HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2006/03/13
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
NEW BRIGHTON CITY HALL
Monday, March 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. Resolution 6760, A Resolution of Appreciation for Stephen A. Suave for 20 years of dedicated
service with the SBM Fire Department.
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. Resolution 6759 Accepting Proposals/Quotations for Technology and Electronics Package for the
SBM Fire Station #3.
B. Resolution 6761 A Resolution Supporting the Constitutional Amendment for Motor Vehicle Sales
Tax Dedication to Transportation.
C. Resolution 6758 Approving Contract Award Regarding Easement Clearing for Edgewood
Drive and Bona Road
D. Resolution 6773 Approving Transfers Between Funds.
E. Resolution 6767 Approving the Preliminary Feasibility Report, Waiving Public Improvement
Hearing, Ordering the Project, and Authorizing the Preparation of Plans and Specifications for the
Medtronic Utility Extension Project
F. First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 769, an ordinance Amending and Revision Chapter
1008 of the Municipal Code Relating to Signs and Billboards.
G. Resolution 6771 Approving Change Orders No. 7-10 for the City Hall Rehabilitation Project
H. Resolution 6768 Approving Out of State Seminars/Schooling
I. Resolution 6769 Approving the Purchase of a 1-Ton 4x4 Pickup Truck
J. Resolution 6770 Approving the Purchase of a Replacement Mower for the Parks Division
K. Resolution 6772 Accepting Ramsey County Excess Right of Way
L. First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 770, an Ordinance Vacating Excess and Unused
Former Ramsey County Right of Way to SYSCO Minnesota.
M. Resolution 6763, A Resolution Revising Section 1.53(G) of the Personnel Manual pertaining to
Tuition Reimbursement. (ITEM DELETED)
N. Resolution 6762 Approving a Step Increase for Officer Ben Zender of the Mounds View Police
Department
O. Resolution 6765 Approving a Severance Package for Dave Parker, former Bridges of Mounds View
Golf Course Employee
P. Resolution 6774 Appointing Dale Aukee and Thai Vang to the Parks and Recreation and Forestry
Commission and Appointing a Chairperson
Q. Resolution 6775 Approving the 2006 Seasonal Public Works Positions
R. Resolution 6776 Approving Execution of a Supplemental Letter of Agreement with Short, Elliott,
Hendrickson Inc. for Community Center Remodeling
S. Resolution 6777 Approving Contract Amendment with Canyon Catering, LLC
Cit Council Agenda
March 13, 2006
Page 2
8. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Licenses for Approval
B. Resolution 6764, Approving a Charitable Gambling Permit for Twin Cities North Chamber of
Commerce.
C. Resolution 6766 Replacement of Asphalt Cold Planer
D. Set a Public Hearing for 7:05 pm, Monday, March 27, 2006, to Consider the Second Reading and
Adoption of Ordinance 770, an Ordinance Vacating Excess and Unused Right of Way to SYSCO
Minnesota.
E. Resolution 6778 Revising the Funding for the Random Park Replacement Project
9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. February 27, 2006 City Council Meeting
11. REPORTS
A. Reports of Mayor and Council
B. Reports of Staff
1. Establish Special Meeting Date to Consider TIF and Economic Development Policies
C. Reports of City Attorney
12. Next Council Work Session: (Special) Monday, March 20, 2006 @6pm
Next Council Meeting: Monday, March 27, 2006 @7pm
Item 06A
March 13, 2006
City Administrator Review: __________
RESOLUTION NO. 6760
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR STEPHEN A. SUAVE
FOR 20 YEARS OF DEDICATED SERVICE WITH THE
SPRING LAKE PARK-BLAINE-MOUNDS VIEW FIRE DEPARTMENT
WHEREAS, the Spring Lake Park-Blaine-Mounds View Fire Department is the largest volunteer
fire department in Anoka and Ramsey Counties and second largest in the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, it is the privilege of Mounds View citizens to recognize the public service of Stephen A.
Sauve who joined the Spring Lake Park-Blaine-Mounds View Fire Department on January 18, 1986, as a
volunteer firefighter; and
WHEREAS, Steve was a key member of the Fire Department and during his tenure, served as Fire
Fighter, Board of Directors, and Personnel Committee member; and
WHEREAS, Steve was certified at the Firefighter I level in 1987, Firefighter II in 1990, and
Firefighter III in 1992, and First Responder; and
WHEREAS, Steve completed numerous specialized training courses and seminars about various
areas of fire fighting, including Incident Management to Terrorism, Emergency Response to Terrorism,
High Voltage, Pipe and High Pressure Gas Line Safety, Leadership I, II, and III, and Confined Space Entry;
and
WHEREAS, during his years of service, Steve responded to more than 2,926 fire calls and
attended over 835 weekly drills. He received several commendations in recognition of his commitment to
fire protection and the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Mounds View acknowledges, with sincere
appreciation, the dedicated and loyal service of Stephen A. Sauve who retired on March 5, 2006, after
twenty years of service to the citizens of our City.
Adopted this 13th day of March, 2006.
ATTEST:
_________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
______________________ ______________________
Councilmember Flaherty Councilmember Gunn
______________________ _______________________
Councilmember Stigney Councilmember Thomas
________________________
Kurt Ulrich
City Clerk/Administrator
(seal)
M:\MASTERFILES\1999 THRU 2010\2006\CITY COUNCIL\COUNCIL PACKETS\03-13-06\ITEM 07A ATTACHMENT.DOC
TO: Mayor and City Council APPROVED:
FROM: Dave Johnson, Safety Services Manager
DATE: NO.:
CITY OF BLAINE
ITEM:
March 16, 2006
CONSENT AGENDA: Resolution No. 06-65, Approving Fire Station Technology and
Electronics Contract Awards for the New Spring Lake Park-Blaine-Mounds View Fire
Station No. 3 and Authorization to Enter into Contracts
BACKGROUND:
As a component of the Fire Department Capital Improvement Plan funded by the sale of Capital
Improvement Bonds sold on November 17th, 2005, a new fire station located at 11920 Ulysses
Street was approved. The new station will consolidate/replace existing stations Three and Five.
A budget of $7,082,621 has been established for this portion of the CIP plan.
The Blaine Council approved the letting of bids for the construction portion of the project in
October and December of 2005. Construction of the station is currently underway with and
estimated completion date of July 31, 2006.
Quotations/proposals for technology and electronics were requested/sought by the Fire
Department Staff. The Technology and Electronics package focuses on those items that have, as
a component of their use, some installation that is best built in at the time of construction. These
include; phone and data cabling, security system, TV/Audio Visual/Electronics, and Phone
System. Each item was assigned to a committee who then developed specifications and sought
price quotations/proposals in accordance with state statutory requirements.
Proposals Received and Recommendations:
Based upon review of the quotations and proposals and meeting with the apparent low proposers,
we are making recommendations for award of the following contracts.
TV/Audio Visual/Electronics:
Tierney Brothers Incorporated $126,622.08
Tierney Brothers holds the State of Minnesota Cooperative Purchasing Venture (CPV) Contract
for these items.
This package includes TV/Audio and Video equipment for the main training room, two
conference/training rooms, and digital signage for the interior of the station, TV’s for the
workout room, lounge area, and main reception area, and TV and Audio equipment for the
Command Simulator rooms. The bid includes purchase, installation, sales tax, and an extended
maintenance/service contract.
M:\MASTERFILES\1999 THRU 2010\2006\CITY COUNCIL\COUNCIL PACKETS\03-13-06\ITEM 07A ATTACHMENT.DOC
TO: Mayor and City Council APPROVED:
FROM: Dave Johnson, Safety Services Manager
DATE: NO.:
CITY OF BLAINE
ITEM:
Council Cover for Resolution No. 06-65
Page 2
We recommend the contract be awarded to Tierney Brothers Inc. of St. Paul, Minnesota.
Phone & Data Cabling:
All State Communications Inc. (Cabling Only) $29,126.64
Blue Line Systems (Cabling Only) $33,000.00
Metro Phone Connectors (Cabling Only) $24,654.45
US Intertec LLC $16,346.20
General Telecommunication Corporation (GTC) $16,151.50
This package provides installation of all phone and data cabling throughout the structure as well
as the phone and paging system.
We recommend the contract be awarded to General Communication Corporation of Burnsville,
Minnesota.
Security System:
Connexus Security $6,880.32
Security Products Company $18,182.00
Honeywell Security Monitoring $16,330.00
This package provides for two components of the security system; intrusion alarm and video
monitoring. (Card access security was included as part of bid package two.) Vendors were
requested to submit a proposal based on performance standards established by the fire
department. In summary, the fire department requested proposals that would provide security
and limit access to certain areas of the building, while at the same time permitting access in other
portions of the building. The video monitoring system covers both the interior and exterior of
the building and is connected to a digital video recorder.
The Connexus Security Proposal failed to meet our performance standard as designed. It has
insufficient door controls, camera’s, and program capabilities.
We recommend the contract be awarded to Honeywell Security Monitoring of Plymouth,
Minnesota.
Total cost for all three contracts is $159,103.58. This amount is within the project estimates and
budget and has been approved by the Project Management Team.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
By motion, approve Resolution No. 06-65
CITY OF BLAINE
RESOLUTION NO. 06-65
ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSALS
FOR TECHNOLOGY AND ELECTRONICS PACKAGE FOR NEW FIRE STATION
AND AUTHORIZATION TO DIRECT CITY MANAGER AND MAYOR PRO TO
ENTER INTO CONTRACTS/AGREEMENTS
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Council Resolution of a Capital Improvement Plan for the
Spring Lake Park Fire Department Inc. that included construction of a new fire station and the
following proposals/quotations were received required by State law and;
WHEREAS, Listed below are the apparent proposals/quotation results for the
technology and electronics package:
TV/Audio Visual/Electronics:
Tierney Brothers Incorporated $126,622.08
Phone & Data Cabling:
General Telecommunication Corporation (GTC) $16,151.50
Security System:
Honeywell Security Monitoring $16,330.00
AND WHEREAS, the total of these bids equal $159,103.58 which is within the
projected budget for these components;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Blaine, which
authorizes and directs the City Manager of the City of Blaine to direct staff to purchase and or
enter into agreements to perform the work as defined in the project specifications to the lowest
identified vendors as detailed above for the construction of the new fire station.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Blaine this 16th day of March 2006.
Tom Ryan, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jane Cross, City Administrator/Clerk
Item No: 07A
Meeting Date: March 13, 2006
Type of Business: CB
Administrator Review: ____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Fire Chief Nyle Zikmund
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6759 Accepting Proposals/Quotations for the
Technology and Electronics Package for the SBM Fire Station #3.
Background:
As a component of the Fire Department Capital Improvement Plan funded by the sale of
Capital Improvement Bonds sold on November 17th, 2005, a new fire station located at
11920 Ulysses Street was approved. The new station will consolidate/replace existing
stations three and five. A budget of $7,082,621 has been established for this portion of
the CIP plan.
The Blaine Council approved the letting of bids for construction portion of the project in
October and December of 2005. Construction of the station is underway with and
estimated completion date of July 31, 2006.
Quotations/proposals for technology and electronics were requested/sought by the Fire
Department Staff. The Technology and Electronics package focuses on those items
that have, as a component of their use, some installation that is best built in at the time
of construction. These include; phone and data cabling, security system, TV/Audio
Visual/Electronics, and Phone System. Each item was assigned to a committee who
then developed specifications and sought bids in accordance with state statutory
requirements.
Proposals Received and Recommendations:
Based upon review of the quotations and proposals and meeting with the apparent low
proposal, we are making recommendations for award of the following contracts.
TV/Audio Visual/Electronics:
Tierny Brothers Incorporated $126,622.08
Tierny Brothers holds the State of Minnesota Cooperative Purchasing Venture (CPV)
Contract for these items.
This package includes TV/Audio and Video equipment for the main training room, two
conference/training rooms, and digital signage for the interior of the station, TV’s for the
workout room, lounge area, and main reception area, and TV and Audio equipment for
the Command Simulator rooms. The bid includes purchase, installation, sales tax, and
an extended maintenance/service contract.
We recommend the contract be awarded to Tierny Brothers Inc. of St. Paul, Minnesota.
Phone & Data Cabling:
All State Communications Inc. (Cabling Only) $29,126.64
Blue Line Systems (Cabling Only) $33,000.00
Metro Phone Connectors (Cabling Only) $24,654.45
US Intertec LLC $16,346.20
General Telecommunication Corporation (GTC) $16,151.50
This package provides installation of all phone and data cabling throughout the structure
as well as the phone and paging system.
We recommend the contract be awarded to General Communication Corporation of
Burnsville, Minnesota.
Security System:
Connexus Security $6,880.32
Security Products Company $18,182.00
Honeywell Security Monitoring $16,330.00
This package provides for two components of the security system; intrusion alarm and
video monitoring. (Card access security was included as part of bid package two.)
Vendors were requested to submit a proposal based on performance standards
established by the fire department. In summary, the fire department requested
proposals that would provide security and limit access to certain areas of the building,
while at the same time permitting access in other portions of the building. The video
monitoring system covers both the interior and exterior of the building and is connected
to a digital video recorder.
The Connexus Security Proposal failed to meet our performance standard as designed.
It has insufficient door controls, camera’s, and program capabilities.
We recommend the contract be awarded to Honeywell Security Monitoring of Plymouth,
Minnesota.
Total cost for all three contracts is $159,103.58. This amount is within the project
estimates and budget and has been approved by the Project Management Team.
Recommendation:
Accept proposals as detailed and recommended.
Respectfully submitted,
Nyle Zikmund
RESOLUTION NO. 6759
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ACCEPT PROPOSALS/QUOTATIONS
FOR TECHNOLOGY AND ELECTRONICS PACKAGE
FOR SBM FIRE STATION #3
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Council Resolution of a Capital Improvement Plan
for the Spring Lake Park Fire Department Inc. that included construction of a new fire
station the following proposals were received as required by State law and;
WHEREAS, Listed below are the apparent proposals/quotation results for the
technology and electronics package:
TV/Audio Visual/Electronics:
Tierny Brothers Incorporated $126,622.08
Phone & Data Cabling:
General Telecommunication Corporation (GTC) $16,151.50
Security System:
Honeywell Security Monitoring $16,330.00
WHEREAS, the total of these bids equal $159,103.58 which is within the
projected budget for these components;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mounds View adopt this resolution of support in the Blaine City Council awarding the
proposals/contracts as listed to the apparent lowest identified vendors.
Adopted this 13th day of March, 2006.
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No. 07B
Meeting Date: March 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 6761, A Resolution of Support for a Constitutional
Amendment for Motor Vehicles Sales Tax Dedication to
Transportation
Attached is information from the North Metro Mayor’s Association in regard to a
Minnesota proposed amendment that will be on the 2006 ballot asking voters to
dedicate 100% of the motor vehicle sales tax to highways and transit. Passage
of this proposed amendment would mean an increase revenue to $300 million
per year for highway and transit systems throughout the state without raising
taxes.
Recommendation:
The North Metro Mayor’s Association would like a resolution of support from the
City that supports this proposed amendment. It is recommended that that this
proposed amendment be approved. Attached is Resolution 6761 supporting this
amendment. Staff will forward the approved resolution to the North Metro
Mayor’s Association.
RESOLUTION NO. 6761
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT FOR MOTOR
VEHICLE SALES DEDICATION TO TRANSPORTATION
WHEREAS, the state’s transportation system is critical to Minnesota’s economic vitality,
future economic development and support for communities; and
WHEREAS, funding for the state’s highways and transit systems has remained stagnant
and is failing to keep pace with growing population demands; and
WHEREAS, investments need to be made in our transportation system to better meet the
needs of all communities and segments of the state’s population; and
WHEREAS, investments in our transit system lag behind as demand for these services
increases, in large part because no dedicated revenue is available for transit costs;
WHEREAS, currently only 54% of the motor vehicle sales tax goes to transportation
improvements and the other 46% is spent on other purposes;
WHEREAS, the 2005 Minnesota Legislature passed a proposed constitutional
amendment that will be on the 2006 ballot asking voters to dedicate 100% of the motor vehicle
sales tax to highways and transit with at least 40% of the revenue going to public transit
assistance;
WHEREAS, passage of the amendment would mean an increase in revenue to $300
million per year for highway and transit systems throughout the state.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Mounds View strongly supports
the passage of the proposed amendment to the Minnesota Constitution dedicating all of the motor
vehicle sales tax revenue to transportation improvements throughout the state, with at least 40%
of the revenue for public transit assistance and not more than 60% of the revenue for highway
purposes
Adopted this 13th day of March, 2006.
__________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No. 7E
Meeting Date: March 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: Resolution 6767 Approving the Preliminary
Feasibility Report, Waiving Public Improvement
Hearing, Ordering the Project, and Authorizing the
Preparation of Plans and Specifications for the
Medtronic Utility Extension Project
Background:
On October 10, 2005, the City Council approved Resolution 6652 authorizing the
preparation of a preliminary feasibility report and consultant selection for the
extension of public utilities to the Medtronic CRM Development Project
On March 6, 2006 a draft preliminary feasibility report was submitted to the City
Council at a Work Session.
Discussion:
Preliminary Report - On the basis of the City Council's previous action, a
preliminary feasibility report has been prepared. Based upon this analysis the
project is felt to be necessary, cost effective and feasible. A copy of the feasibility
report is attached for the Council's review.
Waive Public Improvement Hearing – The purpose of the public improvement
hearing is to provide interested parties an opportunity to learn more about the
proposed improvements and to comment on them. Financing for the extension of
public utilities to the Medtronic CRM Development Project will be derived entirely
from the developer, Medtronic. Since assessments are not a funding source, and
the City has been petitioned for these improvements via developer’s agreement
with Medtronic, according to State Statute, a Public Improvement Hearing is not
required.
For this reason Staff recommends that an official hearing be waived as per state
statute. However, waiving the official hearing does not precluded the City from
conducting a hearing or allowing public input; it simply releases the City from the
requirement of notification and advertisement.
Order the Project – Should the Council wish to proceed with this project, the
next step in the public improvement process is to order the project.
Authorize Plans and Specifications – The next step in the engineering process
is to order the preparation of plans and specifications.
Recommendation:
It is recommended the City Council adopt a resolution to approve the feasibility
report, waive the public improvement hearing, order the project, and authorize
the preparations of plans and specifications for the Medtronic Utility Extension
Project.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
RESOLUTION 6767
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY REPORT, WAIVING PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT HEARING, ORDERING THE PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZING
THE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE
MEDTRONIC UTILITY EXTENSION PROJECT
WHEREAS, on October 10, 2005, the City Council approved Resolution
6652 authorizing the preparation of a preliminary feasibility report and consultant
selection for the extension of public utilities to the Medtronic CRM Development
Project; and
WHEREAS, a preliminary report has been prepared and, based upon this
analysis, the project is felt to be necessary, cost effective and feasible; and
WHEREAS, on March 6, 2006 a draft preliminary feasibility report was
submitted at a Work Session for the City Council’s review; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the public improvement hearing is to provide
interested parties an opportunity to learn more about the proposed improvements
and to comment on them; and
WHEREAS, As per the developer’s agreement with Medtronic, paragraph
(b) of section 4.6 states:
(b) Public Improvements. The City agrees to construct the Public
Improvements at its expense. The City is required to install necessary offsite
water and sewer line improvements necessary for the Development Property.
This includes extension of the water main, sanitary sewer and storm sewer lines
to the Development Property; and
WHEREAS, the City has been petitioned for these improvements via
developer’s agreement with Medtronic and according to State Statute, a Public
Improvement Hearing is not required; and
WHEREAS, waiving the official hearing does not precluded the City from
conducting a hearing or allowing public input; and
WHEREAS, should the Council wish to proceed with this project, the next
step in the public improvement process is to order the project; and
WHEREAS, should the Council wish to proceed, the next step in the
engineering process is to order the preparation of plans and specifications; and
WHEREAS, the following is a list of recommended actions, should the City
Council wish to proceed with this project: approve the feasibility report, hold a
public improvement hearing, order the project, and authorize the preparations of
plans and specifications for the Medtronic Utility Extension Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
1. The preliminary feasibility report, which was prepared pursuant to
Resolution 6652 for the Medtronic Utility Extension Project, finds
the improvements to be necessary, cost effective and feasible and
is hereby approved.
2. Said improvements are hereby ordered and shall hereafter be
known and referred to as the Medtronic Utility Extension Project.
Said ordering of the improvements shall be valid for a period of
eighteen (18) months from the date of adoption of this resolution.
3. It is hereby ordered that the Medtronic Utility Extension Project
shall be made without a public hearing under Minnesota Statute,
Chapter 429, Subdivision 3, being that the City has been petitioned
for these improvements via developer’s agreement with Medtronic.
4. That the preparation of the construction plans and specifications for
the Medtronic Utility Extension Project is hereby authorized.
5. The entire cost of said improvements shall be funded by Medtronic.
Adopted this 13th day of March 2006.
(ATTEST) ____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
(SEAL)
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item No: 7F
Meeting Date: March 13, 2006
Type of Business: CB
Administrator Review: ____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 769, an
Ordinance Amending Chapter 1008 of the Municipal
Code relating to Signs and Billboards
Introduction:
Pursuant to the agreement between the City of Mounds View and Clear Channel Outdoor,
Inc., certain revisions and updates are necessary to bring the City Code into compliance
relative to the agreement, which calls for the relocation of four billboards from the former golf
course site to other locations within the City. To accomplish this, Chapter 1008 of the
Municipal Code relating to Signs and Billboards needs to be amended relating to the duration
of Interim Use Permits, permitted locations of billboards in the community, spacing between
billboards and billboard height. At the same time, staff asked the City Attorney to review our
Sign Code and provide an opinion regarding consistency with First Amendment issues
relative to recent metro area lawsuits. Kennedy and Graven has concluded their review and
has provided feedback regarding both the billboard revisions as well as proposed First
Amendment revisions. Staff has prepared Ordinance 769 which incorporates these revisions.
The changes to the Sign Code are summarized, section by section, in the report below.
Discussion:
The proposed amendments to the Sign Code are highlighted in blue (if you have a color
copy) with deletions struck out and additions underlined in bold.
Section 1: The amendments considered in this section simply eliminate a distinction between
commercial and non-commercial language, the crux of the First Amendment issue. For a
sign code to be consistent with the free speech doctrine, the provisions and requirements
need to be “content neutral,” which is to say the requirements need to relate to the size and
location of the sign as opposed to the actual language displayed on the sign.
Section 2: The changes in this section are to the definitions, again removing language
pertaining to commercial or non-commercial content. Also considered in this section is the
deletion of the definition of a non-conforming sign which is addressed later in the ordinance.
Section 3: Also removes the commercial non-commercial distinction.
Section 4: This section clarifies the language relating to the waiver of a temporary sign
permit fee charged to civic groups or religious organizations.
Section 5: This change removes the ambiguity as to what would constitute basis for denial of
a license.
Sign Code Ordinance Report
Page 2
Section 6: This section changes the code to allow billboards in the B-2, B-3 and I-1 zoning
districts. Also removes reference to the former PF, Public Facilities, zoning district.
Section 7: The changes contemplated in this section increase the maximum height of a
billboard in the allowed districts to 45 feet, consistent with what was authorized for the golf
course site.
Section 8: This clarifies that the one pylon or pole sign per lot requirement does not apply to
Billboards.
Section 9: The subdivision which grants authority to the Community Development Director to
waive temporary sign permit fees for charitable, municipal or religious institutions is deleted.
The clarified language in Section 4 supersedes.
Section 10: The bulk of the changes contemplated by this ordinance are in this section and
in response to the agreement between the City and Clear Channel Outdoor. The duration of
Interim Use Permits are increased to 30 years from July 1, 2005. Also changed is where in
the City billboards may be erected, expanding the “overlay” to anywhere along 35W and
Trunk Highway 10 (subject to appropriate zoning), along Old Highway 8 and on County Road
10 south of Woodale and north of Silver Lake Road. (Refer to the map which highlights the
previous permitted locations and the proposed new locations.) Minimum spacing between
billboards is decreased to the state minimum, 500 feet. The height limits are restated at 45
feet, and finally, the subdivisions relating to nonconformity are deleted and replaced with new
language as indicated in Section 14.
Section 11: The language regarding garage sale, estate sale and open house signs is
deleted due to concerns about first amendment consistency. The effect of the change is that
such signage will no longer be expressly allowed.
Section 12: The language regarding temporary signs is clarified to remove the word
“advertising.”
Section 13: Relating to prohibited roof signs, language that is better addressed in Section 14
is deleted.
Section 14: The changes proposed in this section are a result of recent legislation and court
cases relating to nonconforming signs, as recommended by the City Attorney. A memo from
the City Attorney’s office is included for the Council’s reference.
Interim Use Permits versus Perpetual Easements:
Clear Channel has requested that this ordinance be drafted to remove the interim use permit
provisions relating to billboards. The effect of such a change would be that the four relocated
billboards, or at least those not located on City property, could be erected and maintained in
perpetuity. Such a provision would be contrary to the City Council’s position to limit the
period of time that billboards could remain in the City. “Permanence” of the relocated
billboards was not a negotiated consideration. The negotiated lease period for the billboards
remaining at Medtronic or on Sysco Outlot A was 30 years.
Sign Code Ordinance Report
Page 3
Recommendation:
Adopting this ordinance will amend Chapter 1008 of the City Code relating to Signs and
Billboards to be more consistent with the First Amendment by making the requirements more
“content neutral” and by bringing the Sign Code into compliance with the terms and
conditions agreed upon by the City and Clear Channel. Staff recommends adoption of the
introduction and first reading of Ordinance 769. The second reading, pending approval of the
consent agenda, will be scheduled for March 27, 2006.
Staff will prepare an ordinance summary to be published in place of the entirety of Ordinance
769 and have that available for City Council review on March 27, 2006.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
Attachments:
1. Clear Channel Agreement
2. Memo from the City Attorney
3. Map Illustrating Existing and Proposed Billboard “Zones”
4. Ordinance 769
Kennedy 470 U.S. Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
&
Graven (612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
http://www.kennedy-graven.com
C H A R T E R E D
MEMORANDUM
TO: Scott Riggs
FROM: Sarah Sonsalla
DATE: March 3, 2006
RE: City of Mounds View – Sign Ordinance
Nonconformities
If a nonconforming sign or billboard is damaged or destroyed, the owner does not necessarily
have the right to rebuild it. Pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 462.357, a city has the authority
to eliminate or discontinue certain nonconforming billboards, including reconstruction in the event
of destruction, pursuant to certain statutory restrictions.
The Legislature has amended this Statute pertaining to nonconformities several times over
the past few years. The majority of the changes were made in 2004 and were specifically enacted to
invalidate language found in many local zoning ordinances. Minnesota Statute Section 462.357
now reads as follows:
(a) Any nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupation of land or
premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control under
this chapter, may be continued, including through repair, replacement,
restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion,
unless:
(1) the nonconformity or occupancy is discontinued for a period of more
than one year; or
(2) any nonconforming use is destroyed by fire or other peril to the
extent of greater than 50 percent of its market value, and no building
permit has been applied for within 180 days of when the property is
damaged. In this case, a municipality may impose reasonable
conditions upon a building permit in order to mitigate any newly
created impact on adjacent property.
(b) Any subsequent use or occupancy of the land or premises shall be a
conforming use or occupancy. A municipality may, by ordinance, permit an
expansion or impose upon nonconformities reasonable regulations to prevent
and abate nuisances and to protect the public health, welfare, or safety. This
subdivision does not prohibit a municipality from enforcing an ordinance that
applies to adults-only bookstores, adults-only theaters, or similar adults-only
businesses, as defined by ordinance.
(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a municipality shall regulate the repair,
replacement, maintenance, improvement, or expansion of nonconforming
uses and structures in floodplain areas to the extent necessary to maintain
eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program and not increase flood
damage potential or increase the degree of obstruction to flood flows in the
floodway.
Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 1 (2)(2005).
The City’s current Sign Ordinance (Section 1008.13, Non-Conforming Signs) language
pertaining to nonconforming signs is inconsistent with the above statute. The Ordinance should be
changed so that it is in compliance with the statute. It would be recommended the Ordinance be
changed to read as follows:
1008.13 NONCONFORMING SIGNS: Any sign, including a billboard, legally
existing at the time of the passage of this ordinance that does not conform in use, location,
height or size with the regulations of the zone in which such sign is located to the provisions
of this Ordinance shall be considered a legal nonconforming use or structure sign and may be
continued in such status until such time as it is either abandoned or removed by its owner,
subject to the following limitations:including through repair, replacement, restoration,
maintenance, or improvement but not including expansion. “Expansion” shall be defined as
any structural alteration, change or addition that is made outside of the original sign structure
or design.
Subd. 1. Structural alterations, enlargement, or re-erection are permissible only where
such alterations would not increase the degree of the nonconformity of the sign. Nothing in
this Ordinance shall prevent the return of a sign structure that has been declared unsafe by
the Building Official to a safe condition.
Subd. 2. Any legal, nonconforming sign shall be removed or rebuilt without increasing
the extent of the sign’s nonconformity if it is damaged.When any lawful nonconforming sign
is discontinued for a period of more than one (1) year, or is changed to a conforming sign,
any future sign shall be in conformity with the provisions of this Ordinance.
Subd. 3. Any legal, nonconforming sign shall be removed and shall not be repaired
replaced, restored, or rebuilt if it is allowed to deteriorate to the extent that the cost of repair
or restoration exceeds fifty (50%) of the replacement cost of the sign as determined by the
City’s Building Official.damaged by fire or other similar peril to the extent of greater than
fifty percent (50%) of its market value at the time of destruction and no sign permit or
building permit (if applicable) has been applied for within 180 days of the date of
destruction. The City’s Building Official shall be responsible for making the determination
whether a nonconforming sign has been destroyed greater than fifty percent (50%) of its
market value at the time of destruction. In making this determination, the Building Official
shall consider the market value of the entire sign at the time prior to the destruction and the
replacement value of the existing sign. In the event a building permit is applied for within
180 days of the date of destruction and the sign did not withstand damage greater than fifty
percent (50%) of its market value at the time of destruction, the City may impose reasonable
conditions upon the building permit in order to mitigate any newly created impact on
adjacent properties.
Subd. 4. A lawful nonconforming sign shall not be changed to a similar
nonconforming sign or to a more restrictive nonconforming sign.
The City should also remove the following references to nonconforming signs from its Sign
Ordinance:
1. Section 1008.02. Definition of “Nonconforming Sign.” This definition should be removed
because a nonconforming sign is defined in the above amendment.
2. Section 1008.10, subd. 6 (h) and (i). These subsections should be removed as billboards are
included in the amendment above and because the language is not consistent with the new
State Statute.
3. Section 1008.12, subdivision 3. Prohibited Signs. The following language should be
removed “[r]oof signs in existence as of the date of enactment of this Code revision may be
allowed to continue and may be repaired or maintained as needed, but may not be replaced
except by variance.” Repair, maintenance and replacement of roof signs should instead be
governed by the revised Section 1008.13 that is stated above.
Proposed Sign Ordinance Amendments
The City has proposed the following amendments to the Sign Ordinance:
1. Section 1008.09, subd. 2. The proposed change looks fine.
2. Section 1008.10, subd. 1 (f). The proposed change looks fine.
3. Section 1008.10, subd. 6 (a). The proposed change looks fine. However, the City will also
need to change the paragraph above it to read as follows: “[a] permit shall not be issued for
any new billboard unless it complies with the following interim use requirements, pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.3597.
4. Section 1008.10 subd. 6 (b). The proposed change looks fine.
5. Section 1008.10, subd. 6 (c). The proposed change looks fine.
6. Section 1008.10, subd. 6 (f). The proposed change looks fine.
7. Section 1008.10, subd. 6 (h). The proposed change looks fine.
8. Section 1008.10, subd. 6 (i). This provision should be deleted, however, the new proposed
language should not be added as the nonconforming provision discussed above will cover
these issues.
Sign Ordinance Review – First Amendment
The City also requested that we review its entire Sign Ordinance with respect to any First
Amendment concerns in light of the recent federal court cases that were decided in Minnesota.
Advantage Media, L.L.C. v. City of Eden Prairie, 2005 WL 3417276 (D. Minn. 2005); Advantage
Media, L.L.C. v. City of Hopkins, 2006 WL (D. Minn. 2006). The cases involved billboard
companies that looked for cities with sign ordinances that were vulnerable to legal challenges.
Based on these cases, in order for a sign ordinance to be safe from legal challenges, it must not
contain provisions that give unbridled discretion to city officials and should not be content-based. If
the courts find that any of these characteristics exist, they may find the ordinance unconstitutional
(in violation of the First Amendment) and strike the ordinance or the particular provision down,
which could allow for the type or design of sign that the city seeks to ban in a particular area to be
constructed.
Based on these cases, the following sections of the Sign Ordinance should be amended:
1. Section 1008.01 (h) and (i). These provisions should be changed so that they do not
reference “commercial” and “noncommercial.”
2. Section 1008.02. Definition of “Banner.” The sentence that addresses flags should
be not be content-based (it currently exempts national, state or municipal flags from the definition of
“Banner”). The exemption should only pertain to physical characteristics of a flag and not its
content (such as “flags no larger than 1’ x 2’ shall not be considered a banner”).
3. Section 1008.02. Definition of “Incidental Sign.” The sentence “[n]o sign with a
commercial message legible off the premises shall be considered incidental” should be changed so
that it is not based on its content. It could be changed to read “[n]o sign with a message that is
legible off of the premises shall be considered incidental.”
4. Section 1008.02. Definition of “Temporary Sign.” The words “commercial” or
“non-commercial” should be removed because they are content-based.
5. Section 1008.03 (f). This provision should be removed (“National, state, regional,
local, non-commercial, institutional, or cultural flags”) because it is content-based. Flags may be
regulated based on their physical characteristics but not their content or by who is displaying them.
6. Section 1008.05, subd. 2. “The Council, if so required in writing, may waive the fee
required by this Section where the signs are to be erected by civic or religious organizations.” This
provision should be removed because it is based on content (only organizations that are “civic” or
“religious” are entitled to a fee waiver) and because it gives unbridled discretion to the City Council.
This provision could be replaced with a waiver provision that is not based on the type of
organization, such as all non-profit organizations. The discretionary provision should still be
removed, however.
7. Section 1008.07, subd. 5. This section allows a license to be terminated or not
renewed by the Council “for cause.” It does not define what constitutes “for cause” which means
that it based on the Council’s discretion. This section could be changed to state that a license may
be terminated by the Council for violations of this Ordinance or other applicable ordinances.
8. Section 1008.09, subd. 1 (g). “No sign shall display matter that has been deemed
obscene by a court of competent jurisdiction.” This provision should be changed as it is difficult to
determine whether it means that the sign’s content must be determined by a court to be considered
obscene prior to it not being allowed by the Ordinance or if it means that previous decisions by a
court define obscene and the sign must adhere to those determinations.
9. Section 1008.10, subd. 4 (a)(4). “The Director of Community Development may
waive the permit fee for a temporary sign requested by a charitable, municipal or religious institution
or for other just cause.” This provision should be removed because it is based on content (only
organizations that are “charitable,” “municipal” or “religious” are entitled to a fee waiver) and
because it gives unbridled discretion to the Director of Community Development. This provision
could be replaced with a waiver provision that is not based on the type of organization, such as that
all non-profit organizations shall be entitled to a fee waiver.
10. Section 1008.10, subds. 7 and 8. Campaign Signs and Home Occupation Signs.
Campaign signs and home occupation signs should be regulated by the type of sign that they are (i.e.
temporary sign, ground sign, etc.) instead of by content (campaign, home occupation, etc.).
Therefore, these subdivisions should be removed. The corresponding definitions in Section 1008.02
should also be removed as they are no longer necessary.
11. Section 1008.11, subd. 3. Garage Sale, Estate Sale and Open House Signs. This
subdivision should be changed so that it allows all temporary signs and is not based on the content of
the signs (i.e. garage sale, estate sale, open house).
12. Section 1008.12, subd. 4. The word “advertising” should be deleted because it is
based on content.
`
Billboard Overlay Zones – Existing and Proposed
Existing
Frontage
Allowed:
Proposed
Frontage
BILLBOARDS PERMITTED
ONLY in B-2, B-3, I-1, CRP
and PUD Zoning Districts in
accordance with this map.
ORDINANCE NO. 769
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF MOUNDS VIEW
BY AMENDING CHAPTER 1008 RELATING TO SIGNS
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Section 1008.01 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to “Purpose of
Sign Regulation” is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions
struck out:
h. commercial signs are generally incompatible with residential uses and should be
strictly limited in residential zoning districts; and
i. the right to express noncommercial opinions in any zoning district must be protected,
subject to reasonable restrictions on size, height, location and number.
SECTION 2. Section 1008.02 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to “Definitions”
is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions struck out:
INCIDENTAL SIGN: A sign, generally informational, that has a purpose secondary to the
uses on the property on which it is located. Such signs might include, but are not limited
to, “No Parking,” "Entrance," "Exit," "ATM," or "Payphone." No sign with a commercial
message legible off the premises shall be considered incidental.
NONCONFORMING SIGN: Any sign that does not comply with the requirements of this
Section is considered nonconforming. A sign which was erected legally but does not
comply with subsequently enacted sign restrictions or regulations is considered legal
nonconforming.
TEMPORARY SIGN: Any sign displaying a commercial or non-commercial message
erected or maintained for a limited specific period of time and not of a permanent
nature. Such signs shall include banners, inflatable devices, sandwich boards, portable
changeable copy signs or any other device intended to attract attention.
Ordinance 769
Page 2
SECTION 3. Section 1008.03, Subd f of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to “Sign
Permit Exemptions” is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions
struck out:
f. National, state, regional, local, non-commercial institutional or cultural flags.
SECTION 4. Section 1008.05, Subd 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to “Sign
Permit Fees” is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions struck
out:
Subd. 2. Waiver: The Council, if so requested in writing, may waive the fee required
by this Section where the signs are to be erected by civic or religious organizations.
Temporary sign permit fees shall be waived for civic or religious organizations.
SECTION 5. Section 1008.07, Subd 5 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
“License Provisions” is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions
struck out:
Subd. 5. Revocation: A license may be terminated and renewal thereof may be
denied by the Council for violations of this Chapter or other applicable ordinances.
cause after notice to the licensee and reasonable opportunity for the licensee to be heard
on the question of such termination. Cause shall include any repeated or persistent
violation of the requirements of this Chapter.
SECTION 6. Section 1008.09, Subd 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
Signs allowed by District, is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and
deletions struck out:
Sign Type R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-O B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 I-1 PF CRP PUD
Ground No No 32 32 32 200 200 200 200 100 100 *
Wall No No 64 64 No 100 100 100 100 100 100 *
Projection No No No No No
32 100
8 24 24 24 24 No *
Window No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No *
Identification 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 8 8 8 4 4 *
Temporary Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Real Estate 10 10 32 32 10 32 32 32 32 32 64 32 32 32
Home
Occupation 1 1 No No 1 No No No No No No No No No
Campaign Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes
Billboards No No No No No No No No
700
No
700 No No
700 700 700 700
Directional No No 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 8 8 8 8 8
Construction 8 8 8 8 8 8 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32
Incidental 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Ordinance 769
Page 3
SECTION 7. Section 1008.09, Subd 3 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
Ground Sign Height by District, is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined
and deletions struck out:
R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-O B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 I-1 PF CRP PUD
(1) (1) 8 8 8 8 20 20 (3)35 (3)35 35 (3)35 35 (3) (2), (3)
(1) No ground sign, other than home occupation, campaign, real estate, incidental and
temporary signs shall be allowed in these districts.
(2) Signage requirements within a PUD shall be as indicated by the PUD Narrative
document. If no such document exists, signage shall be as allowed for a B-3 zoning
District.
(3) Maximum billboard sign height is 45 feet. See also Section 1008.10 Subd 6 of
this Code.
SECTION 8. Section 1008.10, Subd 1f of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
Ground Sign Requirements is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and
deletions struck out:
f. Notwithstanding the provisions of Subd 6 of this Section, No more than one (1)
pole or pylon sign shall be allowed per lot. However, the ground sign area allowance
may be divided between one (1) pole or pylon sign and a monument sign or between
multiple monument signs, subject to the requirements herein, provided that one (1) or
more of the following conditions are applicable:
SECTION 9. Section 1008.10, Subd 4(a) of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
“Temporary Signs” is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions
struck out:
(4) The Director of Community Development may waive the permit fee for a temporary
sign requested by a charitable, municipal or religious institution or for other just cause.
SECTION 10. Section 1008.10, Subd 6 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
Billboards is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions struck
out:
Subd. 6. Billboards: A permit shall not be issued for any new billboard unless it complies with
the following interim use requirements, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section
462.3597: (Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 656, 3-27-00; Ord. 679, 5-29-01)
Ordinance 769
Page 4
a. Interim Use Permit: An interim use permit (IUP) must be obtained in accordance
with procedures identical in form and substance to the conditional use permit
procedures found in Section 1125.01, subdivision 3 of the Mounds View Municipal
Code. Any interim use permit issued for an interim use billboard shall automatically
expire no later than December 31, 2023 July 1, 2035 or when the lease agreement for
the billboard expires whichever date is earlier. An Such IUP shall be null-and-void if
the applicant fails to obtain any required permit from the State of Minnesota. (Ord. 644,
12-13-99; Ord. 656, 3-27-00; Ord. 679, 5-29-01; Ord. 708, 12-30-02)
b. Location: The billboard must be located along and north of State Highway 10 (old
118), Interstate 35W, Old Highway 8 or County Road 10 southeast of Woodale
Drive or northwest of Silver Lake Road. The applicant must have an approved
lease agreement with the property owner. The billboard shall be oriented towards
State Highway 10 (old 118) and/or I35W. Billboards must be located at least two
hundred fifty feet (250') from residentially zoned property. Billboards may be located
adjacent to the right-of-way of a street or highway, but no part thereof shall extend over
such right-of-way. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 679, 5-29-01)
c. Minimum Spacing: The minimum spacing between Billboards must be at least
seven hundred fifty feet (750’) apart five hundred feet (500’). Spacing between signs
shall be measured by projecting the nearest points of the signs to the property line of
the right-of-way from which they are intended to be read and measuring the distance in
a straight line between the projected points. Required spacing shall apply only to
billboards on the same side of the same roadway. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 679, 5-
29-01; Ord. 708, 12-30-02)
d. Maximum Sign Area: The maximum gross surface display area of the sign cannot
exceed seven hundred (700) square feet per side except that any rectangular billboard
may contain temporary extensions, cutouts, or top lettering which occupy a total area
not in excess of twenty five percent (25%) of the area of the basic billboard and form an
integral part of the design thereof. No such temporary extension, cut out, or top
lettering may project more than six feet (6') from the top, eighteen inches (18") from
either side or fifteen inches (15") from the bottom of the basic rectangular advertising
message. The area of an extension, cutout, or top lettering shall be deemed to be the
area of the smallest rectangle into which such extension, cutout, or top lettering will fit.
(Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 679, 5-29-01)
e. Orientation of Sign Faces: Billboards may have no more than two (2) sign faces.
Sign faces must be back-to-back with sign faces parallel or angled. All billboards with
their faces back-to-back and parallel shall have no greater distance than eight feet (8')
between the faces. All billboards with faces at an angle shall have no greater angle
than thirty-five degrees (35°). (Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 679, 5-29-01)
Ordinance 769
Page 5
f. Maximum Sign Height: The maximum allowable height of billboards shall be thirty
forty-five feet (35 45'). The height shall be measured from the grade at the base of the
sign or from the surface of the roadway whichever is higher. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord.
679, 5-29-01)
g. Obstruction: No billboard may be located in such a manner as to obscure or
otherwise interfere with the effectiveness of an official traffic sign, signal, or device, or
obstruct or interfere with a driver's view of approaching, merging, or intersecting traffic.
(Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 679, 5-29-01)
h. Existing Billboards: Any billboard legally existing as of December 13, 1999, may
continue to be maintained in its present form and size but shall not be expanded. This
does not preclude the periodic changing of the message or advertisement presented
on the billboard. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 679, 5-29-01)
i. Destruction: Any billboard destroyed by an act of nature shall be allowed to be
rebuilt provided said billboard complies with or is capable of complying with all
requirements of this subdivision. Nonconforming billboards shall not be allowed to be
rebuilt. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 679, 5-29-01)
SECTION 11. Section 1008.11, Subd 3 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
Garage Sale Signs is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions
struck out:
Subd. 3. RESERVED. Garage Sale, Estate Sale and Open House Signs: Garage sale,
estate sale and open house signs and similar signs may be allowed to be located within
a public right of way provided:
a. The duration of the display of such sign shall not exceed three (3) days.
b. No part of such sign shall extend within five feet (5') of a traveled roadway.
c. Such sign shall relate to or direct people to a residential property within the City.
d. Such sign shall not exceed four (4) square feet in area and shall not obscure
pedestrian or vehicle visibility or any traffic control sign or violate any other provision
of this Code, specifically subdivision 2 hereof.
SECTION 12. Section 1008.12, Subd 4 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
“Prohibited Signs” is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions
struck out:
Subd. 4. Temporary or permanent advertising signs posted within public right-of-ways,
excluding directional signs and signs expressly allowed herein and by other
governmental agencies.
Ordinance 769
Page 6
SECTION 13. Section 1008.13 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
Nonconforming Signs is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and
deletions struck out:
Subd. 3. Roof signs, unless integrally incorporated into the roof design, then such sign
shall be considered a wall sign. Roof signs in existence as of the date of enactment
of this Code revision may be allowed to continue and may be repaired or maintained
as needed, but may not be replaced except by variance.
SECTION 14. Section 1008.13 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
Nonconforming Signs is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and
deletions struck out:
1008.13 NONCONFORMING SIGNS: Any sign, including a billboard, legally
existing at the time of the passage of this ordinance that does not conform in use,
location, height or size with the regulations of the zone in which such sign is located to
the provisions of this Ordinance shall be considered a legal nonconforming use or
structure sign and may be continued in such status until such time as it is either
abandoned or removed by its owner, subject to the following limitations: including
through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement but not
including expansion. “Expansion” shall be defined as any structural alteration,
change or addition that is made outside of the original sign structure or design.
Subd. 1. Structural alterations, enlargement, or re-erection are permissible only
where such alterations would not increase the degree of the nonconformity of the
sign. Nothing in this Ordinance shall prevent the return of a sign structure that
has been declared unsafe by the Building Official to a safe condition.
Subd. 2. Any legal, nonconforming sign shall be removed or rebuilt without
increasing the extent of the sign’s nonconformity if it is damaged. When any lawful
nonconforming sign is discontinued for a period of more than one (1) year, or
is changed to a conforming sign, any future sign shall be in conformity with
the provisions of this Ordinance.
Subd. 3. Any legal, nonconforming sign shall be removed and shall not be
repaired, replaced, restored, or rebuilt if it is allowed to deteriorate to the extent
that the cost of repair or restoration exceeds fifty (50%) of the replacement cost of
the sign as determined by the City’s Building Official. damaged by fire or other
similar peril to the extent of greater than fifty percent (50%) of its market value
at the time of destruction and no sign permit or building permit (if applicable)
has been applied for within 180 days of the date of destruction. The City’s
Building Official shall be responsible for making the determination whether a
nonconforming sign has been destroyed greater than fifty percent (50%) of its
market value at
Ordinance 769
Page 6
the time of destruction. In making this determination, the Building Official
shall consider the market value of the entire sign at the time prior to the
destruction and the replacement value of the existing sign. In the event a
building permit is applied for within 180 days of the date of destruction and
the sign did not withstand damage greater than fifty percent (50%) of its
market value at the time of destruction, the City may impose reasonable
conditions upon the building permit in order to mitigate any newly created
impact on adjacent properties.
Subd. 4. A lawful nonconforming sign shall not be changed to a similar
nonconforming sign or to a more restrictive nonconforming sign.
SECTION 15. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after the date of its publication.
First reading by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 13th day of March, 2006
Second reading and adoption by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 27th day
of March, 2006.
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(SEAL)
Approved as to form:
Mounds View City Attorney
Item No. 7I
Meeting Date: March 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: Steven Dazenski, Supervisor of Parks
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6769 Approving the Purchase of a 1 Ton
4X4 Pick Up Truck
Background:
In 1990, the City purchased a Chevrolet ¾ Ton Pick Up Truck. This truck was
used primarily in the Parks Department and was used to haul various park
materials, such as topsoil, spoil and ag-lime. It was also used to pick up trash,
brush, parts and supplies, and transport staff to various work sites.
The City has a practice of replacing light duty trucks, including pick up trucks, on
a ten-year cycle. The replacement practice for light duty trucks has been as
follows:
When a light duty truck becomes tens years old, a new truck with similar or
exacting specifications is purchased. In an effort to maximize the full potential
and usage of the light duty truck fleet, the ten-year old truck is not traded in.
Instead, it is compared to other light duty trucks the City owns that are older than
ten years of age. The City then selects the truck from 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 light duty truck.
Discussion:
The Chevrolet 3/4Ton pick up truck was scheduled for replacement in 2006 and
monies have been allocated in the 2006 budget for its replacement (Account #
100-4360-7030).
Staff is recommending that Unit No. 469 in the Parks Division be replaced with a
similar truck, with similar equipment and options. This Chevrolet ¾ Ton pick up
truck will go to the Government Auction as soon as the City acquires the new
replacement truck.
A 2006 1 ton Ford F-350 4X4 can be purchased from Elk River Ford under state
contract, foregoing the requirement of acquiring additional bids, for the cost of
$21,686.60. Tax, license, and transfer fees would cost an additional $1,543.63.
In addition to the truck itself, additional equipment and options are necessary to
fully utilize this truck. These include: a combination dump/utility box, strobe light,
light bar, 2-way radio, and “City of Mounds View” logos. These items can be
purchased for approximately $10,000.00.
A summary of the proposed truck replacement follows:
• 2006 1 ton Ford F-350 4X4 Pick Up Truck $21,686.60
• Tax, License, and Transfer Fees $ 1,543.63
Subtotal: $23,230.23
• Equipment $10,000.00
Total: $33,230.23
The 2006 General Fund, Parks Vehicle Account (Account 100-4360-7030) has
$32,000.00 budgeted for this pick up truck purchase.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the purchase of a 2006 1 ton
Ford F-350 4X4 Pick Up Truck under state contract and award a contract to Elk
River Ford in the amount of $23,230.23 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 1 ton Ford F-350 4X4 Pick Up Truck from local equipment supply
companies in the amount of approximately $10,000.00.
Finally, Staff recommends that the City Council approve the disposal of Unit
No.469, via Government Auction, as soon as the above-mentioned truck is put
into service. The trade-in amount is estimated to be $2,00.00 to $3,000.00. The
amount sold for at Government Auction is not established until date of sale. The
City can put a “reserve” on the truck to guarantee the sale of no less than $2,000.
Respectfully Submitted,
Steven Dazenski, Parks Supervisor
RESOLUTION 6769
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF A 1 Ton 4X4 PICK UP TRUCK
WHEREAS, the City Council previously approved the purchase of a 1990
Chevrolet ¾ Ton Pick Up Truck; and
WHEREAS, said pick up truck has been in use for sixteen years and is
scheduled for replacement; and
WHEREAS, a 2006 1 ton Ford F-350 4X4 Pick Up Truck can be
purchased from Elk River Ford under state contract for $21,686.60
Tax, license, and transfer fees would cost an additional 1,543.63; and
WHEREAS, additional equipment, such as a combination dump/utility box,
strobe light, light bar, 2-way radio, and “City of Mounds View” logos, are
necessary to fully utilize said truck; and
WHEREAS, said equipment can be purchased from local equipment
supply companies in the amount of approximately $10,000; and
WHEREAS, the existing Unit No.469, can be disposed of via auction at
the next available opportunity and retains an estimated salvage / trade-in value of
$2,000.00; and
WHEREAS, the 2006 General Fund, Parks Vehicle Account (Account
100-4360-7030) has $32,000.00 budgeted for this pick up truck replacement
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 1 Ton Ford F-350 4X4 Pick Up Truck, is hereby
approved.
2. A contract to Elk River Ford in the amount of $23,230.23 for the purchase
of said truck, including tax, license, and transfer fees is awarded.
3. The purchase of necessary equipment for the 1 ton Ford F-350 4X4 Pick
Up Truck is hereby approved.
4. The trade-in / salvage / disposal of the existing Unit No.469, at a
Government Auction at the next available opportunity is hereby
authorized.
Adopted this 13th day of March 2006.
(ATTEST) ____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
(SEAL)
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item No. 7J
Meeting Date: March 13, 2006
Type of Business: CB
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Steven Dazenski, Supervisor of Parks Department
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6770 Approving the Purchase of a
Replacement Mower for the Parks Division
Background:
In May of 2001, the City purchased a Toro 580 D Groundsmaster mower. This
mower has been used to perform the mowing of the parks and athletic fields
located in the City, approximately 140 acres.
This mower has developed problems in the hydrostatic drive that would require
an extensive repair to put it into a reliable working condition. It is no longer
dependable and has therefore reached the end of its economical useful life cycle.
This mower has been scheduled for replacement in 2006 and monies have been
allocated in the 2006 budget for its replacement. It is currently in a usable
condition because of the City’s maintenance program and therefore retains a
salvage value.
This mower also has other limitations that reduce its usefulness. These include
having two-wheel drive, as opposed to four-wheel drive, it also has a factor that
limits the mowing that can be performed during the rainy weather. Having belts
driving the blades and decks that do not pivot to accommodate berms and hills
without turf scalping.
Since 2001 when the City purchased the Toro 580 D mower, a new generation of
mowers far better adapted to address the needs of the City have been
introduced. These new mowers utilize design features that make them more
versatile and useful.
Staff has performed an extensive study and evaluation of mowers that are
designed to meet our needs. The Jacobsen HR 9016 mower has proven to be
safe, dependable and user friendly. It will be able to perform our mowing tasks on
wet hillside areas due to the 4 wheel drive capabilities and the pivoting decks
should make scalping almost non-existent. With the direct drive hydraulic motors
on the decks there will not be any belts to adjust or replace, saving countless
man hours in maintenance that can better be utilized in other everyday duties.
Staff has contacted other municipalities and organizations to discuss their use of
and satisfaction with this mower. The City of Roseville, White Bear Independent
School District, and the City of Cottage Grove, have all given this mower a very
good recommendation.
This mower would be purchased under state contract, foregoing the requirement
to acquire additional bids. The state contract bid is as follows:
• Jacobsen HR 9016 $69,700.00
• Trade-In of 2001 Toro 580D ($10,000.00)
Subtotal $59,700.00
Tax $ 3,880.50
TOTAL $63,580.50
The Parks Budget, 100-4360-7030 has $82,000.00 budgeted for mower
purchase.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the purchase of a Jacobsen HR
9016 mower under state contract in the amount of $69,700.00 and approve the
trade in of the 2001 Toro 580D at a credited value of $10,000.00. Including tax,
this represents a net City cost of $63,580.50.
Respectfully Submitted,
Steven Dazenski, Parks Supervisor
RESOLUTION 6770
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF A REPLACEMENT MOWER FOR THE
PARKS DIVISION
WHEREAS, the City Council had previously approved the purchase of a
2001 Toro 580D mower; and
WHEREAS, said mower has been in use for five years and has reached
its economical useful life; and
WHEREAS, said mower has a the trade in value of $10,000.00; and
WHEREAS, $82,000 has been budgeted in the Parks Division 2006
budget (100-4360-7030) for the replacement of the 2001 Toro 580D mower; and
WHEREAS, Staff has performed an extensive study and evaluation of
mowers that are designed to meet our needs; and
WHEREAS, the Jacobsen HR9016 has proven to be safe, dependable
and user friendly; and
WHEREAS, said mower would be purchased under state contract, thus
foregoing the requirement to acquire additional bids.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Mounds View City
Council does hereby approve the purchase of a Jacobsen HR9016 under state
contract in the amount of 69,700.00 and approve the trade in of the 2001 Toro
580D at a credited value of 10,000.00. Including tax, this represents a net City
cost of $63,580.50.
Adopted this 13th day of March 2006.
________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item No: 7K&L
Meeting Date: March 13, 2006
Type of Business: CB
Administrator Review: ____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Review and Consideration of Resolution 6772 Accepting
Excess Right of Way from Ramsey County and First
Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 770 Vacating
Said Right of Way to SYSCO Minnesota.
Introduction:
During the City’s review of SYSCO Minnesota’s request to expand their business at 2400
County Road J, Staff facilitated a discussion with Ramsey County regarding remnant Long
Lake Road right of way north of Trunk Highway 10 that bisects the SYSCO area. The right of
way is not in use for its intended purpose and Ramsey County has no future plans for the
right of way. (See graphic below.)
SYSCO
SYSCO
Outlot A
COUNTY ROAD J
SYSCO
Excess Right of Way
dividing the SYSCO
Minnesota parcel
Excess Right of Way Report
March 13, 2006
Page 2
Discussion:
When the City considered SYSCO’s preliminary plat, it gave direction to SYSCO and its
consultants to work with Ramsey County to determine if the excess residual Long Lake Road
right of way (owned by Ramsey County) could be vacated. Resolution 6627, approved by
the City Council in September of 2005, indicated that the right of way *should* be vacated if
practical so that there would be one SYSCO lot rather than two divided by the excess right of
way. RLK, working on SYSCO’s behalf, met with Ramsey County representatives and
formalized their request in a letter dated October 19, 2005. On December 13 of 2005, the
Ramsey County Board of Commissioners adopted Resolution 2005-437 which released the
indicated excess right of way to the City of Mounds View. The Board’s approval was
unanimous. The City should adopt a resolution accepting such right of way so that it may in
turn vacate same to SYSCO. Resolution 6772 is attached which accomplishes this.
For the City to vacate any interest in land such as an easement or right of way, the Charter
requires that it adopt an ordinance as the mechanism by which the process is effectuated.
The ordinance requires two readings before the Council and a public hearing. The public
hearing, pending consent agenda approval, has been scheduled for March 27, 2006.
There are utilities present in the right of way that would remain protected by an easement
dedicated as part of the SYSCO Minnesota Second Addition Plat which will need to come
back to the City Council for final plat approval. Public Works Director Greg Lee supports this
action.
Recommendation:
Review and consider the approval of (1) Resolution 6772, a resolution accepting the released
right of way from Ramsey County and (2) the first reading and introduction of Ordinance 770,
an ordinance vacating the excess and unused residual Long Lake Road right of way that
bisects the SYSCO property.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
Attachments:
1. Letter from Ramsey County dated February 2, 2006
2. Ramsey County Resolution2005-437
3. Letter from RLK dated October 19, 2005
4. Resolution 6772
5. Ordinance 770
RESOLUTION NO. 6772
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ACCEPTANCE OF EXCESS LONG LAKE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY
FROM RAMSEY COUNTY
WHEREAS, on September 26, 2005, the City Council approved Resolution 6627
approving the SYSCO SECOND ADDITION Preliminary plat; and,
WHEREAS, the first condition of Resolution 6627 was that the excess and residual
County-owned Long Lake Road right of way bisecting the SYSCO property be vacated;
and,
WHEREAS, the excess right of way is legally described as follows:
That part of the west half of Long Lake Road as dedicated in SYSCO, Ramsey County, Minnesota,
which lies southerly of the easterly extension of the north line of Lot 1, Block 1, said plat of SYSCO,
together with the east half of Long Lake Road as dedicated in said plat of SYSCO which lies
southerly of the westerly extension of the north line of Lot 1, Block 2, said plat of SYSCO.
WHEREAS, Ramsey County approved Resolution 2005-437 which authorized the
release of this excess right of way to the City of Mounds View.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Mounds View hereby
accepts the excess Long Lake Road right of way released by Ramsey County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Mounds View
will endeavor to release and vacate its newly-acquired interest in this right of way
consistent with the SYSCO SECOND ADDITION plat.
Adopted this 13th day of March, 2006.
____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
ORDINANCE NO. 770
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE VACATING EXCESS RIGHT OF WAY WITHIN THE SYSCO PLAT
WHEREAS, Ramsey County has approved a resolution releasing the excess Long
Lake Road right of way within the SYSCO plat to the City of Mounds View. Said right of way is
legally described as follows:
That part of the west half of Long Lake Road as dedicated in SYSCO, Ramsey
County, Minnesota, which lies southerly of the easterly extension of the north line of
Lot 1, Block 1, said plat of SYSCO, together with the east half of Long Lake Road as
dedicated in said plat of SYSCO which lies southerly of the westerly extension of the
north line of Lot 1, Block 2, said plat of SYSCO.
WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View has adopted Resolution 6772 which accepts said
right of way from Ramsey County and consistent with previously adopted Resolution 6627
relating to the SYSCO SECOND ADDITION preliminary plat, the City endeavors to vacate its
interest in the right of way.
NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. The City of Mounds View Municipal Code Appendix D is hereby amended to
include reference to the following Special Ordinance No. 770.
Subd. 1. The City has made a determination that the residual Long Lake Road right
of way illustrated and described on Exhibit A no longer serves a public purpose, and as
such, it is in the public interest to vacate such right of way.
Subd. 2. There are public utilities within within the right of way which will need to be
protected by easement, to be dedicated via the SYSCO SECOND ADDITION plat.
Subd. 3. The City Council of the City of Mounds View finds that there is no public
interest or purpose served in retaining the right of way proposed for vacation.
Subd. 4. The excess right of way described in Exhibit A is hereby vacated.
Ordinance 770
Page 2
SECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect thirty (30) days after its publication.
First reading and introduction by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 13th day
of March, 2006.
Public hearing, second reading and adoption by the City Council of the City of Mounds View
this 27th day of March, 2006.
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk-Administrator
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
City Attorney
EXHIBIT A.
Item No: 07N
Meeting Date: March 13, 2006
Type of Business: CB
City Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Desaree Crane, Administrative Assistant
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6762 Step Increase for Officer Ben Zender of the
Mounds View Police Department
Background:
Office Ben Zender is current employee with the City of Mounds View. His supervisor
has reviewed his performance as it relates to his responsibilities outlined in the job
description.
Discussion:
It was determined that Officer Ben Zender has more than satisfactorily performed in the
capacity of his position, and therefore, a step increase wage adjustment is consistent
with the Personnel Manual and Labor Agreements.
Respectfully Submitted,
Desaree Crane
RESOLUTION 6762
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING STEP/LONGEVITY ADJUSTMENTS
WHEREAS, the following below is a regular full-time employee who is currently
working for the City of Mounds View; and
WHEREAS, his supervisor reviewed his performance as it relates to the
responsibilities outlined in the job description; and
WHEREAS, his supervisor determined that the following employee below has
more than satisfactorily performed in the capacity of his position documented in his
performance review on file.
WHEREAS, a step increase wage adjustment is consistent with the Mounds
View Personnel Manual and Labor Agreements.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does
hereby approve a wage adjustment to the following indicated in the chart below.
NAME CURRENT
POSITION
DATE OF
EMPLOYMENT/CURRENT
POSITION
CURRENT STEP &
WAGE
STEP & WAGE
ADJUSTMENT
EFFECTIVE
DATE OF
ADJUSTMENT
Officer Ben
Zender
Police Officer March 15, 2004 Step 3: $21.78/hr Step 4: $24.50/hr March 15, 2006
Adopted this 13th day of March, 2006.
__________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No. 07O
Meeting Date: March 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 Dave
Parker
Background
Dave Parker was hired by the City as the Golf Course Equipment Manager on April 13, 2002. Due
to the golf course redevelopment, a layoff notice was hand carried to Dave Parker 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.
Dave Parker used his accumulated flex-time per Resolution 6585, and his last day on payroll was
March 3, 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:
Dave Parker
Hourly Rate: $21.86/hour
Vacation: 252.96 hours X $21.86 = $5,529.71
Sick: 353.72 hours X 50% X $21.86 = $3,866.16
3-Year Severance: 120 hours X $21.86 = $2,623.20
Total Severance: $12,019.07
Recommendation:
Staff recommends severance payment for Dave Parker in accordance with Section 4.35D of the
City’s Personnel Manual and Resolution 6585.
RESOLUTION 6765
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AUTHORIZING SEVERANCE PAYMENT FOR DAVE PARKER
WHEREAS, Dave Parker was laid off from his position as Golf Course Equipment
Manager 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 252.96 hours; and
WHEREAS, the balance of accrued and unused sick leave time is 353.72 hours; and
WHEREAS, Dave Parker was with the City for three years, which authorizes him three
weeks of pay per Resolution 6585; and
WHEREAS, the maximum potential payout of vacation time will be 252.96 hours X
$21.86 = $5,529.71 and the maximum payout of sick leave will be 353.72 hours X 50% X
$21.86 = $3,866.16, and an additional maximum payout of 3 weeks for 3 years of service will be
120 hours X $21.86 = $2,623.20 for a total of $12,019.07; 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 $5,529.71, a
50% of accrued and unused sick leave in an amount not to exceed $3,866.16, and maximum
payout of 3 weeks for 3 years of service with the city in an amount not to exceed $2,623.20 to
Dave Parker.
Adopted this 13th day of March, 2006.
_____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No. 7Q
Meeting Date: March 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: Resolution 6775 Approving the 2006 Seasonal
Public Works Positions
Background
On March 26, 2001 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5546 that describes
the procedure for hiring Seasonal Employees. This resolution requires that the
City Council approve all seasonal positions.
Discussion
Annually the City Council has approved the hiring of seasonal Public Works
positions. Resolution No. 5546 requires that approval take place six weeks prior
to actual hire of seasonal employees; therefore, this is typically done in early in
the calendar year.
Seasonal Employees benefit the City by providing labor services that are
relatively less expensive and are available during periods of greater labor
demand. In return, seasonal employees benefit from the skills and work ethics
they learn on the job. As a result, the employees, the City, citizens, and
taxpayers all benefit from this program.
Historically, there have been three time periods throughout the year when the
City Council approves the seasonal positions in the Public Works Department:
Summer (10 positions), Fall (2 positions), and Winter (1 position).
For 2006 Staff is proposing to hire only nine (9) summer seasonal positions. In
lieu of the tenth summer season, Staff is proposing to hire a Public Works intern.
In an effort to better serve the citizens of Mounds View and to meet the goals set
by the City Council Staff recommends this minor shift in the work force. This will
better enable the to administer and assist with activities associated with the
numerous public improvements needed to meet the City’s goals. Staff will be
submitting this proposal at a future date for consideration.
Summer Seasonal Employees – 2006 proposal to hire a total of nine (9)
positions. Duties include general Public Works and parks maintenance duties.
The employees generally are employed for about three months in the summer –
mid-to late-May to mid-to late-August. Typically one Parks Division seasonal
employee begins employment in April.
Fall Seasonal Employee – There are two (2) seasonal position, one (1) in Public
Works Sewer Division, and one (1) in the Parks Division. Historically, summer
positions are extended to cover duties performed in the fall. Staff recommends
these seasonal positions be designated as completely separate positions with
separate contracts. Duties performed by the Public Works Sewer Division
seasonal include working with the two Sanitary Sewer Maintenance employees
and the Surface Water / Storm Sewer Maintenance employee to create two
separate crews of two employees to maximize efficiency.
The duties of the fall seasonal employee in the Parks Division include fall
activities such as leaf clean up and providing assistance to both Public Works
and Parks in year-end maintenance activities. These positions would start
approximately in late August. The Parks Division seasonal employee would work
until the end of November. The Public Works Sewer seasonal employee would
work until the end of December, weather permitting.
Winter Seasonal Employee - This is only one seasonal position and was
previously referred to as the Ice Rink Maintenance position. The main duty of this
position is to service and maintain the City’s ice rinks and warming houses. This
position typically runs from December to February of the following year.
For the 2005 season, the new hires started at the hourly rate of $10.25/hr with
the possibility of advancing to $10.75/hr after one month of satisfactory
performance. Returning seasonal workers were compensated at $11.0-0/hr.
For 2006, Staff is recommending that new hires start at the hourly rate of
$10.50/hr with the possibility of advancing to $11.00/hr after one month of
satisfactory performance. Returning seasonal workers would be compensated at
$11.25/hr. This represents a 2.27% to 2.44% overall increase over previous 2005
rates.
Each summer seasonal employee will work 40 hours per week. The fall seasonal
employee and ice rink employee may also work 40 hours per week: however,
hours may be fewer. All seasonal positions will remain on staff for a period no
longer than six months.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Council approve the 2006 Seasonal Public Works
Positions.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
RESOLUTION 6775
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING THE 2006 SEASONAL PUBLIC WORKS POSITIONS
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 5546 requires that seasonal positions must be
approved by the Mounds View City Council; and
WHEREAS, Seasonal Employees benefit the City by providing labor
services that are relatively less expensive and are available during periods of
greater labor; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View Public Works Department does have
a need to hire seasonal employees; and
WHEREAS, the Public Works Department is recommending that seasonal
positions be approved for three periods throughout 2006; and
WHEREAS, said periods are: Summer, Fall, and Winter; and
WHEREAS, this resolution is consistent with the requirements in
Resolution No. 5546; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
1. The 2006 Summer Seasonal Public Works Positions are approved
– a total of nine (9) positions. These positions would start in
approximately mid-to late-May 2006 and terminate in mid-to late-
August 2006. However, one Parks Division seasonal employee
typically begins employment in April
2. The 2006 Fall Seasonal Public Works Positions are approved - a
total of two (2) positions. One position in the Public Works Sewer
Division and the other in the Parks Division of Public Works. These
positions would start approximately in mid to late August 2006. The
Parks Division seasonal employee would work until the end of
November. The Public Works Sewer seasonal employee would
work until the end of December, weather permitting.
3. The 2006 Winter Seasonal Public Works Position is approved - a
total of one (1) position. This position would start approximately in
early December 2006 and terminate near the end of February
2007.
4. All Public Works seasonal positions will be filled, with new hires
starting at the hourly rate of $10.50/hr with the possibility of
advancing to $11.00/hr after one month of satisfactory
performance. Returning seasonal workers will be compensated at
rate of $11.25/hr.
5. Each position will work forty (40) hours per week; however the Fall
and Winter positions may work less than forty (40) hours per week.
6. All Public Works seasonal positions will remain on staff for a period
no longer than six months.
Adopted this 13th day of March 2006.
(ATTEST) ____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
(SEAL)
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(
Item No. 7R
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 No. 6776 Approving execution of a
supplemental letter of agreement with Short, Elliott,
Hendrickson Inc. for Community Center Project
Meeting Date: March 13, 2006
Background:
At the March 6, 2006 Council work session, it was the Council consensus to
proceed with the recommendations of the Mounds View Community Center Task
Force to hire a design professional to provide a review of space utilization and
preliminary cost estimates for the recommended remodeling options.
The Task Force had the following recommendations listed in their final report to
the Council:
1. It is recommended that additional construction to accommodate the expansion of the
church and the catering operation not be pursued
2. It is recommended that the MVCC be operated in a fiscally responsible manner with a
goal to have the Community Center be at least 50% self sufficient through memberships
or user fees, and the balance to be supported by the City if necessary.
3. The MVCC facilities should be modified in the following areas:
A. Option A: convert a portion of the banquet center into a fitness area with aerobic
equipment, weight machines, free weights and aerobic dance studio.
Option B: convert the current game table/vending area into the fitness area. The
wood floor of the banquet center would still be used for programming.
B. Relocate current vending machines to conference room “D”.
C. Improve lounge are by gym to include wi-fi access and additional lounge furniture.
D. Convert former exercise room into a “Quiet Room.”
E. Move all children’s activities to the former large community education room.
F. Provide a children’s play area in the current lobby
4. Membership/Rate Structure:
Daily Quarterly Annual
Res. Non-
Res Adult $4
$7
Youth $3
Seniors $3
Res. Non
Res.
Single $95 $110
Senior $115 $130
Res. Non
Res.
Single $165
$180
Senior $110
$150
Family $235
$250
- punch cards should be continued
- it is recommended that the City review its room rental rate schedule and revise
as appropriate
5. Marketing:
A. a marketing plan is recommended for adoption
B. an allocation of $2500 for the first year marketing budget is
recommended
C. it is recommended that the new City Communications Coordinator
work with the YMCA to implement the marketing plan
6. Management/Operation:
It is recommended that the City retain a single source of contact for the MVCC
management and negotiate with the YMCA as the preferred contractor for these services.
7. It is recommended that the YMCA Advisory Committee be directed to develop a five-year
plan for the Community Center.
8. It is recommended that the City Council begin implementation of the task force
recommendations by hiring a design professional to conduct a space design and cost
estimate for the recommended modifications and option.
Discussion:
Based upon the recommendations of the Task Force, Short, Elliott, Hendrickson,
Inc. (SEH), has developed a proposal to extend our existing architectural contract
to cover the desired work. SEH has performed well on the City Hall project and
they are familiar with the Community Center and City budget expectations. Also
SEH is well qualified in that they have extensive experience in the area of
community and recreation center projects. Extending the existing contract with
this firm also allows the project to proceed in a timely manor.
An alternative for the City is to solicit proposals for the work from other firms. If
additional proposals are desired, the project will be delayed a minimum of two
weeks to allow other quotes for professional services to be secured. The
advantage of seeking additional proposals is that it would allow the City to
choose between competing firms.
Attached is a proposal from Short, Elliott, Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH) in regard to
services that they could offer the City for the Community Center project.
The cost of the proposed services is estimated to be $9,500. As currently
proposed, this project would be funded utilizing the Special Project Fund. Staff
has reviewed the agreement and found it to be acceptable. It should be noted
that these services will be billed monthly based on an hourly rate and will be
reviewed by Staff prior to authorization of payment. Should the City Council wish
to proceed with this project, Staff recommends that this document be executed.
Recommendation:
It is recommended the City Council adopt a Resolution 6776 approving the
execution of a supplemental letter of agreement with Short, Elliott, Hendrickson
Inc., and authorizing the services in regard to space utilization and preliminary
cost estimates for the recommended remodeling options for the Community
Center.
RESOLUTION NO. 6776
APPROVE EXECUTION OF SUPPLEMENTAL LETTER OF AGREEMENT
WITH SHORT, ELLIOTT, HENDRICKSON INC., AND AUTHORIZE SERVICES
IN REGARD TO SPACE UTILIZATION AND PRELIMINARY COST
ESTIMATES FOR THE MOUNDS VIEW COMMUNITY CENTER REMODELING
PROJECT
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Community Center Task Force has
Staff has recognized and recommended to the City Council to consider
improvements to the Community Center; and
WHEREAS, on March 6, 2006, it was the consensus of the City
Council to consider action that would be consistent with the recommendations of
the Task Force, and
WHEREAS, on March 8, 2006, the City’s engineering and
architectural firm of Short, Elliott, Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH) submitted a
Supplemental Letter of Agreement along with a list of the scope of work to be
provided; and
WHEREAS, the cost of the proposed services is estimated to be
$9,500; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
1. The Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized to execute
said Supplemental Letter Agreement.
2. That the architectural services in regard to space utilization and
preliminary cost estimates for the recommended remodeling
options for the Community Center are hereby authorized.
Adopted this 27th day of January 2003.
______________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
(ATTEST)
_______________________________
Kurt Ulrich
City Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No. 07S
Type of Business: CB
Meeting Date: March 13, 2006
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution No. 6777 Approving the Amended
Banquet Center Management, Catering and Food
Service Agreement with Canyon Catering
beginning April 1, 2006
Meeting Date: March 13, 2006
Background:
Recently, the Mounds View Community Center Task Force recommended to the
Council that the City pursue an alternate management structure for the
Community Center that does not rely on a long-term lease of the Community
Center banquet facility. The Task Force recommendation was forwarded as a
result of a study that was commenced when the current caterer served a
termination notice to the City indicating that they are unable to operate the center
at a profit under the previous rent level of $5,000 per month. Notably, the caterer
has been allowed to operate the facility free of rent while the City occupied space
during the City Hall remodeling over the past six months.
It was on November 1, 2004 that the City entered into an agreement with Canyon
Catering, LLC. of Coon Rapids as the manager of the Mounds View Banquet
Center. Canyon Catering, has been leasing 11,537 sq. ft. of space in the M.V.
Community Center. This includes the Ballroom, the former Community
Education area, storage space and related hallways.
The attached Agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney and is currently
being reviewed by Canyon Catering.
Under the negotiated agreement Canyon Catering will make a monthly payment
of $2,000, under a 30-day, automatically renewing lease, which has a 30-day
termination notice provision. Under this agreement, the church will continue to
sublet directly from Canyon Catering.
During the term of the original agreement, Canyon Catering invested
approximately $14,000 in kitchen equipment. Additionally, property taxes for the
entire Banquet Area will be paid by Canyon Catering amounting to $973 per
month. The facility would go tax-exempt again on January 1, 2007 under the
Community Center Task Force proposal.
Language has been added that addresses future bookings, so that the City is
able to be flexible as it studies plans to remodel and adjust the management of
the Community Center pursuant to the recommendations of the Task Force.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Mounds View City Council adopt Resolution 6777
approving the Amended Banquet Center Management, Catering and Food
Service Agreement with Canyon Catering beginning April 1, 2006. If significant
issues remain as of Monday, this item may be tabled until the regular meeting of
March 27th if necessary.
CITY RESOLUTION NO. 6777
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING THE AMENDED BANQUET CENTER MANAGEMENT,
CATERING AND FOOD SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH CANYON CATERING
BEGINNING APRIL 1, 2006
WHEREAS, the City is the owner of the Mounds View Community Center
at 5394 Edgewood Drive in the City of Mounds View, and the Mounds View
Banquet Center (MVBC) is located in the M.V. Community Center; and,
WHEREAS, on August 23, 2004 the City of Mounds View selected
Canyon Grille as the new Manager of the MVBC following a Request for
Proposals (RFP) process; and,
WHEREAS, the City seeks to Amend the November 2004 “Banquet
Center Management, Catering and Food Service Agreement” to succeed the
Agreement that expires on April 1, 2006; and,
WHEREAS, Canyon Grille, otherwise known as Canyon Catering, agrees
to lease 11,537 sq. ft. of space in the M.V. Community Center, including the
ballroom, hallways, storage, and bathrooms; and,
WHEREAS, Canyon Catering agrees to pay a monthly lease amount of
$2,000 per month subject to all terms and conditions expressed in the amended
agreement, Appendix A, attached; and,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Mounds View City
Council hereby approve the amended Management, Catering and Food Service
Agreement with Canyon Grille of Coon Rapids, Minnesota, operating as Canyon
Catering, as the next Manager for the Mounds View Banquet Center beginning
April 1, 2006.
Adopted this 13th day of March 2006 by
the City of Mounds View.
________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No: 08A
Meeting Date March 13, 2006
Type of Business: CA
City Administrator Review: ______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Barb Benesch, Administrative Assistant
Item Title/Subject: CONTRACTOR LICENSES FOR APPROVAL
Please consider the following contractor licenses for approval. All contractor licenses will
expire on December 31, 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.
Advance Construction Company Commercial (General) Renewal
Dalco Roofing & Sheet Metal Commercial (General) New
Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested.
Item No: 08B
Meeting Date: March 13, 2006
Type of Business: CA
City Administrator Review: ______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Desaree Crane, Assistant to the City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6764 Approving a Permit Application for Twin
Cities North Chamber of Commerce, a Charitable
Organization to conduct Charitable Gambling at Jake’s
Sports Cafe located in the City of Mounds View
Twin Cities North Chamber of Commerce, a non-profit charitable organization,
would like to continue hold charitable gambling on a permanent basis at Jake’s
Sports Cafe located in the City of Mounds View. Their gambling permit is up for
renewal this year.
Twin Cities North Chamber of Commerce is located in Mounds View, and they
have more than 30 active members. This meets the requirements of the Mounds
View City Code. A list of current member is on file with the City.
The Gambling Control Board requires that local unit of government (city or county),
pass a resolution specifically approving or denying the Premises Permit
Application. This resolution (approving or denying the application) must be voted
on and the resolution forwarded to the Minnesota Gambling Control Board.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of Premise Permit to permit Charitable Gambling for
Twin Cities North Chamber of Commerce, at the location stated above.
Respectfully Submitted,
Desaree M. Crane
RESOLUTION NO. 6764
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING A PERMIT APPLICATION FOR TWIN CITIES NORTH
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, A CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION TO CONDUCT
CHARITABLE GAMBLING AT JAKE’S SPORTS CAFÉ
LOCATED AT 2400 HIGHWAY 10
WHEREAS, Twin Cities North Chamber of Commerce, has requested that
Council allow them to continue to conduct charitable gambling at Jake’s Sports
Cafe; and
WHEREAS, the Gambling Control Board requires that the local unit of
government (city or county) pass a resolution specifically approving or denying
requests to conduct charitable gambling; and
WHEREAS, Twin Cities North Chamber of Commerce, is in compliance
with all requirements of the Mounds View Municipal Code with regard to
charitable gambling regulations; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City of Mounds View to assist in the
economic prosperity of local business owners.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City
Council does hereby authorize Twin Cities North Chamber of Commerce, to
conduct charitable gambling at Jake’s Sports Cafe.
Adopted this 13th day of March, 2006.
_______________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No. 8C
Meeting Date: March 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 6766 Replacement of Asphalt Cold
Planer
Background:
In 1992, the City purchased a Dig Tec Cold Planer (AP 400 Series #2). This
piece of equipment attaches to a skidloader and is used for grinding asphalt to a
depth that is desired for making a patch with out disturbing the base material if so
desired.
Discussion:
The aforementioned piece of equipment is no longer being manufactured;
therefore, parts are not available. This piece of equipment has been in service for
14 years. Staff has had to make numerous repairs to keep it functional for the
past few years.
Staff has investigated three (3) other brands that are on the market to replace it.
Staff contacted Carlson Tractor and Equipment Company; The City’s current cold
asphalt planer, the Dig Tec Cold Planer (AP 400 #2), was purchased from them
originally in 1992.
Carlson Tractor and Equipment Company currently has two brands of asphalt
cold planers available: 1.) the Alitec (Model CP18 ATD) at a price of $11,789.00;
and 2.) the Coneqtec (Model AP-450111) at a price of $12,460.00. No trade-in
value was offered.
Tri- State Bobcat, Incorporated has the Bobcat Asphalt Cold Planer at a state bid
price of $9,334.00. A $1,000.00 trade-in value was also offered for the City’s
current planer. After researching the three asphalt cold planers that are available,
the Bobcat Cold Planer is recommended by Staff due to pricing and because it is
most compatible with the piece of equipment that is used to operate this unit. The
City of Mounds View has two Bobcat skidloaders for operating this unit.
The Bobcat Cold Planer can be purchased under state contract, foregoing the
requirement of acquiring addition bids. A Bobcat Cold Planer can be purchased
from Tri-State Bobcat, Incorporated under state contract for $9,334.00, with a
$1,000.00 trade-in value. A Steel Surcharge of $233.35 plus tax, represents an
additional cost of $556.88
A summary of the proposed Cold Planer replacement is as follows:
• Bobcat Cold Planer $ 9,334.00
• Trade-in -$ 1,000.00
• Steel Surcharge $ 233.35
• Subtotal $8,567.35
• Tax $ 556.88
______________
Total $9,124.23
The 2006 General Fund, Pavement Management, Account (100-4470-7030) has
$10,000.00 budgeted for this purchase.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the purchase of a Bobcat
Asphalt Cold Planer under state contract and award a contract to Tri-State
Bobcat, Incorporated in the amount of $10,124.23 for the purchase of this Cold
Planer, including a steel surcharge and tax.
Finally, Staff recommends that the City Council approve the trade-in of the 1992
Dig Tec Cold Planer (AP 400 Series 2) at an amount of $1,000.00. Including the
trade-in, this represents a final net City cost of $9,124.23 to replace the asphalt
cold planer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Tim Pittman, Public Works Supervisor
RESOLUTION 6766
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF A REPLACEMENT ASPHALT COLD
PLANER
WHEREAS, the City Council previously approved the purchase of an
asphalt cold planer; and
WHEREAS, said asphalt cold planer has been in use for fourteen years
and is scheduled for replacement; and
WHEREAS, said cold planer can be replaced with a similar specification;
and
WHEREAS, a Bobcat Cold Planer can be purchased from Tri-State
Bobcat, Incorporated under state contract for $9,334.00; steel surcharge and tax
would cost an additional $790.23; and
WHEREAS, the existing Dig Tec Cold Planer (AP 400 Series 2) retains a
salvage / trade-in value of $1000.00; and
WHEREAS, the 2006 General Fund, Pavement Management Account
(100-4470-7030) has $10,000.00 budgeted for this 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 Bobcat Asphalt Cold Planer under state contract is
herby approved.
2. A contract to Tri-State Bobcat in the amount of $10,124.23 for the
purchase of said planer, including a steel surcharge and tax is awarded.
3. The trade-in of The City’s current cold asphalt planer, the Dig Tec Cold
Planer (AP 400 #2), to Tri-State Bobcat at a credited value of $1,000.00 is
hereby approved.
4. Including surcharges and tax, this represents a final net City cost of
$9,124.23 to replace the 1992 Dig Tec Cold Planer (AP 400 Series 2).
Adopted this 13th day of March 2006.
(ATTEST) ____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
(SEAL)
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item No. 8E
Meeting Date: March 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 6778 Revising the Funding for the
Random Park Building Replacement Project
Background:
On December 12, 205 the City Council approved Resolution 6700 waiving the
public improvement hearing, holding a public information meeting, ordering the
project, approving a contract to demolish the existing building at Random Park,
and authorizing the preparation of plans and specifications for the Random Park
Building Replacement Project.
Paragraph 7, of Resolution 6700, also established the funding for this project.
The financing for this project is as follows: all tax increment eligible
expenses will be financed utilizing the City’s Tax Increment Fund (TIF). All
remaining expenses are to be financed using an even split (50/50)
between the Park Dedication Account and the Special Project Fund.
Discussion:
On March 6, 2006 the Parks and Recreation and Forestry Commission discussed
the funding for the Random Park Building Replacement Project with the City
Council. Based on these discussions, the City Council indicated that they would
be agreeable to revising the funding from a 50/50 slip between the Park
Dedication Fund and the Special Project Fund to a 60/40 split with Special
Project Fund contributing 60% and the Park Dedication Fund contributing 40%.
Recommendation:
It is recommended the City Council adopt a resolution revising the funding for the
Random Park Building Replacement Project to a 60/40 split with Special Project
Fund contributing 60% and the Park Dedication Fund contributing 40%.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
RESOLUTION 6778
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
REVISING THE FUNDING FOR THE RANDOM PARK BUILDING
REPLACEMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, on December 12, 205 the City Council approved
Resolution 6700, which established the funding for the Random Park Building
Replacement Project; and
WHEREAS, on March 6, 2006 the Parks and Recreation and
Forestry Commission discussed the funding for said project with the City Council
and based on these discussions, the City Council indicated that they would be
agreeable to revising the funding from a 50/50 slip between the Park Dedication
Fund and the Special Project Fund to a 60/40 split with Special Project Fund
contributing 60% and the Park Dedication Fund contributing 40%.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
1. The financing for the Random Park Building Replacement Project is
as follows: all tax increment eligible expenses will be financed
utilizing the City’s Tax Increment Fund (TIF). All remaining
expenses are to be financed using a 60/40 split, with Special
Project Fund contributing 60% and the Park Dedication Fund
contributing 40%.
2. Paragraph 7, of Resolution 6700, which approved an even split
(50/50) between the Park Dedication Account and the Special
Project Fund for this project is hereby rescinded.
Adopted this 13th day of March 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
February 27, 2006 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: 18
19
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 20
21
A. Monday, February 27, 2006 City Council Agenda 22
23
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/FLAHERTY. To Approve the Monday, February 27, 2006 24
agenda as presented. 25
26
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 27
28
5. PUBLIC INPUT 29
30
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated many give advice but only the wise prophet from it. 31
32
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUISNESS 33
34
A. Resolution 6720, a Resolution of Appreciation for Frank Silvis of the Park 35
and Recreation Commission for 25 Years of Service. 36
37
MOTION/SECOND: MARTY/FLAHERTY. To Approve Resolution 6720, a Resolution of 38
Appreciation for Frank Silvis of the Park and Recreation Commission for 25 Years of Service. 39
40
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 41
Mounds View City Council February 27, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 2
1
2
Mayor Marty presented Mr. Frank Silvis with a plaque of Resolution 6720 from the City of 3
Mounds View in the County of Ramsey in the State of Minnesota. Mayor Marty read the 4
Resolution to Mr. Silvis. 5
6
Mr. Silvis stated he would add the plaque to his other awards. 7
8
Mayor Marty stated he had no idea Mr. Silvis had been serving the City this long, and with the 9
exception of a few City employees, he believes he may be the longest volunteer in this City. 10
11
Mr. Silvis stated he has been diagnosed with cancer and that is one reason why he did not renew 12
his volunteer status. He stated it has been fun, exciting and rewarding and thanked the City for 13
the award. 14
15
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS 16
17
A. 7:05 p.m. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6734 Approving 18
an Amendment to the Belting Office PUD. 19
20
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. 21
22
Community Development Director Ericson explained the City Council approved a Resolution 23
which approved a single story, 8,300 square foot development for Dr. Greg Belting. He stated 24
the resolution of approval identified a condition of cross access shared parking with Walgreens 25
that has been difficult to overcome. He stated Dr. Belting attempted to secure such an 26
arrangement, but the owner of site would not consent to anything in writing. He stated the 27
management at the Walgreens store stated that off the record, they would not have a problem 28
with cars parking in the site. 29
30
Director Ericson explained that the Belting site plans show 43 parking stalls and that would be 31
seven short from what is required of code. He stated because it is a PUD, there is some 32
flexibility allowed for parking and there was intent to have a shared parking arrangement in this 33
development. He explained the PUD originally called for 43 stalls which is provided. Director 34
Ericson pointed out that Dr. Belting has provided a site plan complying with the PUD document 35
for the site. He commented that the original use for the site is a restaurant, and the office 36
building will have much less parking demand. He stated that the parking provided as shown in 37
the site plan will be sufficient. 38
39
Director Ericson stated this item was brought to the Planning Commission, where approval of the 40
43 parking stalls was recommended. He commented the parking ratio is one stall per 200 square 41
feet of space. 42
43
Director Ericson offered to answer questions and mentioned Dr. Belting and his brother Tom 44
Belting are present to answer any questions. 45
Mounds View City Council February 27, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 3
1
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. 2
3
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/STIGNEY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6734 4
Approving an Amendment to the Belting Office PUD. 5
6
Councilmember Thomas stated she is in favor of going ahead with the site; however, she stated 7
she had some frustrations as to what will happen in the future because nothing is recommended. 8
She stated the Council is well aware of what has happened in strictly office facilities where the 9
parking has become a problem when users change. She stated that applying a variance here that 10
allows no flexibility in the future is a problem, and is not addressed with this situation. She 11
commented that the variance does not help if it is a problem in future, and thought the City had 12
discussed having that exploration taken place. She stressed she does not expect the Belting site 13
to have a problem, but the future use could be a problem. 14
15
Councilmember Flaherty echoed Councilmember Thomas’ comments, and does not believe there 16
will be an issue with the Belting site, but questions the future. He stated he would like to see the 17
Resolution tied to ownership to Dr. Belting specific, and the issue could be readdressed if there is 18
a change of ownership in the future. 19
20
Director Ericson stated the Council and Staff certainly would recommend this, but the Council 21
has the ability to bring back for consideration any conditional use permit or PUD if there is 22
something that is not functioning the way it should. Director Ericson stated the situation will be 23
monitored over time, and since the City’s property is adjacent to the north, the City will be 24
paying attention to any parking problems, as would Walgreens. He stressed the City is 25
adequately protected and can bring back the Resolution at any point if there are problems. 26
27
Councilmember Thomas stated she would be comfortable if there was an amendment to the 28
language that provides a clear statement that approval is contingent should there be any issue in 29
the future with inadequate parking regardless of owner. 30
31
Councilmember Thomas offered a friendly amendment to add language indicating: “the PUD 32
approval is contingent should there be any issue in the future with inadequate parking regardless 33
of owner.” 34
35
Councilmembers Gunn and Stigney accepted this friendly amendment. 36
37
Councilmember Stigney asked City Attorney Riggs if this amendment could be added. City 38
Attorney Riggs responded that Councilmember Thomas’ comments could be put into the words 39
of the Resolution. 40
41
Councilmember Thomas asked if this amendment would be attached to the PUD variance 42
approval. City Attorney Riggs stated it is and would be able to be revisited if the condition is not 43
satisfied. 44
45
Mounds View City Council February 27, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 4
Councilmember Gunn stated because of the parking restrictions, any business that comes into 1
this building will look at parking options. She commented she does not think there will be any 2
tenants that will need 50 parking spots. She stated she was not too concerned about cutting down 3
the parking to 43 stalls. 4
5
Mayor Marty stated he was also not that concerned, as there are additional unused parking spaces 6
around the immediate area. He commented in one previous situation, the user of the building 7
changed from the original plans, and it has been a parking issue ever since. He stated there have 8
been complaints from residents on the street that people were parking in front of their homes and 9
“no parking” signs had to be put up. 10
11
Director Ericson suggested a language change to the Resolution that would state “…subject to 12
Council reconsideration if parking becomes an issue at any point in the future.” 13
14
Councilmember Thomas stressed that this does not have anything to do with the current owners, 15
but for future owners only. 16
17
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 18
19
B. 7:10 p.m. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6748 Approving a 20
Preliminary Plat for the Hidden Hollow South Major Subdivision at 3049 21
Wooddale Drive. 22
23
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. 24
25
Planning Associate Heller explained this Resolution is for approval of a preliminary plat for a 26
proposed major subdivision, Hidden Hollows South, located at 3049 Wooddale Drive. She 27
stated that the applicant, Dan Saplis, is proposing to create six buildable lots from the existing 28
two lots. She explained the property is on the western edge of the City, and the site is currently 29
zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and the subdivision would remain zoned R-1 with six 30
family homes. She noted the proposal meets the minimum requirements for lot size. She stated 31
R-1 zoning is consistent with the Comp Plan. 32
33
Planning Associate Heller stated in regard to the local water management plan, the project is 34
located in the Spring Creek 4 sub-watershed, and they are recommending a minimum elevation 35
above the City’s recommendation. 36
37
Planning Associate Heller noted in regard to the drainage plan, there have been some issues over 38
the years because fill was brought in to the lot for several years, which caused the level of the lot 39
to be much higher than the surrounding properties. She explained this caused drainage in 40
neighbors’ rear yards. She stated this new development would bring down the lot to be more 41
consistent with the rest of the lots. She referenced the proposed pond on the development, and 42
stated it will be the same level as the neighboring property to east, and this should help with 43
drainage issues. She stated drainage will work together with Hidden Hollow on the north end, 44
instead of a separate drain for each development, and that hopefully this will solve the problems 45
Mounds View City Council February 27, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 5
for all parties involved. 1
2
Planning Associate Heller explained that easements have been dedicated along the street, and 3
before the final plat approval, easements will need to be dedicated for access to the pond area 4
from the street to maintain the pond. She commented Public Works widened the streets per Staff 5
recommendation to allow for street parking. She explained the street was widened from 24 feet 6
to 34 feet, and the cul-de-sac was widened from 45 to 47 feet. Planning Associate Heller 7
explained that the cul-de-sac is not located as far north. She explained that by moving the street 8
farther south, this will help one of the homes to be located farther from the wetland area. 9
10
Planning Associate Heller explained there are park dedication fees required with this project 11
since there are six new homes to be built. She stated the fee is based on 10 percent of the land 12
value. She mentioned utilities already exist on the site which is why the developer has decided to 13
put the street on the western boundary. She commented traffic should not be increased too much 14
because there are only six homes proposed. She explained at an average of 10 vehicle trips per 15
day per home, there would be 60 extra movements on Wooddale Drive. 16
17
Planning Associate Heller stated there is not a lot of quality vegetation on the site, and Staff 18
recommends to save as many fir trees as possible. She stated there are no wetlands on the site 19
according to the City, but there is one according to Rice Creek Watershed District. She 20
commented that hopefully it will not have to be filled in. She commented the drainage will run 21
into the wetland for one lot and the rest of lots will run into the pond area which is more of a 22
basin at this point. 23
24
Planning Associate Heller explained there were five soil test borings put down on the site, and 25
fill was encountered at the surface of all borings. She stated the quality of the fill brought in has 26
been in question, and some of it will need to be removed and replaced with better quality fill as 27
the development happens. She stated it would help the neighborhood when the site gets leveled 28
off. 29
30
Planning Associate Heller stated there were neighborhood discussions prior to the Planning 31
Commission meeting, and commented that the main concern was drainage issues. 32
33
Planning Associate Heller stated Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of this 34
Resolution. 35
36
Mayor M arty opened the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. 37
38
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. 39
40
Councilmember Stigney asked if the neighborhood issues have been addressed. Planning 41
Associate Heller commented that the applicant talked to some of the neighbors, and once 42
residents realized that the new homes would not be put on the current fill, and the drainage would 43
be consolidated between the original Hidden Hollow development and this new development, the 44
neighbors felt more comfortable that the problems will be corrected. 45
Mounds View City Council February 27, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 6
1
Planning Associate Heller mentioned the applicant and builder are present to answer any 2
questions. 3
4
Mayor Marty stated he has been hearing from different residents in the area for a number of years 5
about the quality of fill and the construction debris, including concrete and asphalt, that was 6
initially put own. He commented a few years ago, some of the spoils from the street projects 7
were put in and built up. He stated he has received resident concerns about the amount of fill 8
from street projects. He commented the fill level has been built up high and asked if it is going 9
to be brought down, and if the pond will be relatively level with the existing yards. 10
11
Planning Associate Heller responded that the pond will be at same level with the neighboring 12
property. She stated at the edge it will be the same level within a couple of inches. 13
14
Mayor Marty stated on the soil borings, it was noted that the fill thickness varied from five to ten 15
feet. He stated it seems the area has been overfilled and there is not much topsoil either. He 16
asked if all this is going to be addressed. 17
18
Planning Associate Heller stated it will, and the soil boring picture shows not high quality fill, so 19
some things will have to be removed by the developer. 20
21
Mayor Marty referenced the Resolution where it states the applicant should take all steps to save 22
any significant trees during construction, and commented it seems like a lot of the trees are scrub 23
trees. He asked if there is any way the City Forester can try to mark the trees that are worth 24
saving. He stated he has seen in past with different developments where similar language is put 25
into the Resolution and the construction company cuts down all the trees. He stated that 26
replacing a 10-15 year old tree with a two to four inch tree is losing a lot of tree. He asked if the 27
City Forester could work with the developer to see if there are any good trees to work around. 28
29
Mayor Marty stated he wanted to confirm that all residents’ concerns were addressed. 30
31
Planning Associate Heller stated she and the developer have talked to several residents on many 32
occasions, and stressed that drainage was the major concern. She stated residents have been 33
satisfied once they realize the pond will be on the same level as the other yards, and that the City 34
will address the ponding in the whole area, drainage and wetlands. She added the drainage issues 35
in the past have not affected any homes, but only the back halves of yards. 36
37
Councilmember Flaherty expressed his gratitude to the Planning Commission for getting all of 38
the information required. He asked if the developer is going to pursue the connection of the 39
walkway. 40
41
Planning Associate Heller stated the developer has not done anything with it at this point. She 42
stated it would be a nice connection to County Road H2. 43
44
Mayor Marty stated there is an access road built on the west side of Hidden Hollow, and he 45
Mounds View City Council February 27, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 7
would like to see the walkway be incorporated in this project. 1
2
Director Ericson stated it is a great idea to tie in projects to the existing trail system, and if the 3
Council is interested is expanding the trail system to include a linkage to County Road H2 south 4
to the development, he would like to have Director of Public Works Lee comment on that. He 5
stated he does believe the builder for Hidden Hollow to the north had some issues with providing 6
a trail there that they did not support. He stated maybe there could be some discussion, but 7
would rather not tie it to this resolution. 8
9
Mayor Marty asked Director of Public Works Lee if he could look into that, as it would be an 10
amenity for the neighborhoods in the area. He recalled somewhat of a discussion in the past that 11
the developer did not want people traipsing around their neighborhood. He stated in the City’s 12
experience, trailways will be used if they are built. 13
14
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/GUNN. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6748 15
Approving a Preliminary Plat for the Hidden Hollow South Major Subdivision at 3049 Wooddale 16
Drive. 17
18
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 19
20
C. 7:15 p.m. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6756 Approving 21
the Feasibility Report, Ordering the Project, Authorizing Plan and 22
Specifications, Authorizing Easement Preparation Activities for the Silver 23
Lake Road Sidewalk Improvement Project. 24
25
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:39 p.m. 26
27
Director of Public Works Lee explained the need for a pedestrian walkway along Silver Lake 28
Road was identified many years ago and included in the Comp Plan of the City. He stated the 29
need was amplified a couple of years ago when the school district changed the bussing policy and 30
required students to walk to school if they lived within two miles of the school. He stated the 31
Council authorized a report to look into the feasibility for putting in a sidewalk along Silver Lake 32
Road from County Road H to County Road I. 33
34
Director of Public Works Lee explained the project is to construct a 6 ½ foot wide concrete 35
sidewalk starting from County Road H going north to Silver View Park. He stated there are 36
wetlands along the east side of Silver Lake Road and is proposed to change to a eight foot wide 37
bituminous trailway to go into the park and come back out onto Silver Lake Road and connect at 38
the intersection of County Road I and Silver Lake Road. 39
40
Director of Public Works Lee commented that on the north and south side of this location, there 41
is already a concrete sidewalk on the east side, so it was first looked at the preference being on 42
the east side to keep it contiguous. He explained there are wetlands through the segment between 43
County Road H & County Road H2 which makes it difficult to put in a sidewalk. He stated the 44
feasibility report looked at putting a sidewalk also on the west side from County Road H to 45
Mounds View City Council February 27, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 8
County Road H2. 1
2
Director of Public Works Lee stated the estimated cost to put the sidewalk on the east side of the 3
road is $521,000 or $368,000 on the west side of the road. He stated this does not include any 4
easement or land acquisition that may be needed. He stated the funding source is not identified 5
yet, and pointed out there is a possibility of using TIF, but indicated that Staff is looking for 6
direction from the Council. 7
8
Director of Public Works Lee explained he received 16 letters after the neighborhood 9
informational meeting, with twelve residents in favor of the project, three residents were opposed 10
to the project, and one resident was dependent on the type of project the City goes forward with. 11
He added that nine residents favor the east side while two residents favor the west side. 12
13
Director of Public Works Lee reviewed the tentative schedule of the proposal. He also reviewed 14
the set of issues that Staff is looking for direction on from the Council, which include the 15
sidewalk being on the east side versus the west side for the segment between County Road H and 16
County Road H2, the pathway along the road through the park area that was not studied as part of 17
the feasibility report, the safety and security concerns that may be remedied by adding lighting in 18
the park area, and the sidewalk along the driveway entrance into Silver View Park. 19
20
Director of Public Works Lee presented and reviewed an air photo of the park. 21
22
Director of Public Works Lee explained the five action steps are to approve the feasibility report, 23
hold a public hearing, order the project, order plans and specifications, and authorize the start of 24
easement document preparation. 25
26
Laurie Flygare, 5072 Silver Lake Road, stated that she favors the sidewalk on the east side of 27
Silver Lake Road. She stated she was surprised the time line was expanded and was under the 28
understanding that TIF funds had already been selected for the project, but this does not seem to 29
be accurate. She stated she would like the funding sources to be identified before going forward. 30
31
Ms. Flygare stated she is concerned about parking and would like to know where residents are 32
supposed to park. She commented the road behind is quite dark. She asked where the mailboxes 33
will be. She stated she is concerned about the walkway going through the park area, and 34
commented she would walk on the street if she was forced to walk through the park. She added 35
the Council should address the lighting issue. 36
37
Ms. Flygare suggested the City work out something with Ramsey County in regard to the 38
parking. She commented there were four homes in a row with new driveways within the last 39
year and a half. She stated she was concerned with having the area tore up. She added there was 40
some satisfaction as the contractor told residents they would take good care to replace the 41
concrete with the same or better grade. She asked if there is something that can be done with 42
Ramsey County to give a lane to park on and take a lane going north if the sidewalk is put on the 43
east side. She commented a resident with multiple vehicles may not have enough room to park. 44
45
Mounds View City Council February 27, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 9
President Marty stated he went through the forms that were submitted, and he thinks it is a valid 1
point about parking. He commented the City should probably see how quickly that can be done 2
and talk with Ramsey County to possibly close off a lane for a few days. 3
4
Director of Public Works Lee stated Staff would work with Ramsey County to see what options 5
are available. He added there are a variety of construction techniques that could be used, such as 6
building the sidewalk in sections so it only affects one driveway at a time. 7
8
Brian Amundsen, 3048 Wooddale Drive, stated he lives west of the development, and is very 9
concerned about safety along Silver Lake Road. He suggested contacting the school to see if 10
there are students that need to walk to school, and wondered where they are going to cross. He 11
commented it would be very difficult to cross at Woodcrest or Wooddale because they are not 12
striped crossings, so people have to go south to County Road H or up to County Road H2 on 13
Knollwood. He stated for students moving west to east, they are going to hit Silver Lake Road 14
and want to go to the sidewalk on the east side. He stated it is a question that could be easily 15
answered by contacting the school district to find out how many students there are and their ages 16
to determine whether or not there is a sidewalk issue for students. 17
18
Mr. Amundsen wondered if the sidewalk is constructed on the east side, and if there is a potential 19
development north of Woodcrest Park. He wondered if that land is already easement land. He 20
noted the feasibility study talked about filling the ditch and creating a new ditch beyond that, 21
which encroaches more on that property. He stated he assumed that there would be significant 22
costs with acquisition of land from the developer that wants to fill in wetlands. 23
24
Mr. Amundsen asked if the Council had any feedback from the Parks & Recreation Commission 25
regarding the utilization and the future of Woodcrest Park itself. He stated a number of years 26
ago, some of the park was turned back into wetland. He stated the feasibility report discussed 27
turning more of the park into wetland and eventually eliminating Woodcrest Park. 28
29
Mr. Amundsen added his wife supports the sidewalk on the east side so it is one continuous path 30
from County Road H to County Road I. He stated there are lots of facts and details to look into 31
to support a specific plan. He asked if what is being approved tonight has to be east or west and 32
if it is the final answer or if there will be a future opportunity to hear what will be found as a 33
result of the information gathering. 34
35
Mayor Marty stated he has contacted Paul Good at Sunnyside School in the past to get some of 36
the data. He stated he has been trying to get the stop light at County Road H and Silver Lake 37
Road put in and a there is a sidewalk or trailway on the north side of County Road H. He stated 38
that he would encourage children to go south on the street to join up with the trailway on County 39
Road H. He commented that hopefully there will be a signal at County Road H and Silver Lake 40
Road to make it a controlled intersection and a safer crossing all around. 41
42
Mayor Marty stated the developer north of Woodcrest Park has received approval, but has not 43
come in for permits. 44
45
Mounds View City Council February 27, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 10
Mayor Marty stated in regard to the funding source, the Council has talked about it in the past 1
and does not want an assessment to residents and property owners. He added the Council had 2
talked about funding it entirely with TIF. 3
4
Mayor Marty stated in regard to water retention at Woodcrest Park, there was not have ponding a 5
number of years ago, and the park buildings were always sinking. He commented that it was 6
determined that the piece of property was unusable for any type of structure, and that is why it 7
was converted to a wetland area. Mayor Marty stated by doing so, this created more wetland 8
than what was there, so the City would be given some credits for the wetlands. He stated with 9
the creation of the sidewalk, it is assumed the City would have enough wetland credits so that 10
there would not have to be any additional digging. He stated the City does not plan on building a 11
bigger pond or anything of that sort. 12
13
Councilmember Flaherty stated his initial thought was to put the sidewalk on the east side as a 14
continuation of the existing sidewalks. He stated he did not know if kids will cross to the west 15
side to continue to use the trail or just go down the street. He stated he lives around the area and 16
does see a lot of children on Silver Lake Road and it really is a safety issue. 17
18
Councilmember Flaherty stated he does agree with Ms. Flygare in regard to the safety of walking 19
through the park. He stated it looks nice to go through the wooded areas, but he has concern with 20
people walking into woods. He stated he prefers to continue down Silver Lake Road and pick up 21
County Road I along the sidewalk. 22
23
Director of Public Works Lee stated it is a possibility to keep the sidewalk on the east side of 24
Silver Lake Road. He stated it would probably cost an additional $250,000 more to put the 25
sidewalk through that segment and adjacent to County Road I. 26
27
Councilmember Thomas stated the park closes at 10 p.m. so there is no one there and lights 28
would not help, so she is concerned with residents going through the park. She stated she is 29
leaning more towards the east side. She stated she does not think that any trailways should be 30
discussed without talking about striping the crosswalks. She stated it does not really matter what 31
side it is going to be put on, people are going to be crossing the street. 32
33
Councilmember Gunn stated she also has concerns about residents walking through the park, as 34
there have been some problems with kids and adults hanging out in the woods at night. She 35
asked Police Chief Sommer for his opinion of having the trailway through the woods. 36
37
Police Chief Sommer stated he agrees with the concerns, although it is the perception versus the 38
reality of running into problems. He commented people do have that perception, so it is a valid 39
concern. 40
41
Director of Public Works Lee stated there currently is a trailway system that runs through 42
Silverview Park. 43
44
Councilmember Stigney stated that if there is a sidewalk, he would not want to detour and go 45
Mounds View City Council February 27, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 11
through the park to get to where he is going. He commented this is impractical, and if there is a 1
sidewalk, it should go straight down the road. 2
3
Councilmember Flaherty stated that he is anxious to get the project going, and suggested the 4
sidewalk between County Road H and County Road I be tabled so that a plan can get going. 5
6
Director of Public Works Lee stated the schedule for the project is tight, and if the Council wants 7
to look into a sidewalk adjacent to the road south of County Road I, the plans and specifications 8
can be ordered for the sidewalk south of County Road H2. He stated the consultant can add it on 9
to the feasibility report and both segments could be worked on together so there is no time lost. 10
11
Mayor Marty stated he received a resident e-mail to keep the sidewalk on the same side. He 12
commented the resident thought that the trail was not done well by Lexington Avenue and there 13
is no continuity. He stated another resident was concerned about a decrease in property value. 14
Mayor Marty commented it seems like the sidewalk would increase the property value because 15
the area is made more accessible and more of an amenity. 16
17
Mayor Marty stated that many residents want a sidewalk because Silver Lake Road is not safe 18
and not a pedestrian friendly road. He stated the Council had discussions regarding a walkway or 19
trailway along Silver Lake Road and had promised it back in Fall 1994, which was twelve years 20
ago. Mayor Marty stressed a sidewalk is needed to provide public safety and an access point for 21
residents. 22
23
Councilmember Thomas questioned the driveway and yard sloping issues with retaining walls 24
and asked how many residents would have this issue. 25
26
Director of Public Works Lee stated as part of putting together the plans and specifications, it 27
will provide what the impact on the properties will be. He stated the details will be forthcoming, 28
and Staff can work with the property owners at the time when the plans and specifications being 29
put together. 30
31
Councilmember Thomas asked if there are any approximations as to how many homes would be 32
affected. 33
34
Director of Public Works Lee stated assumptions were built into the feasibility study in terms of 35
what to do with the slopes. He stated it was taken into account but the exact magnitude is 36
unknown. 37
38
Councilmember Thomas stated what is not in the report is how many assumptions were done for 39
east versus west for homes. She stated she is concerned about the impacts on each homeowner. 40
41
Director of Public Works Lee stated it has been done for both the east and west sides, but exact 42
detail for each home is not known. 43
44
Mayor Marty commented there are some mature trees and wondered if the sidewalk could 45
Mounds View City Council February 27, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 12
meander around them, but it could be more of an adverse affect for the homeowners. He 1
suggested the City could try and work out a way if a tree has to be taken out by perhaps replacing 2
it with two to three other trees to create a screening area if the property owners wanted. 3
4
Councilmember Gunn asked what would happen if the property owner wanted to save their trees 5
and is willing to have the sidewalk go around it. 6
7
Director of Public Works Lee replied it is a possibility, but with the slopes in certain areas and 8
the farther away from the road the sidewalk is, there will be more of an impact to the front yards. 9
He commented the City has been successful with past projects, and will work closely with 10
property owners with this project to meet both the needs and expectations of the property owners 11
as well as the needs of the City in the future. 12
13
MOTION/SECOND: MARTY/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6756 14
Approving the Feasibility Report, Ordering the Project, Authorizing Plan and Specifications, 15
Authorizing Easement Preparation Activities for the Silver Lake Road Sidewalk Improvement 16
Project. 17
18
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 8:11 p.m. 19
20
Director of Public Works Lee asked if the Council wants the feasibility report to be amended to 21
look into the feasibility of having the sidewalk on the east side of County Road I. He asked if 22
further direction in terms of the lighting and asked if estimated costs should be included. 23
24
The Council stated that it should. 25
26
Councilmember Stigney asked if the sidewalk would not detour through the park, and whether it 27
will be either a concrete or bituminous surface, if it would be advantageous to look at what a 28
wooden structure would be going through there. 29
30
Director of Public Works Lee stated he did not know offhand what the exact dollars are, but it 31
was discussed earlier on when the feasibility report was studied. He explained it was 32
astronomical compared to what is planned now for both construction and maintenance. 33
34
Councilmember Stigney stated it is also expensive to straighten out the trail, so it would not hurt 35
to calculate the cost of the wooden structure since it would have less impact on the wetlands. 36
37
Director of Public Works Lee responded Staff can give a rough approximation. 38
39
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 40
41
D. Consideration of Resolution 6749 Approving an Expansion of the C.G. Hill 42
& Sons Building at 5150 Quincy Street. 43
44
Planning Associate Heller stated this Resolution is for an expansion of the C.G. Hill & Sons 45
Mounds View City Council February 27, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 13
Building on 5150 Quincy Street that would provide a 50 percent increase in building space. She 1
stated the business has an opportunity to add large equipment and expand the business. 2
3
Planning Associate Heller stated the property is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) which 4
meets the requirements of the project. She stated the building was constructed in 1994 and had 5
planned for this exact expansion so electrical and plumbing are roughed in. 6
7
Planning Associate Heller stated there are 79 parking stalls currently on the site, and there is 8
some space to construct 11 more to bring the total to 90 more. She explained this is less than 9
what is typically required in an industrial area. She stated there are currently 48 employees and 10
parking has never been an issue. She stated over the next ten years, there may be a maximum of 11
60 employees, and the business needs space for equipment and not more employees. 12
13
Planning Associate Heller commented the setback is not changing, and the building is expanding 14
to within of the 32 feet of the east of the property line. She stated a 40 foot setback is typically 15
required, but Staff does not feel a 32 foot setback would pose a problem. She stated the back of 16
the building would be moving closer to the back of Bethlehem Baptist Church. 17
18
Planning Associate Heller stated Staff and Planning Commission recommend this proposal. 19
20
Planning Associate Heller stated the applicant is present to answer questions. 21
22
Councilmember Flaherty stated that any time a business within the community has the 23
opportunity to grow and is asking for more space, it is a good thing for the City. He stated he 24
was in favor of the proposal. 25
26
Councilmember Gunn agreed. 27
28
Councilmember Thomas asked if similar language could be added regarding parking 29
requirements to have the PUD brought back for discussion if there are any issues in the future. 30
31
Mayor Marty stated that this is an expansion which would increase the property value and the 32
possibly hire more employees, and sees this as a definite plus. 33
34
Councilmember Thomas offered a friendly amendment to add language indicating: “the PUD 35
approval is contingent should there be any issue in the future with inadequate parking regardless 36
of owner.” 37
38
Councilmember Gunn accepted this friendly amendment. 39
40
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6749 41
Approving an Expansion of the C.G. Hill & Sons Building at 5150 Quincy Street. 42
43
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 44
45
Mounds View City Council February 27, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 14
E. Resolution 6754 Approving the Amended and Restated Development 1
Agreement and Modification to the Business Subsidy Agreement for the 2
Medtronic CRM Project. 3
4
Economic Development Coordinator Backman offered to answer any questions. 5
6
Mayor Marty stated there was discussion on several items in the EDA meeting, and suggested 7
that anyone interested should replay the EDA meeting. He stated there was no need to go back 8
over and have the same discussion. 9
10
MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/GUNN. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6754 11
Approving the Amended and Restated Development Agreement and Modification to the 12
Business Subsidy Agreement for the Medtronic CRM Project. 13
14
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Marty) Motion carried. 15
16
F. Resolution 6751 Authorizing Merrick Inc. to conduct Charitable Gambling 17
at Robert’s Sports Bar and Entertainment. 18
19
Assistant to the City Administrator Crane explained that Merrick, Inc. is a non-profit charitable 20
organization that would like to continue to hold charitable gambling on a permanent basis at 21
Robert’s Sports Bar and Entertainment located at 2400 County Road H2, in the City of Mounds 22
View. 23
24
Assistant to the City Administrator Crane stated the focus of the non-profit is to provide 25
employment services to adults with developmental disabilities. She stated Merrick, Inc. has 26
existed since 1964 and has 30 active members, which meets the requirements of the Mounds 27
View City Code. 28
29
Assistant to the City Administrator Crane stated Staff recommends approval of Resolution 6751 30
authorizing a Premise Permit to permit Charitable Gambling for Merrick, Inc. 31
32
Assistant to the City Administrator Crane mentioned that Merrick, Inc. is present to answer any 33
questions about contributions to the trade area. 34
35
Councilmember Flaherty asked if everything is payable to Merrick, Inc. Assistant to the City 36
Administrator Crane said it is. 37
38
Councilmember Flaherty asked if the City has access to additional information in terms of the 39
clients that live in the City. He asked if the City could confirm those numbers if it wanted to. 40
41
John Barker, Merrick, Inc., Chief Executive Officer, stated the company has 60 clients who 42
reside or work within the City of Mounds View and its trade area. He stated he is unable to give 43
specific names, but addresses can be verified with Staff at any time. 44
45
Mounds View City Council February 27, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 15
Councilmember Thomas stated it would be helpful to the Council if Staff could go through the 1
list and provide verification along with the documentation. 2
3
Mayor Marty asked if it is a two year license. Assistant to the City Administrator Crane stated it 4
is. 5
6
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6751 7
Authorizing Merrick Inc. to conduct Charitable Gambling at Robert’s Sports Bar and 8
Entertainment. 9
10
Mayor Marty echoed Councilmember Thomas comments’ that it is hard to justify all the checks 11
to Merrick, Inc. without the verification. He stated he would like to see this and while everything 12
is probably fine, it has not been verified by the City. 13
14
Mr. Barker stated he understood it is a unique situation in Mounds View, but commented that 15
Merrick, Inc. is used to providing that information and would be happy to provide it to Staff. 16
17
Mayor Marty stated organizations with charitable gambling in the City of Mounds View provide 18
a list of where the expenditures are going that is clear cut and easy to understand. 19
20
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Marty) Motion carried. 21
22
G. Resolution 6750 Step Increases for Mark Beer (Finance Director), Jodi 23
Salmonson (Receptionist), Heidi Heller (Planning Associate), and John 24
Hughes (Community Center Custodian). 25
26
Assistant to the City Administrator Crane explained a step increase wage adjustment is 27
recommended for Mark Beer, Jodi Salmonson, Heidi Heller and John Hughes that is consistent 28
with the Personnel Manual and Labor Agreements. 29
30
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/THOMAS. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6750 31
Step Increases for Mark Beer (Finance Director), Jodi Salmonson (Receptionist), Heidi Heller 32
(Planning Associate), and John Hughes (Community Center Custodian). 33
34
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 35
36
H. Resolution 6752 Approving an Amended Joint Powers Agreement and 37
Assigning an Alternate to the I-35 Board. 38
39
City Administrator Ulrich explained the I-35W Board of Directors recently adopted revisions to 40
the joint powers agreement that require the City to adopt the amended version and name an 41
elected official to serve as an alternate voting member of the organization. He stated he and 42
Mayor Marty currently serve on the Board of Directors and the Board would like another elected 43
official named to be the alternate to come to the meetings when they can and also be an alternate 44
voting member when the elected official (Mayor Marty) cannot make it. He stated this was to 45
Mounds View City Council February 27, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 16
create participation by elected officials and to make it a stronger organization by having an 1
elected alternate. 2
3
City Administrator Ulrich stated Staff recommends approval of Resolution 6752. 4
5
Mayor Marty thought Councilmember Gunn was an alternate. Councilmember Gunn stated she 6
was a long time ago and it was stopped for awhile. 7
8
Mayor Marty asked for volunteers. 9
10
Councilmember Thomas volunteered to be an alternate voting member. 11
12
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6752 13
Approving an Amended Joint Powers Agreement and Assigning Councilmember Thomas to the 14
I-35 Board. 15
16
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 17
18
I. Resolution 6755 Awarding a Construction Contract for the Groveland Park 19
Building Replacement Project. 20
21
Director of Public Works Lee stated thirteen bids were received for the Groveland Park Building 22
Replacement Project. He stated that the low bid was submitted by DNR Construction, Inc. for 23
the total estimated cost of $231,900. He stated this is less than the bid was last year. He stated 24
the Park and Recreation Committee recommends going forward with the project, and 25
recommends going forward with Bid Alternate A for the air conditioning unit. 26
27
Director of Public Works Lee stated it is recommended the Council approve Resolution 6755 28
Awarding a Construction Contract for the Groveland Park Building Replacement Project. 29
30
Mayor Marty stated this is for a concrete block building and asked if $14,000 from TKDA was 31
included in last year’s bid, and it was so it is in line. He stated he is very happy that the City re-32
bid this project due to the fact that construction costs and rates go up each year. He stated it was 33
very prudent to re-bid this project. 34
35
Councilmember Thomas asked why the bid is lower than last year. 36
37
Director of Public Works Lee stated the two biggest reasons are a change in specifications with a 38
larger window to do the construction in, and the targeting of smaller residential builders that 39
focus in on these projects. He stated the combination of those two helped lower the total bid. 40
41
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GUNN. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6755 42
Awarding a Construction Contract for the Groveland Park Building Replacement Project. 43
44
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 45
Mounds View City Council February 27, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 17
1
J. Resolution 6757 Approving Change Orders No. 4-6 and Authorizing 2
Initiation of HVAC Changes for the City Hall Rehabilitation Project. 3
4
Director of Public Works Lee reviewed Change Orders 4-6. He explained Change Order 4 is a 5
credit of $1,193 back to the City for the elimination of sheet rocking from the project. He 6
explained Change Order 5 is for additional costs of $1,997 for changes in the millwork 7
throughout the project. He explained Change Order 6 is for additional costs of $8,522 to remove 8
a hardened concrete steel area within the Police area. 9
10
Director of Public Works Lee reviewed changes in the HVAC system and explained it includes 11
the replacement of three roof top units with one unit that needed a new control system. He 12
reviewed five options for the wiring and control problem. He stated Staff is recommending the 13
option to change the control system to DDC and replace RTU Number 6 for a cost of $27,353, 14
and is looking for direction from the Council to move forward with this option. 15
16
Director of Public Works Lee stated that five of the twelve heating coils within the air system 17
need to be replaced. He stated Staff is recommending replacing all twelve at the same time at a 18
cost of $11,255. 19
20
Director of Public Works Lee stated the last item is for additional furniture required for one of 21
the City offices that needs free-standing furniture. He stated this is due to a change in 22
assignments for one of the City’s employees. He stated the cost of this additional furniture is 23
$2,105. 24
25
Director of Public Works Lee stated it is recommended the Council approve Resolution 6757 26
Approving Change Orders 4-6 and Authorizing Initiation of HVAC Changes for the City Hall 27
Rehabilitation Project. 28
29
Councilmember Flaherty asked about the DDC controls in the HVAC improvements. He asked 30
how the option was put into the initial system. He stated he did not recall getting the option 31
between DDC and an analog control system which is considerably less expensive. He stated it 32
makes sense if the City has the equipment and wants to bring up the other equipment that is 33
compatible. 34
35
Councilmember Flaherty stated he understands the tonnage is significantly over from what is 36
required because there is no one down there and it is only used for storage. He commented the 37
dew point has the tendency to get high in the area. He stated he did ask the question if there are 38
other alternatives to replacing the new unit as opposed to changing out just the coils or putting 39
other things on there that could do the job. 40
41
Mayor Marty asked if the City is still on budget for the project with the contingency funds. 42
43
Director of Public Works Lee stated it is and he would provide a summary of all changes to give 44
a clear picture as to where the project is at. He stated it is clearly far below the budget of $1.6 45
Mounds View City Council February 27, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 18
million at this point. 1
2
Mayor Marty stated he would like to see where the City stands as far as the budget. Director of 3
Public Works Lee stated there should not be any surprises or other new things other than the 4
items on the list of minor changes that was distributed at the last meeting. 5
6
Mayor Marty stated if the acid wash was going to be done on the entryway. Director of Public 7
Works Lee stated it would be done on the mortar and bricks of the front entryway. He stated he 8
was unsure of the schedule for doing that, but it is one of the things that to be completed. 9
10
Councilmember Thomas asked what the result is if it does not match. She asked if there is a 11
point that remuneration can be sought. 12
13
Director of Public Works Lee stated he is investigating that. He stated he will verify to see that 14
the product received was the same as the sample the architect authorized. He stated he was 15
unsure what the legal recourse would be but will look into it. 16
17
Councilmember Stigney asked if the sample was acid washed brick. Director of Public Works 18
Lee stated it is. 19
20
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/MARTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6757 21
Approving Change Orders No. 4-6 and Authorizing Initiation of HVAC Changes for the City 22
Hall Rehabilitation Project. 23
24
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 25
26
8. CONSENT AGENDA 27
28
No items removed. 29
30
A. Licenses for Approval 31
B. Resolution 6753 Authority to Advertise and Recommend a Candidate for 32
Hire for the Public Service Officer Position opening in the Police 33
Department. 34
35
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/FLAHERTY. To Approve the Consent Agenda as presented. 36
37
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 38
39
9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 40
41
Councilmember Flaherty referenced Check #117975 to Force America, Inc., and asked what the 42
vendor is providing. Finance Director Beer stated the City pays numerous invoices to them for 43
public works. Director of Public Works Lee stated the check was for nozzles and attachments for 44
the calcium chloride system for the trucks bought in the last two years. 45
Mounds View City Council February 27, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 19
1
Councilmember Flaherty referenced Check #117978 to Griffin Petroleum Services, Inc. and 2
stated this is for boarding up the windows and removal of the canopy as part of the abatement. 3
4
Councilmember Flaherty referenced Check #117984 to Hydro Metering Technology, and asked 5
what the vendor is providing. Director of Public Works Lee stated it is for the meter for Well 6
Number 6 that is starting to fail. He commented that this is a budgeted item. Councilmember 7
Flaherty asked if it is defective or broken. Director of Public Works Lee stated it is. 8
9
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/THOMAS. To approve the Just and Correct Claims as 10
presented. 11
12
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 13
14
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 15
16
A. February 13, 2006 City Council Meeting Minutes 17
18
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/STIGNEY. To Approve the February 13, 2006 City Council 19
meeting minutes as corrected. 20
21
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 22
23
11. REPORTS 24
25
A. Reports of Mayor and Council 26
27
Councilmember Flaherty stated he attended the Ramsey County League of Local Governments 28
meeting with City Administrator Ulrich, where it was “Meet the Legislators” night. He 29
commented there were several legislators that spoke about the upcoming session starting March 30
1, 2006. He stated the legislators promised they would get done on time this year as opposed to 31
previous years, because it is not a budget session. He stated bonding issues are the number one 32
issue to take care of. He added it was a nice opportunity to meet the senators and representatives. 33
34
City Administrator Ulrich added that all but one of the representatives and senators come from 35
local government as Councilmembers or Mayor, and stated they would not forget the City of 36
Mounds View. 37
38
Councilmember Flaherty added a few of the Ramsey County Commissioners were also in 39
attendance at the meeting. 40
41
Councilmember Thomas commented that when Senator Betzhold was at the last Council 42
meeting, he talked about the Medtronic language necessary for the corrections to the bill. She 43
stated it is up for hearing on the first day of the session in the House. 44
45
Mounds View City Council February 27, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 20
City Administrator Ulrich stated he plans on being in attendance, and added that Ramsey County 1
is carrying the bill because it in regard to County Road J and will testify for it. 2
3
B. Reports of Staff 4
5
1. Reports of City Administrator 6
7
City Administrator Ulrich stated Director Ericson provided a memo in regard to the Library Task 8
Force and they did make a recommendation of four possible alternatives. He stated they would 9
be discussed by the Library Task Force at a retreat on March 1, 2006. He stated three out of four 10
of the alternatives are positive for Mounds View, and one is more for a regional type library. 11
12
City Administrator read the four alternatives, which included: 1) Consolidate staff and resources 13
from the libraries in Arden Hills and Mounds View to build one larger area library; 2) Maintain 14
two smaller libraries by constructing one in Arden Hills and leaving Mounds View as is; 3) Build 15
a new library on the current Arden Hills site, maintain the current Mounds View library, and 16
expand the Shoreview library to meet future growth; and 4) Build a new library on the current 17
Arden Hills site, build a new library on the Arden Hills site and build a new library in Silver 18
Lake Village in St. Anthony. City Administrator Ulrich reported that these four alternatives will 19
be discussed at the library board on March 1, 2006. 20
21
City Administrator suggested the Council should pass a motion supporting one of these four 22
alternates, if it felt strongly about one of them. 23
24
Councilmember Thomas suggested a letter of support could be drafted to indicate support of the 25
Mounds View Community Library. 26
27
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/MARTY. To draft a letter of support for the Mounds View 28
Community Library. 29
30
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 31
32
City Administrator Ulrich stated there was a position paper on eminent domain put out by North 33
Metro Mayors which the Council could provide comments on. He stated it is consistent with 34
how the legislator spoke last week in regard to eminent domain. He stated the North Metro 35
Mayors position is one to urge that wise decisions are made and listen to what the needs of the 36
communities are that may need to use eminent domain and what the positive aspects are. He 37
stated the legislators commented that they would certainly take that into account and this 38
reiterates that fact that there are valid reasons for using eminent domain. He stated private 39
property rights are important, but attention should also be given to what the City needs eminent 40
domain for and there are valid reasons for pursuing that in certain cases. 41
42
City Administrator Ulrich presented the report on the Bethlehem Baptist Church Mounds View 43
Service Project Fund, where $13,005 is proposed to be distributed. He reported that Bethlehem 44
Baptist Church has been working with Staff as well as the Park and Recreation Commission to 45
Mounds View City Council February 27, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 21
determine where the funds should be distributed. He reviewed that the Bethlehem Baptist 1
Church contributes to the community each year as part of the agreement in the conditional use 2
permit to use their building for the church. He stated that the Council could comment if it felt 3
strongly that any of these items should not be funded. 4
5
Mayor Marty stated he had no problem with any of the different funding areas chosen. 6
7
Councilmember Gunn stated she received a call from Cindy Palm from the Park and Recreation 8
Commission, and she did have a concern about the donation to the Irondale Adaptive Sports 9
program. She reported the Commission was questioning the actual purpose of the money coming 10
from Bethlehem Baptist Church, and wondered if it was to replace missing tax money, and if it 11
was, it should specifically benefit the City and residents in the community. 12
13
Councilmember Gunn stated she agreed with the list, and thought it is well spread out. She 14
commented that the Community Emergency Assistance Program (CEAP) is excellent and 15
explained it is a program through Anoka and Ramsey Counties that provides assistance for car 16
repairs. 17
18
Councilmember Flaherty commented that CEAP is much more than fixing cars, as it also 19
provides outreach programs and does a lot of good for the community. 20
21
Councilmember Thomas stated all the programs selected are wonderful and are desperately in 22
need of assistance. She stated her only caution to the Park and Recreation Committee is that it is 23
not a payment in lieu of taxes, but rather was a true voluntary effort to donate to the community. 24
25
Mayor Marty stated Bethlehem Baptist Church has contributed to the City Festival in the past and 26
asked if it is in their second-half donation. Councilmember Gunn stated it is. 27
28
Councilmember Gunn stated she represented the Council at Bethlehem Baptist Church’s 29
meeting. 30
31
2. Reports of Finance Director 32
33
Finance Director Beer reported the City received a check from Ramsey County for $220,000 34
from the work on County Road H2 from 1996. He stated the City was notified two weeks ago 35
that the funds were available and the City just had to submit a request. He stated this was an 36
unexpected item. 37
38
Mayor Marty asked if the City would be reimbursed for the trail on County Road H. Finance 39
Director Beer stated he did not know but would inquire. 40
41
3. Reports of Community Development Director 42
43
Director Ericson reported the Home and Garden Show last weekend was successful. He stated it 44
was a wonderful facility for the event, and a very good show if residents want to attend next year. 45
Mounds View City Council February 27, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 22
He stated a number of Mounds View residents stopped by with questions on development, and 1
expansion. Director Ericson commented it was a great show and collaborative effort between 2
Mounds View, New Brighton, Fridley and Blaine. He added it is a good opportunity for 3
residents to come out and see what they can do. 4
5
C. Reports of City Attorney 6
7
None. 8
9
12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, March 6, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. (March 10
Work Session) 11
Next Council Meeting: Monday, March 13, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. 12
13
13. ADJOURNMENT 14
15
The meeting was adjourned at 9:11 p.m. 16
17
Transcribed by: 18
19
Annette Anderson 20
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 21