approval of writing off the delinquent accounts 29
receivable. 30
31
Councilmember Stigney asked if all these checks have been submitted twice. Finance Director 32
Beer stated that they have. 33
34
Councilmember Stigney asked when is it a misdemeanor. City Attorney Riggs stated that any 35
NSF check is subject to prosecution. 36
37
Councilmember Stigney asked if staff has tried to collect on any of these checks with that as a 38
possibility of action. Finance Director Beer stated no. 39
40
Councilmember Thomas asked how much does it cost to pursue collection. Finance Director 41
Beer stated he would not venture a guess, but imagined it would be quite expensive. He stressed 42
that letters were sent out stating that the individual is subject to prosecution. He mentioned that 43
staff has sent several letters and received no response. 44
45
Mounds View City Council January 23, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 18
Councilmember Stigney asked for an example of the letter that was mailed out. 1
2
Finance Director Beer stated that many of the items are four to five years old and are quite stale. 3
He added that some of the individuals no longer live in the City. 4
5
Councilmember Stigney stated that the insufficient checks regarding alarm violations is 6
concerning. 7
8
Councilmember Stigney referenced the Tom Thumb insufficient check and noted that the 9
building was there but it is no longer called Tom Thumb. Finance Director Beer stated that staff 10
cannot certify those checks against a building as it has to be an individual. He stated that the City 11
can certify against a building for instances such as tree removal and delinquent utility bills, but in 12
these cases the City cannot certify against the property. 13
14
Mayor Marty questioned the stop payment regarding the utility billing. Finance Director Beer 15
stated it was prior to the policy instituted at the City around utilities billing and the individual no 16
longer lives in the City. 17
18
Councilmember Thomas stated she thinks the City would spend a lot of money going after the 19
delinquent accounts. She stated it is not that it is not a considerable amount of money, and it is 20
unfair that the City is paying for these insufficient checks; however, she cannot justify spending 21
more staff time and tax dollars to chase dead ends. 22
23
Councilmember Stigney stated his agreement with the collection agencies. He asked if there is 24
something that can be done in the future to alleviate this problem. 25
26
Finance Director Beer stated that steps were taken in 2003 to improve the process, and it has 27
gotten better especially with the golf course items that were a significant source of NSF checks. 28
29
Mayor Marty stated the total was $1,150 and he was concerned about the amount of staff time 30
and postage to go after these delinquent accounts receivable. 31
32
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Thomas. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6719 Writing 33
Off Uncollectible Accounts 34
35
Councilmember Stigney stated he wanted to have a reading of the delinquent bills. He read the 36
names and amounts of the insufficient and NSF checks. He also commented that he wanted the 37
names to be added to website. 38
39
Finance Director Beer stated that there were two individuals that had checks lost or stolen in a 40
forgery situation. He stressed that even though their name was listed, they were not the ones 41
writing the bad checks and are not responsible for amounts. 42
43
Councilmember Thomas stated she disagreed with putting the information on the website, as it is 44
clutter and there is too much information on the website for residents to get through to the 45
Mounds View City Council January 23, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 19
important items. She stated that residents are looking for information they need and it is not the 1
purpose of the City’s website to disseminate this type of information to the public. 2
Councilmember Thomas stated she is very uncomfortable with listing names on the website at 3
this point. 4
5
Councilmember Stigney stated that people who do not their pay bills should be notified through 6
the public that they are deadbeats. 7
8
Councilmember Thomas stated that most of these people are no longer in the community. 9
10
Councilmember Stigney proposed a friendly amendment to the motion to add the individuals 11
with NSF checks to the website, with the exception of the two individuals that had checks lost or 12
stolen. 13
14
Mayor Marty stated he felt this would be a waste of staff time and effort. 15
16
Councilmember Gunn, maker of the motion on the floor, and Councilmember Thomas, who 17
seconded that motion, did not accept this friendly amendment. 18
19
Ayes – 3 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 20
21
Finance Director Beer mentioned that he passed out a list of items that need clarification that 22
related to receivables from Martin Harstad and Hamilton Creek Companies. He stated that 23
apparently these were directed to be written off by the Council, but the Resolution was not found. 24
Finance Director Beer questioned the Council if anyone remembered authorizing staff to write 25
the items off. 26
27
Director Ericson replied this would have been in 2004 when former Finance Director Charlie 28
Hanson indicated these were uncollectible debts that were development related to the Harstad 29
case. He stated these were legal fees partially incurred in defense of ongoing litigation and could 30
not be charged back as much as staff wanted to. Director Ericson stated the total was $3,750 and 31
recollected that the Council agreed to have those taken off the future claims list. 32
33
Director Ericson stated this was the same issue regarding Hamilton Creek Companies. He stated 34
that the developers are no longer in town and the invoice has been sent ten to twelve times and 35
no response has been received. He stated that former Finance Director Hanson indicated that 36
they were not going to collect and probably did not get a Resolution to that as it was from two 37
years ago. He stated that Finance Director Beer was asking the Council to formalize action to 38
take the item off the books. 39
40
Mayor Marty stated he remembers the discussion on the Harstad case because it was the City’s 41
legal fees, but he did not recall passing a Resolution. 42
43
City Administrator Ulrich advised Finance Director Beer to bring the issue to the next Council 44
meeting with proper documentation and a legal reason to write off the claims. 45
Mounds View City Council January 23, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 20
1
G. Resolution 6723 Authorization to Hire Full-Time Temporary Building 2
Inspector 3
4
Community Development Director Ericson explained that on November 14, 2005, City Council 5
authorized staff to advertise to hire a full-time temporary building inspector due to the increase in 6
workload in the coming weeks. He explained that staff will keep busy for the next couple of 7
years, especially because of the Medtronic development project. 8
9
Director Ericson stated that the City advertised for this position and received 22 applications. He 10
explained that six candidates were interviewed by himself and Building Inspector Osmonson. 11
Director Ericson stated that Issac Stensland was found fully qualified to be in the position. 12
13
Director Ericson commented that it was communicated to all applicants that the job was a 14
temporary and not a permanent position. He stated that Mr. Stensland is fine with that, but if it is 15
required to be formalized in writing, as is recommended by the City Attorney, it would be no 16
problem to do so. Director Ericson stated that staff would like to offer the position to him, on the 17
condition of a satisfactory criminal background check. 18
19
Director Ericson explained that the hourly wage scale for this position as negotiated by the City 20
and the union starts at $19.96 per hour and would follow the standard personnel progression after 21
the appropriate time levels of service. He reported that Mr. Stensland is eager to start and 22
welcomes the opportunity. 23
24
Director Ericson stated that staff recommends the Council give authorization to hire Isaac 25
Stensland for the position of temporary full-time building inspector in the Community 26
Development Department under the terms and conditions articulated in the draft resolution. 27
28
Councilmember Stigney asked if something in writing would be drafted by the City Attorney in 29
regard to this being a temporary position. Director Ericson stated feedback was received from 30
Robert Alstad from Kennedy & Graven relating to a memorandum of understanding, relating to 31
the fact this is a temporary position and that the position will not accrue seniority. He stated that 32
it is a matter of documenting the fact that it is not a permanent position 33
34
Councilmember Stigney inquired if it is a union position, and if so, if the union signed off. 35
Director Ericson stated that a meeting was held with City Administrator Ulrich and Assistant 36
Crane where the salary and terms were agreed upon. 37
38
Mayor Marty asked if a meeting was held with the union. City Administrator Ulrich confirmed 39
that a meeting was held with union and the position was formalized in terms of salary and was 40
agreed in concept about the temporary nature of the job. He stated the final contract language is 41
still in negotiations at this point. 42
43
Councilmember Stigney inquired if the position was exempt or nonexempt. City Administrator 44
Ulrich stated the position is nonexempt, and this is stated in the position description. 45
Mounds View City Council January 23, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 21
1
Councilmember Stigney asked if the Council needed to see that language. City Administrator 2
Ulrich commented that this should have been provided in the position description. Director 3
Ericson apologized and said the position description should have been in the packet as well. 4
5
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Gunn. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6723 6
Authorization to Hire Full-Time Temporary Building Inspector. 7
8
Councilmember Stigney suggested that a condition be added for the Council to see the signed 9
agreement. 10
11
Mayor Marty asked when the agreement would be available. Director Ericson stated that the 12
agreement can be presented to the union for approval and then the employee would sign off. He 13
deferred the question on timing to City Administrator Ulrich. 14
15
Mayor Marty mentioned the Resolution states employment shall begin on or after tomorrow. 16
17
City Administrator Ulrich stated that a condition of employment is pending union and Council 18
approval of the negotiation and receipt of a letter by the City that this is a temporary position. He 19
suggested the action be pending on union and employee approval and receipt of a letter of 20
understanding that this is a temporary position. 21
22
Councilmember Thomas, maker of the motion on the floor, and Councilmember Gunn, who 23
seconded that motion, agreed to this friendly amendment. 24
25
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 26
27
H. Review Proposed Schedule for Joint Meeting with Various Mounds View 28
Boards and Commission Members 29
30
City Administrator Ulrich reviewed that at the December work session, the Council directed that 31
joint meetings with each of the City’s commissions be established during the first part of 2006. 32
33
City Administrator Ulrich stated City staff looked at combining some of the Commission 34
meetings with the regular Council work session meeting dates. 35
36
Staff proposes the following schedule: 37
38
• Charter Commission – Tuesday, February 21, 2006 (City Administrator Ulrich noted that 39
New Brighton City Hall is unavailable for this date; March 8, 2006 is the next day 40
available.) 41
• Park and Rec. Commission – March 6, 2006 (Mounds View Community Center Task 42
Force will report back this night) 43
• Planning Commission – April 3, 2006 44
Mounds View City Council January 23, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 22
• Cable Committee, Economic Development Commission – May 1, 2006 1
2
City Administrator Ulrich confirmed that the Mounds View City Hall should be completed by the 3
April 3, 2006 meeting. He stated they would be moving the weekend before. 4
5
Mayor Marty stated that the February 21, 2006 date for the Charter Commission would need to 6
be worked out. 7
8
Councilmember Thomas stated she thinks it does a dis-service to schedule these meetings on 9
normal work session dates. She noted that this was discussed as special meeting dates because 10
the Council work session agendas are already full and dong their meeting on the same date would 11
limit the time available. 12
13
Mayor Marty stated that Councilmember Thomas makes a good point, because historically in the 14
spring, the City starts to gear up for the construction season. Mayor Marty explained that 15
Council meeting agendas are heavier in the spring than the summer. However, it is not planned 16
to put this off another six months. Mayor Marty stated that the Council should probably revisit 17
this and come back with some different dates. 18
19
Mayor Marty asked if there was any possibility that the commissions could be combined on a 20
third Monday when there is not a full Council work session scheduled. He suggested that several 21
commissions’ meetings could be combined on the third Monday of the month. 22
23
City Administrator Ulrich stated that the third Monday of the month falls on March 20, 2006 and 24
April 17, 2006. 25
26
Councilmember Thomas suggested that the Planning Commission and Cable Committee, 27
Economic Development Commission meetings could be held on March 20, 2006. City 28
Administrator Ulrich stated his agreement. 29
30
Mayor Marty stated the Charter Commission is tentatively scheduled for March 8, 2006. City 31
Administrator Ulrich explained that is when a room is available at the New Brighton City Hall. 32
33
Mayor Marty stated the Charter Commission should be readdressed at a later date. He received 34
Council consensus. 35
36
I. Resolution 6726 Awarding a Contract for the Installation of a Security Card 37
Reading System at City Hall and the Community Center 38
39
Public Works Director Lee stated that as part of the rehabilitation project, both the City Hall and 40
Mounds View Community Center were scheduled to be set up with a security card reading 41
system. 42
43
Public Works Director Lee stated that the original proposal provided for two card access points at 44
City Hall and two at the Community Center. He explained that the access points at City Hall 45
Mounds View City Council January 23, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 23
would be the main entrance and the police entrance, and the access points at the Community 1
Center would be the main entrance and the southwest entrance. Public Works Director Lee 2
stated that the reason for the card reading devices is to allow the City to control access to the 3
buildings, in terms of when and who has access. 4
5
Public Works Director Lee stated that this system was planned to be installed with the City Hall 6
project; however, it would be more cost effective if the City did not have this item included in 7
the overall bid for the City Hall project. Public Works Director Lee stated that the City received 8
three quotes. The low quote was received from UHL in the amount of $17,800. 9
10
Public Works Director Lee stated that the Special Projects Fund is recommended to fund this 11
installation, should the City proceed with it. Staff recommends that the City Council approve 12
Resolution 6726. 13
14
Public Works Director Lee added as a note in the staff report, it talks about the City adjustment 15
that is included in some change orders. He stated that since this was not received until Friday of 16
last week, it will be included in the next meeting. 17
18
Councilmember Thomas asked if it is possible to retrofit and include indoor security points in the 19
future. 20
21
Public Works Director Lee stated that it can be done at any time, but it is more cost effective to 22
do it now. He explained that it will save money to do it all at once; however, it can be done in 23
the future. He explained that access points could be included in the future, and the estimated cost 24
is $3,500 per access point. 25
26
Councilmember Thomas asked whether the appropriate wire can be run now for a possible 27
retrofit later. She asked if there is an additional cost on the setup now or if it can be done later. 28
29
Public Works Director Lee stated that is not part of the bids that were received. He explained 30
that wires could be added now to set everything up to add additional card reading points at City 31
Hall. He stated that there is a cost savings to do this now. He explained that this could be done 32
retroactively, and it would cost a little more because the contractor would have to go into walls, 33
ceilings and so forth. 34
35
Councilmember Thomas stated there will be places inside the building that are secure, and that 36
would be a way the City could have control of access at some of those points. 37
38
Councilmember Stigney asked if locations are identified to place the wire. Councilmember 39
Thomas stated it is easy to come up with possible locations. 40
41
Councilmember Stigney asked if staff had feelings about where the secured access points should 42
be and if there are areas known. 43
44
Mounds View City Council January 23, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 24
Public Works Director Lee explained at this time staff was just recommending the two access 1
points; however, it was discussed at the department head level and the two locations were 2
identified as cost effective. 3
4
Councilmember Stigney questioned if it was staff recommendation that additional access points 5
are skipped for now. Public Works Director Lee stated yes. 6
7
Councilmember Stigney asked if TIF dollars can be used for security systems. He deferred the 8
question to Economic Development Coordinator Backman who stated that if it was for 9
government use, it would be a problem. He confirmed that the Community Center and City Hall 10
would not be eligible. 11
12
Councilmember Stigney questioned the electric system and if it had a manual backup. Public 13
Works Director Lee replied that it does in case of a power failure. 14
15
Councilmember Stigney questioned who would have the key. Public Works Director Lee stated 16
that one person would have the key and perhaps it would be the City Administrator. 17
18
Councilmember Stigney asked about the policy on using cards as employee identification cards. 19
He suggested the card be turned in when an employee terminates. Councilmember Stigney stated 20
that it is a bad policy to throw the cards away. 21
22
Public Works Director Lee stated that it is policy that when an employee terminates, the City 23
would retrieve the card whenever possible. He explained that the card reading system would 24
delete the terminated employee from the system to stop access. 25
26
Mayor Marty stated there have been so many keys lost and many more keys made at the 27
Community Center. He explained this is a headache for City staff and there have been issues in 28
the past at City Hall with concerns about possible disgruntled employees. Mayor Marty stated 29
that this system would take care of that, and also gives consideration to things that have 30
happened in the past, such as people being in City Hall after hours. He explained that things 31
were missing and computers were tampered with, and this system would give a record of who 32
was in City Hall at the time, thus resulting in greater accountability. He explained that he has 33
been hoping for a system such as this for a number of years to increase security and 34
accountability. 35
36
Mayor Marty questioned if current employees have City of Mounds View identification cards 37
with name and picture. Public Works Director Lee stated that employees currently do have 38
identification cards. 39
40
Mayor Marty suggested the cards might have an expiration date of two to three years so if 41
someone does not turn it in, it will eventually expire depending on when they leave. 42
43
Councilmember Thomas stated that several of these items will be policy issues when things are 44
in place. 45
Mounds View City Council January 23, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 25
1
Mayor Marty confirmed that the low bid is included in the Resolution. 2
3
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Gunn. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6726 4
Awarding a Contract for the Installation of a Security Card Reading System at City Hall and the 5
Community Center. 6
7
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 8
9
J. Resolution 6725 Authorizing Execution of an Easement Agreement with 10
Medtronic, Inc. 11
12
Community Development Director Ericson explained that when the City closed on the land sale 13
to Medtronic, there was a limited Use Agreement that would allow the fire access road to cross 14
over the City’s land as well as allow use of the existing trail as a tie-in with the trails on the 15
Medtronic parcel. He explained that the pedestrian trail would double as the means of access to 16
Clear Channel Outdoor for maintenance to Billboard Sign #6. 17
18
Director Ericson stated that the terms of the development agreement indicated that after the land 19
sale was executed, the limited Use Agreement for the fire access road and pedestrian trail would 20
be redrafted into the form of an easement. 21
22
Director Ericson referenced the easement drafted by Kennedy and Graven and explained that all 23
exhibits and documentation have been provided to fully see where the trailway access is located. 24
He stated staff is asking for consent of the Council to approve Resolution 6725 to formalize the 25
agreement with Medtronic that is a requirement of the development agreement. 26
27
Director Ericson explained that the fire access road just cuts across the Sysco Outlot A, and there 28
is not enough room to swing around and bypass that. He noted the easement document would 29
result in a dual benefit providing access to Clear Channel for maintenance to Billboard #6, as 30
well as provide pedestrian access for Medtronic employees. 31
32
Director Ericson stated that the easement document contains provisions relating to the statement 33
that Medtronic holds the City harmless for those on the pedestrian trail. He explained that the 34
City is not obligated or liable for those two activities. Director Ericson explained that it was 35
indicated in the closing that staff would come back to the Council for the easement document. 36
37
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Stigney. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6725 38
Authorizing Execution of an Easement Agreement with Medtronic, Inc. 39
40
Mayor Marty stated he talked to Director Ericson and City Administrator Ulrich and wanted to 41
see about possibly having this Resolution sunset when the billboards come out, until it was 42
pointed out that Billboard #6 is on City property and there must be access to it which is also the 43
pedestrian trailway. He explained that Medtronic will be creating a fire road cutting through the 44
Mounds View City Council January 23, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 26
City property that goes around the Medtronic complex. He stated that he feels that there is a 1
difference between a trailway and a road if Medtronic wants to buy the corner tip of the property. 2
3
Mayor Marty referenced Item #2 regarding the grant construction maintenance and use of fire 4
road easement. He explained that the City hereby grants, pardons or sells and conveys to present 5
or any future owner of Medtronic property. Mayor Marty stated it is in the agreement that the 6
City could sell this, so he questioned why the triangle part is cut out if they are creating an actual 7
road surrounding the complex. He stated that he maintains the City should sell Medtronic the 8
southeast corner. 9
10
Councilmember Thomas stated the limited use agreement that was approved did not require the 11
purchase of property so at this point, it would be disingenuous to even bring up the issue. She 12
stated her frustration that Mayor Marty is constantly bringing up issues and arguing points that 13
were part of the original agreement and have already been decided upon. 14
15
Ayes – 3 Nays – 1 (Marty) Motion carried. 16
17
8. CONSENT AGENDA 18
19
A. Licenses for Approval 20
B. Resolution 6724 Revising the Mounds View Personnel Manual to add Section 21
3.50, Authorizing Uniform Allowances for Non-Union Public Works and 22
Police Department employees 23
24
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To Approve the Consent Agenda as presented. 25
26
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 27
28
9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 29
30
Mayor Marty questioned Page 4, 117769 MAS Modern Marketing, which stated pencils in the 31
amount of $509.74. Finance Director Beer reported that these were DARE supplies and included 32
a quantity of 5,000 pencils. 33
34
Mayor Marty referenced Page 4 in the second set, Coverall of the Twin Cities, 117800, regarding 35
the cleaning of the Community Center. He stated he talked to City Administrator Ulrich as well 36
as Director Ericson about this issue. Mayor Marty explained that Maria _____, the building 37
cleaner, had to buy a lease from Coverall in order to clean City Hall. He stated she was not 38
deducting it every month from what she was making. Mayor Marty reported that Maria ____ 39
stated the contract expired and due to City Hall closing, she was out of a job and she still owed 40
on the lease. Mayor Marty stated he mentioned to City Administrator Ulrich and Director 41
Ericson that she does a good job and it may be a possibly to contract directly with her to clean the 42
new building. Mayor Marty stated that the issue could be moved to the work session if needed, 43
as there are several months before City Hall is open. He added that the Council will need to re-44
advertise for bids for contractual cleaning. 45
Mounds View City Council January 23, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 27
1
City Administrator Ulrich stated that bids should be sought for cleaning, as well as trying to 2
contact Maria ___ to have her submit a bid as well. 3
4
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To approve the Just and Correct Claims as Presented. 5
6
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 7
8
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 9
10
A. January 9, 2006 City Council Meeting Minutes 11
12
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Approve the January 9, 2006 City Council meeting 13
minutes as corrected. 14
15
Ayes – 3 Nays – 0 Abstain – 1 (Thomas) Motion carried. 16
17
11. REPORTS 18
19
A. Reports of Mayor and Council 20
21
Mayor Marty asked staff to notify Northwest Youth & Family Services that he is no longer a 22
board member. 23
24
Councilmember Gunn stated that Steve Tizinski from Bethlehem Baptist Church is looking for 25
ideas and suggestions on how their bi-annual payment could be used, as has been done in the 26
past. 27
28
Mayor Marty asked if they have gone before Parks and Recreation Commission. Councilmember 29
Gunn stated she advised Mr. Tizinski that they could contact the Police Chief, inquire at the 30
YMCA, as well as contacting Parks and Recreation Commission. 31
32
Councilmember Thomas reported that the first meeting of the Community Center Task Force was 33
held, and there is a lot of information to go through. She stated she understands they are under a 34
time limit so to even add one more thing as a specific undertaking would be difficult in the 35
beginning of the process. Councilmember Thomas stated that several issues were brought to 36
light, so homework needs to be done to answer detailed questions. She stated she was excited to 37
see what the Task Force can come up with. 38
39
B. Reports of Staff 40
41
1. 2005 Year in Review – Community Development 42
43
Community Development Director Ericson presented the 2005 year in review. He stated that 44
great pleasure is taken in putting all of the information together for the City Council. He stressed 45
Mounds View City Council January 23, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 28
that staff works hard to satisfy the City’s goals and implement the vision of the Council. 1
Director Ericson stated that staff is excited that there is a great year ahead, and it was beneficial 2
to look back to 2005 to see what has been accomplished and how far the City has come. 3
4
Director Ericson stated that one of the biggest things done in the department is to look at, review, 5
and address building permits. He reported the department looks at building plans and works out 6
in the field inspecting building permits. He stated that the budgeted expectation was not met in 7
either 2004 or 2005. He explained that in 2003, the permit value of the building activity was 8
$12.3 million. In 2004, it decreased to $9.4 million. In 2005, Director Ericson stated that the 9
City planned for a decrease as there is not always that big project. Director Ericson reported that 10
in 2005, the permit value of the building activity was $7.9 million. He stated staff had somewhat 11
anticipated there would be a huge project in 2005; however, the permits for Medtronic will come 12
in 2006, and because of this, staff anticipates a banner year for permit revenue in 2006. In fact, it 13
is expected to be higher than any year before. He stated there was a shortfall for permit revenue 14
in 2005. 15
16
Director Ericson reported that the Department looks at every expenditure and determines if it is 17
something critical. He stated a firm look was taken on expenditures, and this will be addressed 18
later in his report. 19
20
Director Ericson stated that at the end of 2005, revenue was down approximately $12,000 for the 21
department, which included not only building permit fees, but other permit fees such as plan 22
check fees, zoning permits, mechanical permits, plumbing, contractors’ licenses, housing 23
inspections, apartment licenses and all the planning activity that goes along with that. He 24
reported that 100% of the shortfall can be attributed to the building permit valuation decrease. 25
He stated this does not mean the department was less busy and pointed out there was a 10% 26
increase in number of permits. He explained the value associated with the permits was just not 27
as high. Director Ericson reported that in 2006, the department will be supremely busy along 28
with bringing in the revenues to support it. 29
30
Director Ericson explained that regarding expenditures, the City’s Community Development 31
Department does not have a large budget, and that any expenditure that goes unspent or a 32
vacancy in the Department makes a large impact. He reported that the Department came in under 33
budget on expenditures, so the revenue shortfall was covered. 34
35
Director Ericson stated that the financials for 2005 have not been finalized. He explained that 36
the personnel total did not include the last payroll in the year, so rather than being $33,000 under, 37
it actually was $22,000 under budget. He explained this was due to the Planning Associate 38
vacancy for three months in addition to other minor things. Director Erickson stated that total 39
expenditures were $34,000 under budget from what was anticipated. He stressed that all 40
departments work hard to not spend unnecessarily and do not look at bottom line on December 41
15 to see what can be spent for the rest of year. 42
43
Director Ericson reviewed the activity of the Planning Commission, and stated there were 36 44
planning applications, which is slightly more than typical. He added the Commission also 45
Mounds View City Council January 23, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 29
looked at Code amendments, modifications to TIF districts, the Medtronic project, and the 1
Commission got up to full strength with the appointment of Al Hull who filled the last vacancy. 2
He stated that it is a good group of people who work together to look at all of planning activity 3
issues and make good well thought out recommendations to the Council. He stated the Council 4
has often made comments of appreciation for the work of the Planning Commission and they 5
certainly appreciate hearing that. 6
7
Director Ericson noted that the Medtronic project was approved in 2005 that has been discussed 8
in length before. He added that the Sysco parking lot expansion was approved and has proven to 9
be a difficult project due to issues with Metropolitan Council, Department of Natural Resources, 10
and Rice Creek Watershed District. He explained that the project is not concluded but the 11
Department will be moving forward on it in the spring. 12
13
Director Ericson reported that the Gas For Less location was redeveloped into a Snyders that was 14
relocated from the Mounds View Square Shopping Center. He stated this puts them on County 15
Road 10 to increase visibility and put them on a more level playing field with the two other drug 16
stores in the community. 17
18
Director Ericson reported the Department has also been busy with nuisance and code 19
enforcement activities. He stated that the Department added the quarter-time position of 20
Community Service Officer Robin Marion. 21
22
Director Ericson reported that Heidi Heller was hired as the new Planning Associate, and is now 23
the Walkability Coordinator for Ramsey County Active Living Group. Director Ericson pointed 24
out that Jeremiah Anderson has been busy with housing code enforcement and recently 25
completed training for limited building inspections that he had previously been doing under the 26
guidance of Building Official Osmonson. Director Ericson stated that Administrative Assistant 27
Barb Bennett keeps the department in line and she knows so much about what goes on in the 28
City. He stressed it is nice to have people who have that type of experience with the City. 29
30
Director Ericson reported that Aaron Backman has been active in the Chamber and Visit 31
Minneapolis North (Convention & Visitors’ Bureau) and stated he just gave a presentation to the 32
full Convention & Visitors Bureau gathering on the organization’s doings over the last year. 33
34
Director Ericson reported that looking forward, there are a number of projects on the horizon 35
such as the Hidden Hollows South major subdivision. He stated there is also the possibility of 36
the Laporte Meadows project, which is south of Highway 10 and east of Long Lake Road. He 37
added there is another possible subdivision on the other side of Long Lake Road called Long 38
Lake Woods with the possibility of twelve new homes. Director Ericson pointed out there may 39
be some activity with Red Oaks Estate #3. He stated that there will be some activity with 40
Premium Stop, County Road 10, as was discussed earlier and the issue will be back before the 41
Council. He stated the Department is actively negotiating with the Premium Stop property 42
owners if they will sell and the City has submitted a letter of intent to acquire that property. 43
44
Mounds View City Council January 23, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 30
Director Ericson stated in conclusion, staff is looking forward to 2006 as there is a lot of activity 1
and it is exciting what that will bring. He stated the Department actively tries to satisfy the City 2
Council’s goals and institute its vision and wisdom. He emphasized that staff is excited for 2006 3
and if the Council has questions that they should feel free to contact him or staff. 4
5
Director Ericson pointed out there are several statistics and a comparison between 2004 and 2005 6
in the staff report. He also mentioned that the revenue sheet included is for the whole City and 7
not just the Community Development Department revenues. 8
9
Councilmember Gunn asked if the Mermaid and hotel expansion will ever happen. Director 10
Ericson stated that he has not talked to Mr. Hall since late November. Director Ericson reported 11
that Mr. Hall indicated he was still talking to investors and in fact it is noted in the most recent 12
facilities guide that was provided to the City Council at a previous meeting. The proposed 13
expansion discusses doubling the number of the rooms. Director Ericson stated he will follow up 14
with Mr. Hall and give an update at the next meeting. He stated he expects the expansion to 15
begin in approximately six months. 16
17
City Administrator Ulrich added that Director Ericson and his staff do an excellent job for the 18
City and complemented them on all their work. 19
20
2. 2006 Budget 21
22
City Administrator Ulrich referenced the budget copies and pointed out that Independent School 23
District 621 does not receive DARE aid and that the amount represented the school resource 24
officer at Edgewood Middle School. 25
26
3. Canyon Grill Catering 27
28
City Administrator Ulrich reviewed a letter from Canyon Grill and Catering indicating they will 29
be done April 1, 2006. He stated it is incumbent for the City to negotiate the proposal for a 30
bridge agreement while the City makes some final plans. He stated that staff is working on this 31
and this issue will be brought to the City Council work session meeting on January 30, 2006. 32
33
Mayor Marty asked if Canyon Catering was gone. City Administrator Ulrich stated they 34
indicated they would be interested in another lease. 35
36
4. Random Park Project 37
38
Public Works Director Lee stated he had distributed a memorandum from BRAA regarding the 39
Random Park building replacement project and advised that bids will be received on February 2, 40
2006. He explained that as the consultant was putting together plans, it was recommended that 41
the parking lot be moved over to the east about 42 feet for several benefits, mainly to get a larger 42
parking lot by getting four additional spaces. He also explained there would be less fill that 43
would need to be used. 44
45
Mounds View City Council January 23, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 31
Public Works Director Lee added there would be an impact to the flood plain on the south end of 1
the property. He explained that for any areas filled, the City will have to replace at a one to one 2
ratio and grade down the park in the upper area next to the playground. Public Works Director 3
Lee pointed out that the new proposal would require less storm sewer and result in cost savings 4
from the storm sewer standpoint. He explained under the old proposal, a large area would need 5
to be disturbed for flood plain mitigation. 6
7
Public Works Director Lee reported the overall cost for the two scenarios is about the same, as 8
the additional cost for adding four parking stalls under the new proposal is the same as the cost 9
for adding an additional storm sewer on the original plan. He reported that the City will get bids 10
on February 2, 2006, and if the Council is interested, the City could get bid alternatives or add 11
this as a change order at a later date. He stated there are some issues with doing it both ways and 12
it should be looked at as an option to consider when the contract is awarded on February 13, 13
2006. 14
15
Councilmember Thomas stated the major issue is the change in the access from Long Lake Road 16
to Ridge Lane, as far as what benefits that could bring the City. 17
18
Public Works Director Lee stated from a traffic pattern standpoint, it is better to access from 19
Ridge Lane. He noted from the County standpoint, they would appreciate eliminating access off 20
Long Lake Road. He stated the impact to the adjacent property also needs to be reviewed. 21
22
Councilmember Gunn stated there is a major issue in safety coming off Ridge Lane. She stated 23
that when one comes off Long Lake Road, it is always iced over and is difficult to get out, 24
especially for parents with young kids getting of school. She stated it is nearly impossible to get 25
out on Long Lake Road, and it is the same in late afternoon when residents are coming back from 26
work. She stated that this is a much safer idea. 27
28
Public Works Director Lee commented that the building was orientated to the south parking lot. 29
30
Mayor Marty commented that it does look like it works better, but he would like the residents 31
who live in the area to have input. He stated that while he does not see it being a problem, the 32
residents are the ones who live there and deal with it more on a daily basis. 33
34
Mayor Marty stated he had discussions with Director Ericson, Public Works Director Lee and 35
City Administrator Ulrich regarding the wetland credits for Woodcrest Park to see if they could 36
be used for the Sysco property. Mayor Marty stated that it does not sound like it is feasible 37
because the City is using some of the credits for the new trailway. 38
39
5. Silver Lake Road 40
41
Mayor Marty pointed out that he received a resident concern regarding what side of Silver Lake 42
Road to put the trail on. He stated that the issue was safety and explained that once the stop light 43
is put in on County Road H and Silver Lake Road, traffic could be moving faster coming up 44
Silver Lake Road. Mayor Marty stated that if one is coming up Silver Lake Road and has a green 45
Mounds View City Council January 23, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 32
light, there is nothing to slow the traffic down. He expressed concern with pedestrians crossing 1
over and back at uncontrolled intersections. He stated that $150,000 for the price of safety and 2
the price of a stop light is relatively cheap. 3
4
Public Works Director Lee reported that there will be a neighborhood open house meeting 5
regarding the Silver Lake Road sidewalk on February 2, 2006, at 6:30 p.m. at the Community 6
Center. 7
8
6. 2006 Budget on Web Site 9
10
Finance Director Beer reported the 2006 budget is on the City’s website and that the meetings 11
with insurance agents went fine. 12
13
C. Reports of City Attorney 14
15
None. 16
17
12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, January 30, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. 18
(February Work Session) 19
Next Council Meeting: Monday, February 13, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. 20
21
13. ADJOURNMENT 22
23
The meeting was adjourned at 10:18 p.m. 24
25
Transcribed by: 26
27
Annette Anderson 28
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 29
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL 1
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3
4
Regular Meeting 5
October 10, 2005 6
New Brighton City Hall 7
803 Old Highway 8, New Brighton, MN 55112 8
7:00 P.M. 9
10
11
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 12
13
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 14
15
3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, and Thomas 16
17
NOT PRESENT: None. 18
19
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 20
21
A. Monday, October 10, 2005 City Council Agenda 22
23
City Administrator Ulrich added item 8.E. Consideration of Resolution 6651, Authorizing the 24
Layoff of Regular Full-time Golf Course Employees and Providing Severance. 25
26
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Flaherty. To Approve the Monday, October 10, 2005 agenda as 27
presented. 28
29
Ayes –5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 30
31
5. PUBLIC INPUT 32
33
Don Jenkins, 7057 Pleasant View Drive, stated he was concerned about grading of property to 34
the north of him. 35
36
Gary Rudy, Creative Real Estate, stated he had informed the Council previously that if there was 37
a problem with the grading, he would be back before them. He stated they have not cleaned up 38
the area and Mr. Jenkin’s property was now flooded. He stated after being good citizens and 39
living in the area for 40 years he should not have to put up with the destruction to his yard. He 40
requested Council’s assistance in this matter. Community Developer Ericson stated he 41
understood the property owner’s concerns and the erosion and drainage on the site, but he took 42
issue about the comment that staff did not care or did not do anything about it. He stated he had 43
sent to letters to Mr. Hanson and indicated that the silt fence had to be corrected and the site had 44
Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 2
to be regraded. He understood Mr. Hanson had done some of the work and they were working 1
with Mr. Hanson to resolve and correct the problems. 2
3
Mr. Rudy stated he had no problem with the staff, but rather with the owner of the property. He 4
stated the property owner was not being a good neighbor. He stated the property owner should 5
be made to put up a retaining wall. 6
7
Mayor Marty asked if there was any damage to the dwelling. Mr. Rudy replied it got up to the 8
foundation, but did not get into the home. 9
10
Mayor Marty requested staff check into this and report back to the Council. He asked if staff 11
could expedite this. Director Ericson stated staff would talk to Mr. Hanson and emphasis the fact 12
that something needed to be done and the silt fence properly installed. However, he noted this 13
could become a civil issue between the two property owners. He stated he understood Mr. 14
Jenkins’ concerns. 15
16
Mayor Marty inquired about a swale or retaining wall. Director Ericson stated this had been 17
discussed and they had decided to put a swale between the property line with a small berm, but 18
he noted there was no vegetation on the property, so the swale quickly filled in with silt and once 19
everything was done, he believed everything would function properly, but until that happened, 20
something needed to be done with the grading. He noted the swale was not sufficient to handle a 21
large rain event and this needed to be regraded to something more significant. He stated staff 22
would talk to Mr. Hanson tomorrow. Mr. Rudy requested staff inform him of the time of the 23
meeting so he could be there also. 24
25
Tom Belting, 122 Blackwood Street, Coon Rapids, expressed concern about the Groveland Park 26
Building bidding system. He stated he did not believe the specifications were accurate on the 27
bid. Mayor Marty stated Council had considered putting this out for rebid. 28
29
Dave Warwick, 5081 Edgewood Drive, expressed concern about the parking ban put into place a 30
few weeks ago. He presented a petition signed but all but two neighbors on the street. He stated 31
the parking ban was well intentioned to protect the children crossing the street, but as he saw it, 32
there were two problems. The first problem was the complete 24-hour a day parking ban. He 33
believed this type of a ban was too excessive. He stated there were 14 residences being 34
inconvenienced by this and some of the residents needed to park on the street. He stated when 35
the residents had guests, there would be nowhere them to park. He stated they could park in the 36
school parking lot, but who would be liable if someone was hurt. He indicated the Police Chief 37
assured him that if they contact the Police Department they could have permission to park in the 38
no parking area. He stated he believed this reduced their property values and inquired if there 39
was no parking, there would be cars waiting on both the west and east side of the street, which 40
would pose a greater safety problem for the children. He stated this would not solve the parking 41
problem and he recommended the parking ban be limited to the time the children were outside, 42
such as 7-9 a.m. and 2-4 p.m. He noted by doing it this way, parents who needed to take their 43
kids out of school for some reason, needed a place to park where they could quickly go into the 44
school to retrieve their kids. He stated the second problem was that this got rushed through on 45
Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 3
the September 26 meeting and there was no input from the residents on the west side of the road. 1
He stated the residents on the west side of the road were also impacted and he asked Council to 2
reconsider the extent of the parking ban. Mayor Marty stated these were good points and he 3
asked Council if they were willing to defer this to the November work session. 4
5
Council Member Stigney suggested staff look at this now and bring their recommendations to the 6
work session meeting. 7
8
Council Member Thomas stated her only concern was that the work session was quite a ways 9
down the road and they could not make any decisions at that meeting. She suggested staff put 10
something together for Council for the next City Council meeting because this would be a better 11
timeframe to work with before the weather turned inclement. 12
13
Police Chief Sommer stated he could draft something for the Council’s next meeting. He 14
indicated he understood the residents wanted a ban on the west side, which created a problem for 15
people parking on the east side. He stated they could look at the west side parking, or the hours 16
of the parking ban. He indicated from a security standpoint, however it was not a good idea to 17
have cars parking adjacent to a school. He stated the Police Department would grant permission 18
for parking exclusions for special occurrences, but this was not something they did on a daily 19
basis. He indicated he was sure they could work something out though. 20
21
Mayor Marty asked if they could have no parking or stopping on the east side. Mr. Warwick 22
stated that would force the children to cross two lanes of traffic to get to the waiting car. He 23
stated it would be better to have parents pick up kids on the east side. 24
25
Mayor Mary requested Police Chief Sommers to get together with public works to get a report 26
together for the next Council meeting. 27
28
Russ Anderson, 5159 Edgewood Drive, inquired who said there was no parking on the west side 29
of the street years ago. Mr. Warwick stated it was approximately 25 years ago. 30
31
Mr. Anderson stated he did not recall one child being hit. He asked if there was no parking 32
where would people park when there were after school or evening events. He stated he did not 33
believe there should be a no parking restriction. 34
35
Craig _____, 5091 Edgewood Drive, stated if there was no parking on the west side of the street, 36
everyone was still parking there to pick up their children and no parking on the east side was not 37
an issue. He understood there was a security issue, but would this apply to all of the schools in 38
the District. He stated the issue was enforcing the no parking/waiting on the west side and this 39
had nothing to do on the east side. 40
41
Chris _____, 5041 Edgewood Drive, stated he has lived in the community four years and he had 42
not seen much of the enforcement of the bans as they have existed. He stated a total ban was not 43
going to resolve the problem and all it did was force people to break and law or park farther 44
away. He stated he did not like the idea of calling the Police Department every time they wanted 45
Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 4
to park on the street. He asked Council to come up with a solution to this. Mayor Marty stated 1
the Police Department did work with the citizens for issues such as this. 2
3
Chris ____ stated he took exception to having to ask permission of the Police Department to park 4
on their street. Councilmember Flaherty stated he believed this could be worked out and a 5
compromise could be reached. 6
7
Mayor Marty stated they would work to make this accommodating to as many people as possible. 8
9
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS 10
11
None. 12
13
7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 14
15
Mayor Marty stated he wanted this item moved past the Consent Agenda in the future. 16
17
Councilmember Flaherty, asked on Page 2, fourth item down, Four Season Tree Care, if this was 18
storm related. Mr. Ulrich responded this was not storm related. It was due to diseased trees 19
removal. 20
21
Councilmember Flaherty, asked on Page 4, 4th items down, D&J Corporation, if this was 22
reconstruction on Silver Lake Road between County Road H and County Road H2. Mr. Ulrich 23
replied this was due to a watermain break. 24
25
Councilmember Flaherty, asked on Page 6, 4th items down, MP Johnson Construction, where this 26
took place. Public Works Director Lee responded this was for a door at the Community Center 27
and it was a budgeted item. 28
29
Councilmember Flaherty, asked on Page 7, League of Minnesota Cities, if this was insurance or 30
workman’s compensation claim. Finance Director Beer replied this was the City’s deduction for 31
a worker’s compensation claim. 32
33
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To approve the Just and Correct Claims as Presented. 34
35
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 36
37
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS 38
39
A. 7:05 p.m. Consideration of the Medtronic CRM Preliminary Plat, Medtronic 40
Development Stage PUD Plans, Rezoning of the Medtronic Project Area, 41
Vacation of Excess Right of Way and Excess Easements, Wetland Alteration 42
Permit and Calling of Bonds: 43
44
1. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6630, a Resolution 45
Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 5
Approving the Medtronic Development Stage PUD Plans 1
2
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:28 p.m. 3
4
Community Development Director Ericson stated they would not be discussing the wetland 5
alteration and calling of bonds at tonight’s meeting. He suggested all four items 8.A.1 through 6
8.A.4. be presented as one public hearing. 7
8
Director Ericson stated on June 27, 2005, the Mounds View City Council and Economic 9
Development Authority authorized an agreement with Medtronic Inc. to redevelop the Bridges of 10
Mounds View golf course. The approved development was a multi-phased project with the first 11
phase encompassing 820,000 square feet of office space and related ancillary uses. On July 11, 12
2005, the City Council adopted Ordinance 760, an ordinance approving the transfer of land from 13
the City of Mounds View to the Mounds View EDA and then subsequently to Medtronic. On 14
August 22, 2005, the City Council approved Resolution 6581, which further authorized the sale 15
of the Bridges site to the EDA for resale to Medtronic. At the same meeting, the City Council 16
reviewed and approved the Medtronic Cardiac Rhythm Management (CRM) general concept 17
plans without conditions. 18
19
Director Ericson noted Opus Architects & Engineers have submitted the detailed site plans, 20
surveys and preliminary plat for this second stage of the PUD process. 21
22
Director Ericson stated the PUD has been revised from the general concept plans reviewed on 23
August 22. The concept plan identified four distinct buildings in a pin-wheel orientation tied 24
together by a two-store atrium-like commons area. While there remain four distinct eight-story 25
buildings, these are now all oriented in an east-west fashion to enhance environmental 26
sustainability. The first two phases would be linked together by stacking corridors and meeting 27
rooms 60 feet wide except at the main level where the connective space is 180 feet wide. The 28
fist phase would be connected to the parking ramp north of the buildings at the ground level, 29
where the daycare and service areas would be located. The parking plan remains the same, in 30
that Phase 1 would include a three-story structure ramp to the north and the 900 surface stalls 31
near the building entrance. 32
33
Director Ericson stated the buildings are set back a minimum of 40-feet from the periphery lot 34
line, which is consistent with the minimum requirements within the PUD. The buildings will be 35
no closer than 80 feet to Highway 10 and 60 feet to Coral Sea Street and 82nd Lane NE. The 36
Phase 1 parking ramp will be set back 100 feet from Coral Sea Street to preserve an existing 37
stand of mature Scarlet Oak trees. The parking lot/ramp along 82 Lane NE will be set back 40 38
feet. 39
40
He indicated the building will be constructed of precast concrete wall panels with horizontal and 41
vertical reveals. The base of the buildings will have a decorative or specialty stone base. The 42
rooftop utilities will be hidden from view by metal panel screens to match the color scheme of 43
the building. These rooftop mechanical aprons and elevator penthouses will be inwardly set back 44
from the edge of the building by as much as thirty feet to reduce their visibility. The façade will 45
Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 6
be dominated by a series of reflective one-inch thick vision glass windows set in prefinished 1
thermal break frames. The first floor of the building will have a 20-foot sidewall height while all 2
subsequent floors will be at a 15-foot height except the top floor, which will be 17 feet. The total 3
building height, including the roof-mounted equipment, will be 140 feet. 4
5
He noted Medtronic was proposing a small round-about at the access to the parking ramp to help 6
coordinate and channel traffic to the site. A second larger turn-about is planned at the primary 7
entrance to the facility with a small, separate pull out for child care pick-up and drop off. The 8
buildings will be encircled by a twenty-foot wide fire access road with a service spur to the back 9
of the building for service and deliveries. In this area as well there is another small round-about 10
to help govern the flow of traffic. The surface parking area will take access from 82nd Lane NE. 11
The parking ramp will be accessed from Coral Sea Street with the service road north and west of 12
the ramp. 13
14
Offsite, many improvements are planned to coordinate traffic to and from the site and the local 15
and regional transportation systems. These improvements will be completed by October, 2007 16
and be ready by the time Phase 1 is completed and ready for occupancy. The most important of 17
the improvements involve the replacement of the bridge over Interstate 35W. Currently at a two-18
lane width, the new bridge would allow for four through lanes with additional space for turning 19
lanes. The bridge would be long enough to accommodate future expansions of 35W. The other 20
significant improvement will be the signalization of the Coral Sea Street and County Road J 21
intersection. Coral Sea Street south of County Road J to the site will be reconstructed and 22
widened to four lanes of traffic with a turning lane. The north leg of Coral Sea Street, currently 23
offset from the south leg, will be connected at the intersection as an additional enhancement. 24
25
He stated the City Forester has been provided a copy of the landscape plan. City Forester 26
Wriskey indicates the variety and locations of plantings are satisfactory, but cautions that 27
plantings in parking area islands and infiltration swales could become damaged during winter 28
months if care if not exercised while plowing the parking lots. Mr. Wriskey will look directly 29
with the landscape planner and contractor to monitor installation. 30
31
He noted consistent with their other locations, the Medtronic plans identify a system of trails for 32
employee usage. Much of the existing golf course trail system will be preserved and tied back to 33
the facility, including the boardwalk through the primary wetland. The trails are shown on the 34
site plan. While not a part of this plan, the City intends to explore construction of a separate trail 35
system within the Sysco Outlet area which residents, Medtronic employees, Sysco employees, or 36
any other worker in the area could utilize. 37
38
He stated all runoff and necessary mitigation would be contained and captured on site. Only one 39
wetland in the project will be impacted, that being the area alongside the Phase 1 parking ramp. 40
The other area, while identified as a wetland, is the present location of Judicial Ditch #1. The 41
ditch will be relocated away from the building alongside Highway 10 with a wider, more natural, 42
meandering channel. The Rice Creek Watershed District Board of Managers reviewed the ditch 43
realignment at their meeting on September 28, 2005 and were supportive. Presently, there are 25 44
acres of wetlands and ponds on the site. Two new stormwater ponds will be created and an 45
Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 7
existing pond expanded to accommodate the run off on site. The Rice Creek Watershed District 1
will review the full stormwater management permit at their upcoming meeting on October 26, 2
2005. 3
4
He indicated the golf course site is presently served by the City of Blaine for water and sanitary 5
services. For this project, as articulated in the Purchase Agreement and Contract for Private 6
Development, the City will install a new sanitary and a looped water service under Highway 10 7
for Medtronic. While there had been some discussion about using Blaine’s water supply for fire 8
suppression purposes, a utility feasibility report will be conducted to determine and ascertain 9
whether the Blaine services will be utilized. Regardless of the provider, the water main will be 10
looped around the building with fire hydrants spaced per fire code regulations. The sanitary lines 11
will run parallel to the building on the west and east elevations. Storm sewers will be 12
constructed to serve the site with catch basins located along the fire access road and in the 13
surface parking lot. The storm sewer will drain into the two stormwater ponds on either side of 14
the building with all utilities installed underground. 15
16
He noted the lighting plan and photometric analysis was provided to staff on October 4, 2005. 17
The footcandle reading fall within acceptable ranges as outlined in Section 1103.09 of the Zoning 18
Code. The parking lots will be illuminated with a series of 250 watt and 400 watt metal halide 19
lamps fully hooded and downcast to prevent any glare and light spillage. The parking lot light 20
standards will have a pole height of 30 feet and the pedestrian light standards will be 14 feet tall 21
with decorative fixtures similar to those on Edgewood Drive adjacent to City Hall and the 22
Community Center. 23
24
He indicated the Resolution would include a requirement that all signage be code compliant, 25
unless otherwise permitted or authorized by the PUD document. Given the extensive frontage 26
along Highway 10, more than one ground sign may be constructed which would be consistent 27
with Section 1008.10 of the Sign Code. The Sign Code does not place a maximum square 28
footage on ground signs in a PUD, the code expressly defers to the PUD narrative document. 29
Staff will work with Medtronic to allow for a gateway sign to be located on Medtronic property 30
near 35W and Highway 10. 31
32
He stated the Medtronic CRM preliminary plat, date stamped October 5, 2005, was prepared by 33
E. G. Rud & Sons, Inc. The plat proposes six distinct lots in one block. Copies of the Medtronic 34
CRM preliminary plat have been provided to the City’s public works department, the City 35
Attorney, and Ramsey County. Ramsey County will be forwarded copies to the plat to MnDOT. 36
He noted Lot 1, phase 1 included the parking ramp; Lot 2, Phase 1 was 820,000 sq. ft.; Lot 3, 37
Phase 2 was 380,000 sq. ft.; Lot 4, Phase 3 was 300,000 sq. ft.; Lot 5, included the Blaine lots, 38
parking areas; and Outlot A included the wetlands, ponds, and mitigations areas. 39
40
He indicated the Medtronic CRM plat has been updated to show proposed easements associated 41
with the Medtronic CRM subdivision, to which staff proposes minor changes as follows: 42
1. The easement over the Met council sanitary sewer interceptor may not be 43
vacated. 44
2. All of Outlot A shall be protected by public drainage and utility easement. 45
Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 8
3. The periphery easement on Lot 3 shall be widened from ten feet to 40 feet. 1
2
He stated no internal road system will be needed with this development and no right-of-way will 3
be platted with the exception of the northernmost point of the project area abutting Coral Sea 4
Street where the proposed round-about would encroach into proposed Lot 1. Given that public 5
traffic will be conveyed through this area, it is recommended that the preliminary plat be 6
reviewed to show the area as dedicated right-of-way rather than a simple access easement. 7
8
According to City ordinance, excess right-of-way is vacated by ordinance. Ordinance 765 will 9
accomplish the proposed vacations. 10
11
He noted consistent with and as articulated in the Purchase Agreement and Contract for Private 12
Development, a park dedication fee in the amount of $865,000 is applicable with this subdivision 13
of land. Ordinarily, the City will assess a fee of either five or ten percent of the land value (less 14
improvements) as determined by the Ramsey County Assessor. The 2006 County assessed 15
valuation of the land being subdivided is $7,500,000. Assuming a ten percent dedication, the city 16
would have received a dedication of $750,000. In this case, the dedication was agreed upon 17
during the contract negotiations on the purchase price of the land. The dedication fee will be 18
paid at the time of building permit application. 19
20
He indicated the division of land as proposed by the preliminary plat would be consistent with 21
the Comprehensive Plan, as amended by the City Council and approved by the Metropolitan 22
Council. The Future Land Use Map designated this land as “Office” which is the use planned 23
with this subdivision. 24
25
He stated with the general concept plans for the Medtronic Planned Unit Development approved, 26
the City must consider a rezoning of the project area from the existing Light Industrial (l-1) 27
designation to Planned Unit Development (PUD). Typically, this is done at the development 28
stage of the PUD process consistent with the final Council approval of the site plans. 29
30
He indicated the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the development stage plans, 31
the preliminary plat and proposed rezoning at their meetings on September 21, 2005 and again on 32
October 5, 2005. 33
34
Based on all of the information, the supporting plans and documentation associated with the 35
request, staff and the Planning Commission recommends the City Council open the public 36
hearing and take testimony from staff, the applicants, residents, and other interested parties and 37
then consider the following actions: 38
1. Approve the Medtronic CRM development stage plans. (Resolution 6630) 39
2. Approve the Medtronic CRM preliminary plat. (Resolution 6631). Along with 40
the Resolution approving the preliminary plat, Ordinance 765 which vacates the 41
excess easements and right-of-way associated with the Medtronic plat has been 42
prepared and is available for introduction and first reading. 43
3. Introduce and approve the first reading of Ordinance 764, an ordinance rezoning 44
the Medtronic CRM campus from l-1, Light Industrial, to PUD, Planned Unit 45
Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 9
Development. 1
2
Mayor Marty invited public comment. There were no public comments made. 3
4
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. 5
6
Councilmember Thomas thanked staff for looking into the easement issues on the outlots. 7
8
Mayor Marty asked if Ordinance 765 would be changed to state this. Director Ericson responded 9
he was not sure it was appropriate to be in the ordinance, but it would be in the preliminary plat. 10
He requested on Resolution 6630 the last sentence under Resolved 5. be stricken. 11
12
Director Ericson requested changing the resolution to require phase 2 and phase 3 come back 13
before the Council. He indicated the intent was to get authorization for the full buildout, but if 14
Council only wanted to approve Phase 1 at this time, that was in their power to do that. 15
16
City Attorney Riggs stated the Council had broad discretion in this matter. He indicted the 17
development contract contemplates a phased development and if there were any deviations from 18
that, it would have to come back to Council. He stated he did not believe they were dealing with 19
the same issues. 20
21
Director Ericson stated in his staff report he recommended if there were no changes made to the 22
development, Medtronic could move forward with it, but if changes were made, this needed to be 23
reviewed by the City Council. He noted they could add this to the Resolution. 24
25
Councilmember Flaherty believed this was a good idea and asked if something could be written 26
in the ordinance addressing this also. Community Development Director Ericson responded they 27
could do that also. 28
29
Mayor Marty stated he had a question on Resolution 6630, first page, item 3. He noted 30
subsequent changes would be dealt with by future Councils and he suggested they have 31
something in there that Council has a cursory review. He indicated he wanted to leave that 32
option open. 33
34
Councilmember Thomas stated she had no problem stating that Council should look at changes, 35
but reminded the Council that they were approving a three phase development and that was the 36
whole point of the plan and cautioned them to not go too far down the road. She stated they had 37
to draw the line at some point and every choice the Council made, a future Council needed to 38
deal with. She stated as long as the plans did not change, Medtronic should not be required to 39
come back to Council. Director Ericson suggested striking under Resolution 6630, item 3 “with 40
the exception of updating the transportation mitigation plan”. He also suggested adding after 41
approved plans “all applicable current codes and regulations.” 42
43
Mayor Marty asked if they could create a swale or berm to contain the water on the current hole 9 44
so all water was maintained on their property. Public Works Director Lee responded that could 45
Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 10
be handled under the agreement permit, but they needed to look at this closer so they did not 1
intentionally drain the pond. 2
3
Councilmember Flaherty stated this issue was addressed under the stormwater and wetlands 4
management portion of staff’s report. Mayor Marty stated this did not address a swale or berm. 5
6
Mayor Marty stated he had a concern under transportation issues that the AUAR did not deal 7
with City streets and traffic issues. He noted with this development, there was a possibility of 8
more of a draw of additional businesses and indicated light rail might have the possibility of 9
coming into the area. 10
11
Mayor Marty stated with respect to park dedication fees, he asked if they needed to do a 12
feasibility study for the trail and asked if the study would come out of the $160,000 park 13
dedication fees. Director Ericson responded the fee could come out of this dedication. 14
15
Mayor Marty stated under Resolution 6620, Therefore item 2, he asked if they intended storage 16
structures. Representatives from Medtronic nodded. 17
18
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Gunn. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6630, a 19
Resolution Approving the Medtronic Development Stage PUD Plans as amended. 20
21
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 22
23
2. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6631, a Resolution 24
Approving the Medtronic CRM Preliminary Plat 25
26
Director Ericson stated he had already touched on this in the preliminary plat. He noted the 27
following conditions: 28
1. The easement over the Met Council sanitary sewer interceport shall not be 29
vacated. 30
2. All of Outlot A shall be protected by public drainage and utility easement, which 31
has been accomplished. 32
3. The periphery easement on Lot 3 shall be widened from 10 feet to 40 feet, which 33
has also been accomplished. 34
4. City Council approval is subject to Ramsey County approval. 35
5. If deemed necessary by the City Attorney, the Applicant shall execute a 36
subdivision agreement consistent with the requirements and regulations of the 37
City of Mounds View and State of Minnesota. 38
6. The applicant shall submit the Medtronic CRM final plat within months from the 39
date of preliminary plat approval or the preliminary plat approval shall be 40
rendered null and void. 41
42
Councilmember Thomas asked if condition number 6 was to deal with certain other issues having 43
to deal with development. Director Ericson responded this was standard language they put in all 44
preliminary plat approvals. 45
Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 11
1
Mayor Marty stated he liked the requirement under condition 2. 2
3
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Flaherty. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6631, a 4
Resolution Approving the Medtronic CRM Preliminary Plat. 5
6
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 7
8
3. Public Hearing, First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 765, 9
an Ordinance Vacating Excess Easements and Right of Way within 10
the Medtronic CRM Plat 11
12
Community Development Director Ericson presented the areas to be vacated as a result of this 13
ordinance. He noted a second reading would occur at a future meeting. 14
15
Councilmember Thomas stated this was only for street utilities only and they were not vacating 16
all of the easements. 17
18
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Thomas. To waive the reading and approve the introduction of 19
Ordinance 765, an Ordinance Vacating Excess Easements and Right of Way within the 20
Medtronic CRM Plat. 21
22
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 23
24
4. Public Hearing, First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 764, 25
an Ordinance Rezoning the Medtronic CRM Campus from I-1, 26
Light Industrial, to PUD, Planned Unit Development 27
28
Community Development Director Ericson stated this had been previously explained. 29
30
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Gunn. To waive the reading and approve the introduction of 31
Ordinance 764, an Ordinance Rezoning the Medtronic CRM Campus from I-1, Light Industrial, 32
to PUD, Planned Unit Development. 33
34
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 35
36
5. Resolution Authorizing the Preparation of a Preliminary Feasibility 37
Report and Consultant Selection for the Extension of Public Utilities 38
to the Medtronic CRM Development Project 39
40
Councilmember Gunn asked how much the improvements would cost the City. Director of 41
Public Works Lee responded the latest information came form the AUAR and based on those 42
estimations, the City’s portion to provide utilities to the site was $400,000.00. 43
44
Councilmember Gunn stated she had received comments from residents that this was going to 45
Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 12
cost “millions of dollars”. She reiterated this would cost the City $400,000.00 and not “millions 1
of dollars”. 2
3
Councilmember Flaherty asked if they had some assurances that they would come in on budget 4
for the $400,000.00. Director of Public Works Lee replied there were no assurances. 5
6
Councilmember Thomas stated the way to be sure their numbers were accurate was to do this. 7
8
City Administrator Ulrich stated there were options available, such as the City of Blaine being an 9
alternative for providing water. He noted the study would look at those alternatives and they 10
could chose which option they wanted. 11
12
Mayor Marty stated under the fifth whereas, he asked if this went over $400,000.00 was this 13
stating that they would start dipping into the TIF pool to pay for the rest. Public Works Director 14
Lee responded that was his understanding, but this language came from the Developer’s 15
Agreement. 16
17
Mayor Marty stated under first Therefore clause, second sentence, he noted it seemed a little late 18
to be paying for a report to address these issues. Public Works Director Lee replied that exact 19
wording came from a State requirement. 20
21
Mayor Marty stated he did not like the idea if it goes beyond the $400,000.00 budget that it 22
comes out of the other City TIFF Funds. He believed this should stand alone. 23
24
Councilmember Thomas stated they did not have to have this in the Resolution, but the 25
Developers Agreement already had this in, and the Developers Agreement was already approved, 26
so it did not matter if this was taken out or not. 27
28
MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Stigney. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution ____, a 29
Resolution Authorizing the Preparation of a Preliminary Feasibility Report and Consultant 30
Selection for the Extension of Public Utilities to the Medtronic CRM Development Project. 31
32
Ayes-4 Nays-1 (Mayor Marty) Motion carried. 33
34
B. 7:10 p.m. Public Hearing and Consideration of the Second Reading and 35
Adoption of Ordinance 763, an Ordinance Authorizing the Vacation of an 36
Excess Drainage and Utility Easement Associated with the SYSCO Addition 37
Plat 38
39
Community Development Director Ericson explained that due to actions beyond the control of 40
the applicant, this item and all other SYSCO items previously scheduled for review at this 41
meeting have been rescheduled for the October 24, 2005 Council meeting. Because a public 42
hearing had been set, published and noticed for this particular item, the City Attorney 43
recommends the Council open the public hearing and continue the hearing until October 24, 44
2005. 45
Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 13
1
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 8:27 p.m. 2
3
There were no comments made at the public hearing. 4
5
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To continue the public hearing and consideration of the 6
second reading and adoption of Ordinance 763, an Ordinance Authorizing the Vacation of an 7
Excess Drainage and Utility Easement Associated with the SYSCO Addition Plat to the October 8
24, 2005 Council meeting, New Brighton City Hall, at 7:05 p.m. 9
10
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 11
12
C. Consideration of Resolution 6633, a Resolution Approving a Development 13
Review for an 8,300 Square Foot Building at 2395 County Road 10 14
15
Community Development Director Ericson stated Dr. Greg Belting along with his brother, Tom 16
Beltin, of Silverview Chiropractic Clinic (currently located at 2552 County Road 10) has entered 17
into an agreement to purchase the empty lot behind Walgreens and would like to construct an 18
8,300 square foot multi-tenant building for himself and other small office type uses. The single 19
story building would be situated against the back of the lot so that the back of the building would 20
front the wetland area rather than the Community Center. 21
22
He indicated the City Council approved Dr. Belting’s request for an amendment to the 23
Walgreen’s PUD in July, 2005 to permit “office” uses as an allowable use on this site, which was 24
originally guided for a restaurant use. Efforts to market the undeveloped parcel behind 25
Walgreens and been ongoing since its creation yet restaurant development did not occur despite 26
the best efforts of the owner, the realtors, and City staff. Feedback from prospective and other 27
contacts indicate that the site was too hidden by the Walgreens building. Limited visibility from 28
County Road 10 and the oddly configured lot has prevented this site to be developed as a 29
restaurant, as originally intended by the PUD. 30
31
The parcel is a five-sided polygon with minimal street frontage on Edgewood Drive. To be north 32
of the parcel is the Community Center, to the west is City Hall, to the east is the wetland and 33
open space area, and to the south is the Walgreens store. The site is adjacent to County Road 10, 34
the City’s primary commercial corridor, and has a County Road 10 address. Rice Creek 35
Watershed District at their meeting on September 28, 2005 conditionally approved the 36
stormwater and drainage permit, indicating that the plans were an improvement from the original 37
drainage plan. 38
39
He indicated the typical parking requirement for an office type use are 8 stalls plus one stall per 40
every 175 square feet of leased office space. For an office building with a gross area of 8300 41
square feet, 55 parking stalls would need to be provided. Because the City calculates parking 42
needs on a net basis, factoring out bathrooms, mechanical areas, entryways, stairwells and other 43
similar areas, the number of required stalls will be available on the adjacent Walgreens site as 44
was originally the plan with the Walgreens Planned Unit Development. The applicant will need 45
Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 14
to execute a cross access, joint parking and maintenance agreement with the owner of the 1
Walgreens site and provide a copy to the City. 2
3
He stated there is but one access to the site which is the shared driveway onto Edgewood Drive. 4
While it is possible for clients of the building to exit County Road 10 and access the Belting 5
building indirectly via the Walgreens site, this would be a more circuitous route and would not be 6
encouraged. 7
8
He indicated the Walgreens PUD requires that the building shall be constructed of high-quality 9
masonry construction using brick and brick accents to match the Community Center, theater and 10
City Hall. Materials and siding effects shall be consistently applied on all four building 11
elevations. The PUD document does not however explicitly indicate the percentage of the 12
building which needs to be brick or masonry. The Applicant desires to incorporate a mix of 13
exterior finish materials to help accent the building. It should be noted that the Walgreens 14
building is at best 60% brick, the remaining upper 40% being stucco (EIFS). He noted it was not 15
necessary to have full brick on the back side, but staff felt it was important to have a continuing 16
facade on the north, west and south side of the building. 17
18
He stated according to Section 15 of the Walgreens PUD document, the Beltin parcel is 19
permitted a maximum 100 square feet of ground monument signage (excluding the sign base) 20
plus an additional 100 square feet of building mounted signage per building occupant. Staff will 21
review all signage permits to ensure consistency with both the PUD as well as Chapter 1008 of 22
the Municipal Code relating to signage. 23
24
He indicated the photometric analysis provided for the project has two options, both of which 25
satisfy the City’s minimum requirements concerning glare and light spillage. The second option 26
(option 2) allows slightly more light to spill over the periphery of the Community Center parking 27
lot, which may be a desirable outcome. 28
29
He stated an easement originally platted with the Mounds View City Hall addition will need to 30
be vacated as a result of this plan. The easement had been taken assuming a different utilization. 31
A new easement would be taken in its place. The applicant’s engineer has prepared the legal 32
descriptions for the easement to be vacated along with the description of the easement to be 33
acquired. 34
35
He noted the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the development review request at 36
their meeting on September 21, 2005, recommending approval. 37
38
He stated staff’s recommendation was to approve Resolution 817-05 which recommends 39
approval of a development review for the proposed 8,300 square foot single story office building 40
at 2395 County Road 10. 41
42
Dr. Greg Belting, 1525 Sherman Lake Road, Lino Lakes, stated they had missed the all brick 43
requirement for the building materials when they designed the building. He indicated their 44
destination point was a business usage purpose and he stated they could have a nice look to the 45
Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 15
building without having a total brick building. He stated he wanted to put up a nice building and 1
intended on being in the City a long time. He indicated people would own these office 2
condominiums. 3
4
Tom Belting, 1222 Blackwood Street, Coon Rapids, stated they had looked at the front of the 5
building as a focal point. He indicated they were willing to add additional landscaping. He 6
presented an alternative plan for the exterior of the building. 7
8
Councilmember Thomas stated with this building being in the City Center, there were some 9
aesthetic requirements that needed to be met and as long as the building looked nice and 10
aesthetically pleasing, she did not believe they needed a certain percentage of brick material. She 11
asked what percentage of brick material were they intending on putting on the building. Tom 12
Belting responded the alternative they came up with was a good option and presented at tonight’s 13
meeting. 14
15
Dr. Belting stated he did not know the percentage of brick they were proposing at this time. 16
17
Councilmember Stigney stated this was a PUD and the reason this was a PUD for Walgreen and 18
the Community Center was to blend into the City Hall, which were all brick. He indicated the 19
Walgreens PUD required masonry. He noted the Planning Commissioners had stated they 20
wanted it brick on all sides. Dr. Belting indicated the Planning Commissioners had noted they 21
could not make that decision and it would have to be Council’s decision. 22
23
Councilmember Stigney stated he believed this building should be all brick. He asked what other 24
materials where they contemplating. Tom Belting replied they were intending on putting up 25
aluminum siding. 26
27
Councilmember Stigney stated he did not want aluminum siding. 28
29
Councilmember Flaherty noted he had no problem for the owner making this building inviting. 30
He stated he had a personal preference to the North Oaks building they showed pictures of and he 31
did not have a problem amending the PUD. 32
33
Councilmember Gunn stated a lot of this had to deal with the color scheme also and she agreed 34
the North Oaks picture was very nice. She indicated she understood why they were requiring the 35
all masonry, but believed they limited themselves when there were other very attractive 36
alternatives also. She stated she did not have any problems with this request. 37
38
Councilmember Thomas stated an aesthetic look involved more than just the building materials 39
and indicated she did not have an issue with their request as long as the building matched the 40
existing buildings in the area. 41
42
Mayor Marty stated he liked the North Oaks picture and Vadnais Heights pictures. He indicated 43
because this was the City Center, he would not have a problem with having a building such as 44
depicted by these pictures. He noted they did not want every single building in the City Center 45
Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 16
area to look the same either, and as long as this was coordinated and tied in, he believed they 1
should grant the variance. With respect to lighting, he agreed with staff and noted there were no 2
residential homes in this area and the more light they can get into this area would help create the 3
City Center in a safety zone. He stated the more light the better. With respect to parking, he 4
asked if they had spoken with Walgreens about the possibility of having shared parking. He 5
noted the Walgreens parking lot had plenty of parking spaces and on the outside chance of a 6
tenant creating a parking need, he believed this should be tied into an agreement with Walgreens 7
for overflow parking. Tom Belting stated they had a common easement agreement and they 8
needed to confirm they could use the parking on the east side. He noted Walgreens had put the 9
retention pond on the property and they wanted to make sure the pond embellished on both 10
properties. He stated he did not believe there would be an issue of overflow parking and he did 11
not believe overflow parking would be used that much. 12
13
Mayor Marty noted the Walgreens was not totally a brick building either. 14
15
Councilmember Flaherty asked of the 8,300 square feet, how much would his business occupy. 16
Dr. Belking replied his business would encompass 2,800 square feet and they have had other 17
businesses interested in this development. 18
19
Councilmember Flaherty asked what type of businesses were they talking to. Dr. Belking replied 20
they had spoken with a dentist and a gift/florist shop. 21
22
Tom Belking noted this was an association which would instill pride and ownership in the 23
businesses also. Mayor Marty noted he liked the aspect that this would be owner occupied. 24
25
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Marty. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6633, a 26
Resolution Approving a Development Review for an 8,300 Square Foot Building at 2395 County 27
Road 10. 28
29
Director Ericson asked for clarification on stipulation 3 of the Resolution. Mayor Marty stated 30
they had agreed to placing brick on the back and if that was acceptable to brick the bottom 31
portion of the building. 32
33
Councilmember Thomas stated she wanted this flexible and as long as the materials were 34
consistent, she was not concerned about the percentage of materials. 35
36
Councilmember Stigney asked if the front of the building was going to be all brick. Dr. Belking 37
responded they planned on going all brick, with the only deviation being the pillars. 38
39
Councilmember Stigney suggested they add to condition number 2 that the front face of the 40
building shall be 100 percent brick construction. 41
42
Councilmember Gunn and Mayor Marty accepted the amendment. 43
44
Councilmember Stigney stated here was an opportunity to have an all brick building and he 45
Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 17
believed the Council has erred in this decision, but making the front all brick was an 1
improvement. 2
3
Councilmember Flaherty stated this was Councilmember Stigney’s personal opinion and he 4
believed the building as proposed was a nice looking building. Mayor Marty agreed. 5
6
City Administrator Ulrich asked if it was the intention to have the three-foot base around the 7
building. Director Ericson responded he would date stamp the plans presented tonight which 8
would be consistent with the site plans presented at tonight’s meeting. 9
10
Ayes-4 Nays-1 (Councilmember Stigney) Motion carried. 11
12
D. Consideration of Resolution 6634, a Resolution Approving a Minor 13
Subdivision (Lot Line Adjustment) between 8123 Pleasant View Court and 14
8117 / 8119 Pleasant View Court 15
16
Community Development Director Ericson stated the owner and applicant, James Benson, has 17
applied for an approval of a lot line adjustment between the properties he owns at 8123 Pleasant 18
View Court and 8117-8119 Pleasant View Court. The subdivision would move the common lots 19
line of 8123 Pleasant View Court south 33.80 feet to meet the most southeasterly corner of 8117-20
8119 Pleasant View court. James Benson owns both properties – he resides at 8123 Pleasant 21
View Drive, and 8117-8119 is a duplex currently being used as rental property. The purpose of 22
the land transfer is to move the property line to correspond with the corner of Lot 6, along with 23
allowing more yard space for Lot 9. 24
25
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Flaherty. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6634, a 26
Resolution Approving a Minor Subdivision (Lot Line Adjustment) between 8123 Pleasant View 27
Court and 88117 / 88119 Pleasant View Court, Planning Case MI2005-007. 28
29
Councilmember Gunn left the meeting at 9:02 p.m. 30
31
Ayes-4 (Councilmember Gunn not present for the vote) Nays-0 Motion carried. 32
33
E. Consideration of Resolution 6651, a Resolution Authorizing the Layoff of 34
Regular Full-time Golf Course Employees and Providing Severance 35
36
City Administrator Ulrich explained that in anticipation of the golf course redevelopment and 37
closing, the City Council adopted a severance package for the three regular full-time golf course 38
employees on August 22, 2005 with passage of Resolution 6585. The consensus of the Council 39
at that time was to allow payout of vacation and sick leave in accordance with current policy and 40
to allow accumulated flextime to be used by employees. The Council also determined that there 41
be additional severance pay of one week per year of service. 42
43
City Administrator Ulrich reviewed Section 4.15 of the City’s Personnel Policy, noting it 44
provides that the “City Administrator, with the approval of the City Council, may lay-off any 45
Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 18
employee whenever such action is deemed necessary by reason of shortage of work funds, the 1
elimination of the position, changes in the organization, or other causes.” 2
3
City Administrator Ulrich advised that the golf course has three full-time employees who would 4
be impacted by the sale and closure of the golf course. The positions that would be eliminated 5
are the Golf Course Manager, the Clubhouse Manager/Golf Instructor, and the 6
Grounds/Equipment Manager. None of the existing golf course employees applied for other 7
available City jobs during the last few months in which one position in Public Works and one in 8
Community Development were filled 9
10
City Administrator Ulrich stated it is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution 6651 11
Authorizing the Layoff of Regular Full-time Golf Course Employees and Providing Severance. 12
Pursuant to the previously adopted Resolution 6585, the severance package includes standard 13
severance pay of vacation and sick leave as provided in the Personnel Manual, plus consideration 14
of the employee’s balance of flextime hours. Additionally, a severance benefit of one weeks pay 15
per year of service is included. 16
17
Councilmember Gunn rejoined the meeting at 9:04 p.m. 18
19
City Administrator Ulrich noted this was being brought up at this time because the auction was 20
scheduled for October 20 and it was important to have the employees present at that auction as 21
well as a couple of weeks after to close everything up. He stated if the auction did not occur, 22
they would have a different situation and that needed to be taken into consideration. He stated in 23
speaking with the City Attorney, if the closing was not anticipated to go through by October 20, 24
it would be in the City’s best interest to not have that auction because the City would no longer 25
be operating the revenue activity which paid the bonds, and therefore, the money would need to 26
pay off the bonds in the amount of 2.6 million. He stated they were waiting for a Judge’s ruling, 27
which was expected to come this week, which would determine the future of this issue. He 28
stated there might be the need to have a special Council meeting once they had the Judge’s 29
ruling. 30
31
Mayor Marty asked when would the bonds become due. City Administrator Ulrich responded 32
the bonds became at the closing, or when the golf course ceased doing business as the golf 33
course. 34
35
Mayor Marty stated they should not close down the golf course until they had received a ruling. 36
City Administrator Ulrich suggested Council postpone action on this item until after the Judge’s 37
ruling. 38
39
City Attorney Riggs suggested Council authorize the City Administrator to have the authority to 40
cancel the auction if there was not a ruling made in time. 41
42
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To give the City Administrator authority to cancel the 43
auction if necessary. 44
45
Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 19
Mayor Marty inquired if the auctioneer had been informed this auction might not proceed as 1
scheduled. City Administrator Ulrich replied he had. 2
3
Councilmember Stigney stated as far as “being on the hook”, they funded the golf course anyway 4
and to him he believed they were exclusive measures and whether Medtronic came in or not, he 5
believed they should get out of the golf course business, sell the land and be done with 6
everything. 7
8
Councilmember Thomas stated the timing was theirs to control and should this fall through and 9
they not have the Medtronic development, they had the opportunity to continue the golf course in 10
the Spring. She stated if they made this a non-revenue producing property, the bonds would be 11
due whether somebody else owned it or not. 12
13
Councilmember Stigney asked if they sell golf course equipment were the bonds due. City 14
Attorney Riggs responded if they discontinued the golf course business, the bonds would become 15
due and payable. 16
17
Councilmember Stigney asked if they still had income coming in from the billboards wouldn’t 18
this pay the bond. City Attorney Riggs stated they needed to give the City Administrator the 19
option to reschedule the auction and allow further time for staff to research the bond issue. 20
21
Councilmember Thomas stated the actual dollar amounts was not that important and the bonds 22
were set up as the financing mechanism for the golf course and while they could probably find 23
the money to continue the golf course, the bonds were tied to the financial mechanism. 24
25
Councilmember Stigney asked how much was required for the next few years for bond payments 26
and requested the City Attorney to research this further. 27
28
Councilmember Flaherty stated he agreed that if the assets of the golf course were gone, the 29
bonds would be due. Mayor Marty also agreed. 30
31
Councilmember Stigney stated they should get out of the golf course business and they had other 32
money available in other funds to pay off the bonds which he believed they should do. 33
34
Ayes-5 Nays-1 (Councilmember Stigney) Motion carried. 35
36
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To postpone the Resolution until after the closing and 37
have this be brought back to the Council. 38
39
Councilmember Flaherty stated he did not believe this needed a motion. After further review, 40
Mayor Marty agreed. 41
42
Councilmember Stigney did not agree and believed they needed a motion. He indicated they 43
needed to postpone this to a specific time. 44
45
Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 20
City Administrator Ulrich stated they should either postpone it until the property was closed or 1
approve it. 2
3
MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/. To approve the Resolution 4
5
Councilmember Thomas stated she agreed they should approve this and it did not make any 6
sense to not approve it so they did not have to deal with special City Council meetings. 7
8
Mayor Marty stated he understood the golf course employees would be retained for a couple of 9
weeks after the auction to close things up. City Administrator Ulrich responded they needed the 10
employees for a week. He noted they should postpone this to the next regular Council meeting. 11
12
Ayes-2 Nays-3 (Councilmembers Flaherty, Gunn, Thomas) Motion failed. 13
14
MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Thomas. To approve Resolution No. 6651, Authorizing the 15
Layoff of Regular Full-Time Golf Course Employees and Providing Severance. 16
17
Councilmember Stigney requested an amendment to the motion to provide a two weeks notice of 18
layoff starting tomorrow. The amendment fails for lack of a second. 19
20
Ayes-3 Nays-2 (Councilmember Stigney and Mayor Marty) Motion carried. 21
22
9. CONSENT AGENDA 23
24
A. Resolution 6650 Approving 2006 SCORE Recycling Grant request to Ramsey 25
County 26
B. Insert to Truth In Taxation Notice 27
C. Licenses for Approval 28
29
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Thomas. To Approve the Consent Agenda as presented. 30
31
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 32
33
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 34
35
A. September 26, 2005 City Council Meeting Minutes 36
37
The following corrections were requested: 38
39
Page 1, Line 34 should read: “a while ago” 40
Page 3, Line 39 should read: “She is pleased” 41
Page 4, Line 25 should read: “cleanup will begin” 42
Page 14, Line 21 should read: “meeting” 43
Page 14, Line 41 should read: “Degree and has done” 44
Page 23, Line 33 should read: “concerns” 45
Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 21
Page 26, Line 36 should read: “greens grass” 1
Page 4, Line 11, should read: “side, south of County Road I and all city south of County 10 2
sustained more damage. Mayor Marty stated that he was informed” 3
Page 11, Line 10, should read: Mayor Marty asked about the restriction recommended for Tract 4
D (that it is not buildable) and how enforceable it would” 5
Page 13, Line 2, should read: “Mayor Marty stated we reviewed that about a year ago when 6
another sergeant was discussed. Staff had” 7
Page 16, Lines 18-21 should read: Mayor Marty stated it is not creating a new job because this 8
job has been here for years. The new job was created in 2000 or 2001 to change the Assistant to 9
the City Administrator position to be Assistant City Administrator. The position has been vacant 10
since 2002 and Ms. Crane has been doing the job since that time. 11
12
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Flaherty. To Approve the September 26, 2005 City Council 13
meeting minutes as corrected above. 14
15
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 16
17
11. REPORTS 18
19
B. Reports of Mayor and Council 20
21
Mayor Marty stated as of today the street pick up of the debris only three streets remained in the 22
City that have not been cleared. He noted those streets were on the south side, just east of Silver 23
Lake Road. He stated if anyone lived on any other streets, it was the resident’s responsibility to 24
get rid of the debris now. He stated tomorrow they should be finished. He indicated if anyone 25
had questions, they should contact City Hall and speak with Public Works. 26
27
Mayor Marty stated they had a fire station dedication tomorrow at 5:00 p.m. and everyone was 28
welcome to attend. 29
30
Mayor Marty stated he went over to Cummings Park Open House in Arden Hills and spoke with 31
Tom Moore, the Operations and Maintenance Manager, to look at their new park building. He 32
noted the new building was in excess of $600,000 which was paid by park dedication funds from 33
Guidant. He stated he had spoken with Mr. Moore about the Mounds View park building and 34
Mr. Moore had indicated they had a similar building which cost them $350,000.00. He indicated 35
after the discussion with Mr. Moore, he realized that their park building was not out of line, but if 36
they could do it for less, that would be better. 37
38
Mayor Marty stated they had spoken about civility at meetings and recommended adopting a 39
policy that came in the handout. He stated at any time some feels they are offended, to bring this 40
up to Council. He stated he wanted to be civil at the meetings. 41
42
Councilmember Thomas stated she had visited a few of the parks after the storm and she had 43
some concerns with Silverview and asked how much of the tree damage was going to be cleaned 44
Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 22
up. She asked staff for a report as to what was going to be done with the parks and how much 1
debris was cleaned up and how much debris would be left. 2
3
B. Reports of Staff 4
5
City Administrator Ulrich stated Mayor Marty, Park and Recreation Commissioner Kunz, and he 6
had attended a workshop meeting sponsored by BCBS to promote active living within Ramsey 7
County. He indicated the City can take advantage of the grants being offered. He stated those 8
items would be on the agenda in the future. He noted Ramsey County Managers met recently on 9
the consolidated dispatch center and a funding formula was agreed upon, which was a big step 10
forward on a compromise. He stated they were now located out of the Mounds View 11
Community Center for City Hall and this was working well. He stated there was a utility bill 12
drop off box on the right hand side of the inside door. He stated all of the public meeting were 13
televised live. He indicated Andrea Bonta(?sp) will be coordinating cable during this period and 14
they were still in the process of looking for a part-time cable person once they moved back into 15
their City Hall. 16
17
Community Development Director Ericson stated they will be sending out notices to area demo 18
contractors tomorrow asking for proposals on demolishing the property on 7861 Groveland 19
Road. He stated the City had acquired the property a few years ago for redevelopment purposes. 20
He stated there had been some issues with break-ins and minor vandalism and therefore they 21
were going to recommend the City demolish that property. He stated they had looked at moving 22
the building, but structurally the building might not survive a move and the cost to do a move, 23
might exceed the value of the structure. He stated the property at 2390 County Road 10 canopies 24
took a direct hit from the September 21 storm and staff was concerned there might be a structural 25
compromise and they have put the licensee on notice that they have to have a structural analysis 26
that the canopy was sound and if it was not sound, they needed to make repairs. He stated 27
Snyder’s was progressing nicely and they were still planning on a December opening. He stated 28
there was a For Lease sign at the Abbey Carpet Building. 29
30
Finance Director Beer stated homeowners that had delinquent utility bills for two quarters will be 31
receiving notices going out tomorrow notifying that those properties will be certified to the 32
County to be placed on their taxes on October 24. 33
34
C. Reports of City Attorney 35
36
City Attorney Riggs stated the matter involving Mounds View City Taxpayers Association v. 37
Mounds View City Council, et al. was argued recently at Ramsey County District Court and the 38
Judge noted she would be reviewing this matter and getting back to the parties with an Order and 39
acknowledged this was a significant time concern. He stated he believed this decision would 40
come sooner rather than later. 41
42
Councilmember Stigney asked how many members were in the Taxpayers Association. Mr. 43
Riggs responded he believed it was about 7-8 members and only the directors were listed on the 44
lawsuit. 45
Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 23
1
Councilmember Stigney asked when they would receive an update on the plan and strategy 2
between the City Attorney and Medtronic so they knew what was going on. He stated he wanted 3
to know what the plan was. City Attorney Riggs responded they could discuss this in a closed 4
session once they received the Order, but if he had any questions in the meantime, he can talk to 5
him directly. 6
7
Councilmember Stigney stated he would like that information conveyed to City Administrator 8
Ulrich instead of him directly. 9
10
12. Next Council Work Session: (New Brighton City Hall) Monday, November 7, 2005 11
Next Council Meeting: (New Brighton City Hall) Monday, October 24, 2005 12
13
13. ADJOURNMENT 14
15
The meeting recessed to Executive Session for contract negotiations at 9:49 p.m. 16
17
Transcribed and recorded by: 18
19
20
Kathy Altman 21
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 22