HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2006/03/27
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
NEW BRIGHTON CITY HALL
Monday, March 27, 2006
7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, Thomas
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC INPUT:
Citizens may speak to issues not on tonight’s agenda. Before speaking, please give your
full name and address for the minutes. Also, please limit your comments to three minutes.
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. 7:05pm Public Hearing Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 770, an Ordinance
Vacating Excess and Unused Right of Way to SYSCO Minnesota. (ROLL CALL VOTE)
B. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 769, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1008
of the Municipal Code Relating to Signs and Billboards. (ROLL CALL VOTE)
C. Resolution 6781 Authorizing Execution of a Joint Cooperation Agreement between
Ramsey County and the City of Mounds View for the CDBG Act. (ITEM DELETED)
D. Resolution 6784 Approving Change Orders No. 11-17 for the City Hall Rehabilitation
Project
E. Resolution 6785 Approving Execution of a Letter of Agreement for Community Center
Remodeling Design Services.
F. Consider Request of Mr. Brian Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, Regarding Enforcement
of Building Code Provisions
G. Amending Resolution 6756 to Authorize Plans and Specifications for a Sidewalk on the
Eastside of Silver Lake Road between County Road H and County Road H2 for the Silver
Lake Road Sidewalk Improvement Project
H. Resolution 6786 Approving the Preliminary Feasibility Report, Waiving Public
Improvement Hearing, Holding a Public Informational Meeting, Ordering the Project, and
Authorizing the Preparation of Plans and Specifications for the Hidden Hollow South Street
and Utility Installation Project
I. Resolution 6787 Authorization of the Execution of Easements Associated with the County
Road J Improvement Project
8. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Licenses for Approval
B. Resolution 6779 Approving the Purchase of a Replacement Mower for the Parks Division
C. Resolution 6780 Approving the Purchase of a Utility Cart for the Parks Division
D. Resolution 6783 Authorizing Step Increases for Officer Timothy Wolf and Officer Keith
Demarest.
E. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, April 10, 2006 at 7:05 PM to Consider a Conditional Use
Permit for an Environmental processing Facility at 4889 Old Highway 8.
Mounds View City Council Meeting
Monday, March 27, 2006
Page 2
9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. March 13, 2006 City Council Meeting
11. REPORTS
A. Reports of Mayor and Council
B. Reports of Staff
1. Update report to Council regarding March 9th neighborhood meeting
(County Hwy 10)
2. County Road 10 Monument Project – Letter Proposal
3. Oak wood park Proposed Improvements – Letter Proposal
C. Reports of City Attorney
12. Next Council Work Session: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 @7pm (SPECIAL WORK SESSION)
Next Council Meeting: Monday, April 10, 2006 @7pm
Item No: 7A
Meeting Date: March 27, 2006
Type of Business: PH & CB
Administrator Review : ____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing, Second Reading and Adoption 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 27, 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:
Open the public hearing and take public comment regarding the proposed vacation, consider
the second reading and adoption 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 Resolution 2005-437
3. Letter from RLK dated October 19, 2005
4. Ordinance 770
ORDINANCE SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. 770
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE VACATING EXCESS AND UNUSED RIGHT OF WAY
WITHIN THE SYSCO PLAT
On March 27, 2006, the Mounds View City Council adopted an ordinance which vacates
excess and residual right of way associated with the former orientation of Long Lake Road
located with the SYSCO plat. The full and complete text of this ordinance with map and legal
description is on file at the office of the Clerk Administrator and is posted in its entirety on the
City’s website, located at www.ci.mounds-view.mn.us/ords/770.pdf.
Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk-Administrator
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: 7B
Meeting Date: March 27, 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: Second Reading and Adoption 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.
First Reading:
The City Council held the first reading of this ordinance on March 13, 2006. Much discussion
was generated regarding three specific issues--proposed locations on County Road 10 north
of the Silver Lake Road intersection, sign heights and the duration of the interim use permits.
Regarding the first issue, the Council indicated some concern and reluctance to permit
billboards north of the County 10 and Silver Lake Road intersection. The area is
predominately residential and as such the introduction of a billboard would be out of
character for the area. The Council directed that these locations be eliminated. Clear
Channel understood the Council’s opposition to these sites and was not disagreeable to the
elimination of the indicated sites. The ordinance and illustration map have been amended
accordingly.
The Council held some reservations about increasing billboard sign heights across the board
to 45 feet. The 45-foot maximum was requested by Clear Channel to compensate for
visibility issues they anticipate encountering on the relocated sites. The Council asked Clear
Channel to conduct a visibility analysis to more precisely determine what the actual heights
would need to be to maintain adequate visibility. At the time of the writing of this report, that
information had yet to be submitted to staff. The Council suggested allowing 45 feet along
35W only rather than anywhere. Such a change would be easy to accommodate if the
Council would wish to restrict billboard heights in certain areas, and the ordinance may be
adopted subject to such an amendment.
Sign Code Ordinance Report
March 27, 2006
Page 2
Finally, the Council discussed at length the issue of Interim use Permits and the fact that the
code would be amended to allow for a thirty-year lifespan. Clear Channel had requested
permanent easements in certain areas however this request was universally opposed by the
Council and was viewed as being completely inconsistent with the terms of the agreement.
Discussion:
The following summarizes the proposed changes to the Sign Code, section by section:
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.
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 is 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 Drive. (Refer to the map which highlights the previous permitted
locations and the proposed new locations.)
Sign Code Ordinance Report
March 27, 2006
Page 3
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.
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 approval of the
second reading and adoption of Ordinance 769. The second reading has been scheduled
for 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
ORDINANCE SUMMARY
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
On March 27, 2006, the Mounds View City Council adopted an ordinance which amends
Chapter 1008 of the City Code relating to Billboards and Signs. Many of the changes to the
City’s sign code were adopted to make the regulations more consistent with First
Amendment rights and free speech issues in light of recent court cases and local legal
challenges. These changes generally eliminated language which differentiates between
commercial and non-commercial “content” or specific references to advertising. The end
result of the changes is that the sign code has been clarified to regulate the sign itself rather
than the messages (the “content”) that appear on said signs. The other adopted changes
allow for greater flexibility in relocating billboards within the community. The Code was
amended to permit billboards in the B2, B3, I1, PUD and CRP zoning districts along 35W,
Trunk Highway 10, Old Highway 8 and along County Road 10 southeast of the Woodale
Drive Intersection.
The full and complete text of this ordinance along with a supplemental map is on file at the
office of the Clerk Administrator and is posted in its entirety on the City’s website, located at
www.ci.mounds-view.mn.us/ords/769.pdf.
Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk-Administrator
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
32 100
200 200 200 200 100 100 *
Wall No No 64 64 No 100 100 100 100 100 100 *
Projection No No No No No 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. 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. 7D
Meeting Date: March 27, 2006
Type of Business: CB
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
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 6784 Approving Change Orders No. 11-17
for the City Hall Rehabilitation Project
Background:
In September of 2005, when the City awarded the construction contract for the
City Hall Project, it was stated that with a project of this nature, it is inevitable that
there will need to be minor adjustments to the scope of the project. These
adjustments are a necessary way to ensure that this project is completed in a
timely manner and that the City gets the maximum benefit from this project.
On February 13, 2006, the City Council approved Resolution 6736 authorizing
Change Orders No. 1 through 3 and authorized a contract for network cabling.
On February 27, 2006, the City Council approved Resolution 6757 authorizing
Change Orders No. 4 through 6 and authorized initiation of HVAC changes.
On March 13, 2006, the City Council approved Resolution 6771 authorizing
Change Orders No. 7 through 10.
Discussion
Adjustments recommended during construction are referred to as Architectural
Supplemental Information (ASI’s). These are common in all architectural projects
and are even more prevalent in re-model projects. Many of these items are
simple adjustments that do not require additional work from the contractor. These
are noted as “NC” – no charge. Other adjustments may include additional
materials or labor and are listed as an additional cost, while other ASI’s may
include a credit in cases where materials or labor that were included in the
original contract are no longer necessary.
There are seven ASI items that we currently have prices/credits for and their
associated Change Orders have been submitted:
Change Order No. 11
ASI-3, ASI-5, ASI-12, and ASI-43: in the amount of $12,579.00. These ASI’s
represent changes to items related to doorways, door hardware, and the existing
hollow metal doorframes.
Additional thirteen (13) new doors. Originally, as a cost saving measure,
these doors were not scheduled to be replaced. However, the original
door laminate was not available, there for these doors were replaced to
match the new doors.
Minor additions to the hardware on the first floor restrooms (occupancy
indicators) and all of the exterior doors (latch guards).
Substituting the originally specified lyptus veneer with cherry veneer.
The addition of electric strikes to the City Hall entrance and to the Police
entrance. This is required hardware for the access control system.
The prep work and painting required of the hollow metal door frames that
were not replaced.
Change Order No. 12
ASI-11: in the amount of $12,051.00. This is for additional work to replace nine
(9) existing hot water heating coils. Upon completion of demolition, several of
these coils were found to be leaking and / or rusted to the point where they may
begin to leak in the near future. It was deemed necessary to replace all of the
coils as a precautionary measure. Authorization to initiate the replacement of
these coils was granted on February 27, 2006.
Change Order No. 13
ASI-9: in the amount of $3,650.00. The original plan for correcting the drainage in
the Police Sally Port (room 142) was not feasible due to the condition of the drain
located in room 143, well room. As a result, this change order represents work
required to remove portions of the concrete floor in the Police Sally Port 142,
pour a new concrete floor (that slopes toward the overhead doors rather than
toward an interior wall) and the work required to replace the interior gypsum
board partition wall, which separates the office space from the Sally Port.
Change Order No. 14
ASI-9: in the amount of $4,642.00. Upon further investigation, the original ceiling
design in the Lobby (room 101) was found to be incompatible with the new
ductwork, the new and existing sprinkler piping, the new and existing water
piping, and the existing structure. Consequently, the ceiling was redesigned to
accommodate these restrictions. The ceiling design in the Council Chambers
(room 102) was also redesigned to properly accommodate the special
requirements of the acoustical ceiling panels in this room.
Change Order No. 15
ASI-19: in the amount of $4,482.00. This represents four changes:
An additional detail in the vestibule (room 100)
The addition of twelve transfer air ducts (between offices and the adjacent
corridors)
Prepping and painting of the mechanical duct work in the basement
The addition of 32 square feet of terrazzo flooring in the alcove to Men’s
(room 130) and Women’s (room 131) restrooms
Change Order No. 16
ASI-32: in the amount of $977.00. This represents three separate changes:
The thickness of the interior glazing in the Police Detention / Intoxilizer
Room (room 145) was upgraded for safety.
A manual crank handle was added to the overhead coiling door at the
main desk area (room 104).
An electric strike was added to the main Police entry door (room 132).
Change Order No. 17
ASI-47: in the amount of $29,285.00. This is for HVAC improvements discussed
on February 27, 2006. This includes changing the control system to DDC and
Replacing RTU No. 6.
City Hall Rehabilitation Project Budget
The Special Projects Fund, as per the 2005 budget (Account No. 280-4160-
7050), has $1,600,000 budgeted for the City Hall Rehabilitation Project.
Change Order 11 through 17 are consistent with the projected change order
summary included in the March 13, 2006 Staff report. The total amount of all
change orders for this project is still estimated to be $94,751.00.
The following is a summary of the estimated final cost of this project:
City Hall Rehabilitation Cost Items
Construction Contract $1,185,000
Construction Services $46,000
Change Orders $94,751
Grading Contractor $5,500
Vegetation Establishment / Landscape Contractor $7,500
Part time / Temporary employee (did not do –was $5800) $0
Re-Settlement Work $3,000
Furniture Budget $61,525
Furniture contract adjustment 2/27/2006 $2,104
City Hall Message Board $34,908
Moving contractor $20,000
Police Office Space Rental $0
Community Center Rental $35,000
Estimated Total $1,495,288
Recommendation:
It is recommended the Council adopt the attached resolution approving Change
Order No. 11-17 for the City Hall Rehabilitation Project.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
RESOLUTION 6784
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING CHANGE ORDERS NO. 11-17 FOR THE CITY HALL
REHABILITATION PROJECT
WHEREAS, in September of 2005, the City awarded the
construction contract for the City Hall Project; and
WHEREAS, unforeseen circumstances may arise from time to time
that will necessitate minor adjustments and changes in the original construction
plan; and
WHEREAS, there are seven items that we currently have prices for
and associated change orders have been submitted; and
WHEREAS, Change Order No. 11, ASI-3, ASI-5, ASI-12, and ASI-
43: in the amount of $12,579.00, represent changes to items related to
doorways, door hardware, and the existing hollow metal doorframes; and
WHEREAS, Change Order No. 12, ASI-11: in the amount of
$12,051.00, is for additional work to replace nine (9) existing hot water heating
coils; and
WHEREAS, Change Order No. 13, ASI-9: in the amount of
$3,650.00, represents correcting the drainage in the Police Sally Port (room 142);
and
WHEREAS, Change Order No. 14, ASI-9: in the amount of
$4,642.00, represents changes in the ceiling design for the Council Chambers
and lobby area; and
WHEREAS, Change Order No. 15, ASI-19: in the amount of
$4,482.00, represents four changes: an additional detail in the vestibule, the
addition of twelve transfer air ducts, prepping and painting of the mechanical duct
work in the basement, and the addition of 32 square feet of terrazzo flooring in
the restroom area; and
WHEREAS, Change Order No. 16, ASI-32: in the amount of
$977.00, represents three separate changes: increasing the thickness of interior
glazing, adding a manual crank handle for the overhead coiling door at main
desk area, and an electric strike for the main Police entry door; and
WHEREAS, Change Order No. 17, ASI-47: in the amount of
$29,285.00, represents HVAC improvements such as changing the control
system to DDC and Replacing RTU No. 6; and
WHEREAS, it is recommended that funds to finance change orders
No. 11 through No. 17 be derived from the Special Project Account for the City
Hall Project (account: 280-4180-7050-100).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
1. That Change Orders No. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 for the City
Hall Rehabilitation Project are hereby approved.
2. Execution of said documents is hereby authorized.
3. That said Change Orders shall be financed with funds derived from the
Special Project Account for this Project (Account: 280-4180-7050-100).
Adopted this 27th day of March 2006.
____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No. 7H
Meeting Date: March 27, 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 6786 Approving the Preliminary
Feasibility Report, Waiving Public Improvement
Hearing, Holding a Public Informational Meeting,
Ordering the Project, and Authorizing the
Preparation of Plans and Specifications for the
Hidden Hollow South Street and Utility Installation
Project
Background:
On January 24, 2006, City Staff met with the Dan Saplis, the developer of Hidden
Hollow South. At that time, the developer submitted an executed petition for
public improvement. The developer also submitted the necessary financial
security with this petition to ensure that the City will be reimbursed for fees
associated with creating the report.
On February 13, 2006, the City Council approved Resolution 6739 authorizing
the preparation of a preliminary feasibility report and consultant selection for the
Hidden Hollow South Street and Utility Installation Project.
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. The City has been petitioned
for the Street and Utility Installations associated with the Hollow South Project.
Since the City has been petitioned for these improvements from the owner of
said property, according to State Statute 429.031 subd. 3, a Public Improvement
Hearing is not required, and can be waived by resolution.
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.
Holding a Public Informational Meeting
Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public informational meeting and
allow public input and comments on this project
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, hold a public informational
meeting, order the project, and authorize the preparations of plans and
specifications for the Hidden Hollow South Street and Utility Installation Project.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
RESOLUTION 6786
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY REPORT, WAIVING PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT HEARING, HOLDING A PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING
ORDERING THE PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE HIDDEN HOLLOW SOUTH
STREET AND UTILITY INSTALLATION PROJECT
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2006, the City Council approved Resolution
6739 authorizing the preparation of a preliminary feasibility report and consultant
selection for the Hidden Hollow South Street and Utility Installation 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, 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, the City has been petitioned for these improvements from the
owner of said property. According to State Statute 429.031 subd. 3, a Public
Improvement Hearing is not required, and can be waived by resolution; and
WHEREAS, waiving the official hearing does not precluded the City from
conducting a hearing or allowing public input; and
WHEREAS, Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public
informational meeting and allow public input and comments on this project; and
WHEREAS, should the Council wish to proceed with this project, the next
step in the public improvement process is to order the project; and
WHEREAS, should the Council wish to proceed, the next step in the
engineering process is to order the preparation of 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, waive the
public improvement hearing, hold a public informational meeting, order the
project, and authorize the preparations of plans and specifications for the Hidden
Hollow South Street and Utility Installation 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 6739 for the Hidden Hollow South Street and Utility
Installation 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 Hidden Hollow South Street and Utility
Installation 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 Hidden Hollow South Street and Utility
Installation 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.
4. That the preparation of the construction plans and specifications for
the Hidden Hollow South Street and Utility Installation Project is
hereby authorized.
5. Approval of the report, ordering of the project, waiving of the public
improvement hearing, and authorization to prepare plans and
specifications for the Hidden Hollow South Street and Utility
Installation Project will be contingent upon the property owner, Dan
Saplis, Incorporated submitting to the City the following: a letter of
concurrence with the feasibility report, the execution of an approved
Developer’s Agreement with the City, and all the necessary
financial security as set forth by the Developer’s Agreement
documents.
Adopted this 27th day of March 2006.
(ATTEST) ____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
(SEAL)
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item No: 08A
Meeting Date March 27, 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.
Northeast Tree, Inc. Tree Trimming/Removal New
Signarama Sign Renewal
Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested.
Item No. 8B
Meeting Date: March 27, 2006
Type of Business: CA
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 6779 Approving the Purchase of a
Replacement Trim Mower for the Parks Division
Background:
In May of 1998, the City purchased a Walker MDT GHS 48” Trim mower. This
mower has been used to perform the mowing at the Mounds View Community
Center, City Hall, parks, and athletic fields located in the City.
Discussion:
The Walker MDT GHS has been an outstanding and very useful mower for the
City. It employs a high-speed turbine style vacuum that not only picks up
clippings and leaves but also mulches them into small pieces enabling the mower
to cover more turf area between hopper dumps the existing mower employs all of
these features. This saves time and promotes productivity. This mower is a zero
turning radius mower and with the amount of plantings on the grounds that it
mows it has demonstrated its excellent maneuverability.
The proposed Walker mower comes with a de-thatching attachment that is used
in the spring eliminating the need for hand raking in most areas and vacuuming
up the thatch as it mows.
In the fall this mower is used to pick up leaves on an almost daily basis. It has the
ability to get into areas that we cannot bring our turf vacuum because of its
compact size and maneuverability.
The Walker has logged approximately 1800 hours and is requiring more
maintenance. The engine shows signs of getting tired. It is starting to consume
some oil and the compression is down, which is not unusual for an air-cooled
engine that runs at fairly high rpm’s.
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
trade-in value.
Staff has tested several mowers of this size and none compares with the abilities
that the Walker Mower has demonstrated. This Mower has performed its tasks
with utmost dependability. It is designed with user friendliness in mind. It also
incorporates safety and time saving features into the design.
This Mower would be purchased from Midwest Specialty Sales under state
contract. This would forego the requirement to acquire additional bids. The state
contract bid is as follows:
Walker MDT GHS Trim Mower $9,525.65
Trade in of 1998 Walker ($1,000.00)
Subtotal $8,525.65
Tax $ 554.17
Total $9,079.82
There is $10,000.00 budgeted in account # 100-4360-7030 for the purchase of
this mower.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the purchase of a replacement
Walker MDT GHS Trim Mower under state contract in the amount of $9,525.65
and approve the trade in of the 1998 Walker Mower at a credited value of
$1,000.00 Including tax, this represents a net City cost of $8,525.65.
RESOLUTION 6779
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
1998 Walker Mower; and
WHEREAS, said Mower has been in use for eight years and has reached
its economical useful life; and
WHEREAS, said Mower has a trade-in value of $1,000.00 and
WHEREAS, $10,000.00 has been budgeted in the Parks Division 2006
budget (100-4360-7030) for the replacement of the1998 Walker Mower; and
WHEREAS, Staff has performed an extensive study and evaluation of
mowers that are designed to meet our needs; and
WHEREAS, the Walker MDT GHS Mower has proven to be safe,
dependable and user friendly; and
WHEREAS, said mower would be purchased from Midwest Specialty
Sales under state contract thus foregoing the requirement to acquire additional
bids; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Mounds View City
Council does hereby approve the purchase of a Walker MDT GHS Trim Mower
under state contract in the amount of $9,525.65 and approve the trade in of the
1998 Walker Mower at a credited value of $1,000.00 Including tax, this
represents a net City cost of $8,525.65.
Adopted this 27th day of March 2006.
(ATTEST) ____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
(SEAL)
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item No. 8C
Meeting Date: March 27, 2006
Type of Business: CA
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 6780 Approving the Purchase of a
Replacement Utility Truckster & Ball field Drag for
the Parks Division
Background:
In 1997, the City purchased a Jacobsen utility trickster vehicle. This utility
truckster has been used to perform maintenance in the parks and various athletic
fields located in the City.
Discussion:
This utility truckster is used to prep and level ball field aglime surfaces. It is also
used for painting lines on all of the athletic fields (soccer, football, track, baseball
and softball).
This machine is being used constantly during the spring, summer and fall
months. Along with this heavy use, the truckster is subjected to dust and
chemicals that are associated with athletic field maintenance.
This truckster was purchased in 1997 from Northstar Turf Supplies and as per
the vehicle replacement fund was scheduled for replacement in 2005. The
standard life service of this piece of equipment is 8 years.
The Jacobsen is in need of a new electronic speed control sensor, front tires, a
new ball field drag, new shocks, springs and brakes.
The Rahn GL650 Infield Groomer is a required implement used for resurfacing
fields and trails.
Staff has tested various utility trucksters in this class and finds the Cushman
Turf-truckster as the most desirable replacement. The Cushman truckster has a
tighter turning radius, heavy-duty suspension, and most important, an automatic
transmission. Our existing truckster employs a standard (manual) type
transmission, many personnel, including seasonal workers, some of which may
not be experienced with the standard clutch/shift type transmission, operate this
machine. The automatic type transmission is not only beneficial for employee use
but also for increased accuracy when applying chemicals and for field stripping
applications. This increased application accuracy will overall reduce the amount
of chemical/paint used.
This utility truckster purchase would be purchased under state contract from
Davis Sun Turf. This would forego the requirement to acquire additional bids. The
state contract bid is as follows:
Cushman Utility Truckster $16,892.00
Trade in of 1997 Jacobsen Truckster $2,000.00
Subtotal $14,892.00
Rahn GL650 Infield Groomer/Drag $2,600.00
Tax $1,136.98
Total $18,628.98
There is $20,000.00 budgeted in account # 100-4360-7030 for the purchase of
this utility truckster.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the purchase of a Cushman
utility truckster and ball field drag from Davis Sun Turf, St. Paul, MN.
the purchase of a Cushman Turf-Truckster from Davis Sun Turf of St. Paul
Minnesota under state contract in the amount of $19,492.00 and approve the
trade in of the 1997 Jacobsen truckster and drag at a credited value of
$2,000.00. Including tax, this represents a net City cost of $18,628.98
RESOLUTION 6780
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF A REPLACEMENT TRUCKSTER AND
DRAG FOR THE PARKS DIVISION
WHEREAS, the City Council had previously approved the purchase of a
1997 Jacobsen Truckster; and
WHEREAS, said Truckster has been in use for nine years and has
reached its economical useful life; and
WHEREAS, said Truckster has a the trade in value of $2,000.00 and
WHEREAS, $20,000.00 been budgeted in the Parks Division 2006
budget (100-4360-7030) for the replacement of the1997 Jacobsen Truckster; and
WHEREAS, Staff has performed an extensive study and evaluation of
utility vehicles that are designed to meet our needs; and
WHEREAS, the Cushman Turf-Truckster has proven to be safe,
dependable and user friendly; and
WHEREAS, said Truckster would be purchased under state contract and
thus forego the requirement to acquire additional bids; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Mounds View City
Council does hereby approve the purchase of a Cushman Turf-Truckster under
state contract in the amount of $19,492.00 and approve the trade in of the 1997
Jacobsen truckster and drag at a credited value of $2,000.00. Including tax, this
represents a net City cost of $18,628.98
Adopted this 27th day of March 2006.
(ATTEST) ____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
(SEAL)
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item No: 08D
Meeting Date: March 27, 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 6783 Approving a Step Increases for Officer Tim
Wolf and Officer Keith Demarest
Background:
Officer Tim Wolf and Officer Keith Demarest are current employees with the City of
Mounds View. Their supervisors have reviewed their performances as it relates to their
responsibilities outlined in the job descriptions.
Discussion:
It was determined that Officer Tim Wolf and Officer Keith Demarest have more than
satisfactorily performed in the capacity of their positions, and therefore, a step increase
wage adjustments is with the current LELS Labor Contract.
Respectfully Submitted,
Desaree Crane
RESOLUTION 6783
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING STEP/LONGEVITY ADJUSTMENTS
WHEREAS, the following below are regular full-time employees who are
currently working for the City of Mounds View; and
WHEREAS, their supervisors reviewed their performances as it relates to the
responsibilities outlined in the job description; and
WHEREAS, their supervisors determined that the following employees below
have more than satisfactorily performed in the capacity of their positions documented in
their performance reviews 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 Tim Wolf Police Officer April 12, 2004 Step 3
$21.78/ hr
Step 4
$24.50/hr
April 12, 2006
Officer Keith
Demarest
Police Officer April 26, 2004 Step 3
$21.78/hr
Step 4
$24.50/hr
April 26, 2006
Adopted this 27th day of March, 2006.
__________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL 1
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3
4
Regular Meeting 5
March 13, 2006 6
New Brighton City Hall 7
803 Old Highway 8, New Brighton, MN 55112 8
7:04 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, March 13, 2006 City Council Agenda 22
23
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/THOMAS. To Approve the Monday, March 13, 2006 agenda 24
as presented. 25
26
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 27
28
5. PUBLIC INPUT 29
30
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated his concern with spending a lot of money on the 31
Community Center, when it has not done well in the past. He stated that not a penny has been 32
spent on infrastructure, and that the City should be focusing on that instead of the Community 33
Center. He asked Mayor Marty for his thoughts. 34
35
Mayor Marty explained the purpose of the Community Center Task Force is to try to have the 36
Community Center work much better to serve the City and its citizens. He commented that Mr. 37
Jahnke was correct in that the only time many people go there is to vote. He stated the Task 38
Force is trying to come up with different programs and activities to make more use of the 39
Community Center by the City and its citizens. He stated he agreed with Mr. Jahnke relating to 40
streets and infrastructure, because the City has known for years what the condition the streets are 41
in. Mayor Marty stated the City does need to focus more on streets and the establishment of a 42
street program in the next year. 43
44
Mounds View City Council March 13, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 2
Mr. Jahnke stated that most of the citizens want their streets fixed and do not say much about the 1
Community Center, except that it is supposed to be a money maker that is ran by the City. 2
3
Mr. Jahnke concluded by stating it is always a pleasure to come to the Council meetings, if not 4
his arrival, his departure. 5
6
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUISNESS 7
8
A. Resolution 6760, A Resolution of Appreciation for Stephen A. Suave for 20 years 9
of dedicated service with the SBM Fire Department. 10
11
Mayor Marty presented a framed copy of Resolution 6760 to Mr. Suave. 12
13
Mr. Suave thanked his family for putting up with his work with the Fire Department for 20 years, 14
as it is a huge time commitment and it affects one’s private life. He also introduced his family to 15
the City and Council. 16
17
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GUNN. To approve Resolution 6760 A Resolution of 18
Appreciation for Stephen A. Suave for 20 years of dedicated service with the SBM Fire 19
Department. 20
21
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 22
23
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS 24
25
A. Resolution 6759 Accepting Proposals/Quotations for Technology and 26
Electronics Package for the SBM Fire Station #3. 27
28
Fire Chief Zikmund explained construction of the SBM Fire Station #3 at 11920 Ulysses Street is 29
underway and has an estimated completion date of July 31, 2006. He reviewed the progress on 30
the building. 31
32
Fire Chief Zikmund commented that proposals/quotations for technology and electronics were 33
requested/sought by the Fire Department Staff. He explained that the Technology and 34
Electronics package focuses on those items that have, as a component of their use, some 35
installation that is best built in at the time of construction. He noted these include the phone and 36
data cabling, security system, TV/Audio Visual/Electronics, and phone system. 37
38
Fire Chief Zikmund reviewed the components of each item. 39
40
Fire Chief Zikmund stated that the low bid for TV/Audio Visual/Electronics was received by 41
Tierny Brothers, Incorporated in the amount of $126,622.08, the low bid for phone and data 42
cabling was received by General Telecommunications Corporation in the amount of $16,151.50, 43
and the low bid for the security system was received by Honeywell Security Monitoring in the 44
amount of $16,330.00. 45
Mounds View City Council March 13, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 3
1
Fire Chief Zikmund offered to answer questions 2
3
Councilmember Stigney referenced the Tierny Brothers quote, noting that it holds the State of 4
Minnesota cooperative purchasing venture contract for these items, and wondered if it goes out 5
for competitive bid. Fire Chief Zikmund explained quotations are received as opposed to bids. 6
He stated he checked with legal counsel, and if there is a State approved or government approved 7
purchasing consortium price, then that is the price that can be used. He mentioned another 8
company was found, AVI, but Tierny Brothers were found to be more competitive, more 9
responsive, and the City has used them before. 10
11
Councilmember Stigney asked for confirmation that the item did not go out for competitive bid. 12
Fire Chief Zikmund explained none of the items went out for published bid, but rather bidders 13
are invited to submit quotations, as compared to construction contracts that are published in the 14
paper. He commented there were only two companies found that did this type of work. 15
16
Councilmember Stigney stated he was concerned with giving someone a contract because they 17
have a purchasing venture with the State, and stated it should have been done by competitive bid. 18
19
Finance Director Beer clarified that what the State contract means is that there is a consortium 20
that solicits bids for a number of items for competitive bid. He explained these are the winning 21
bidders. He explained the City is able to use the contract without having to do additional 22
competitive bidding. 23
24
Councilmember Stigney asked if the State asked for bids on this specific equipment. Fire Chief 25
Zikmund and Director Beer stated this is correct, and is done for thousands of items. Fire Chief 26
Zikmund noted that the same thing will be used for the furniture once it comes through. 27
28
Councilmember Stigney stated he has a problem without going out and asking for competitive 29
bids. 30
31
Fire Chief Zikmund stated that quotes were solicited from other vendors. 32
33
Councilmember Stigney stated nothing is listed in documentation regarding this. 34
35
Mayor Marty asked Finance Director Beer for clarification on the State contract. Finance 36
Director Beer replied it is a consortium of local governments, and City governments pay to be in 37
the consortium as it is the only way to take advantage of the state bid price. He explained the 38
State puts out for a number of bids for numerous items like pickup trucks, computers, televisions, 39
garbage bags, etc. He stated the list goes out for competitive bids, the State collects data, and 40
these are the winning bidders based on specifications desired. Finance Director Beer explains 41
that it is a large process, but it was competitive bid and numerous notices were advertised to 42
vendors to gather information. He explained this helps communities save money by not having 43
to go through the competitive bidding process. 44
45
Mounds View City Council March 13, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 4
Councilmember Flaherty asked what digital signage is. Fire Chief Zikmund stated that the 1
hardware consists of a main reader board sign, a 30-inch LCD monitor, and six televisions linked 2
into that. He explained there will be a control station at the entry point that will provide 3
information on meetings and what is going on in the building, and play any one of a number of 4
videos will be played continuously on fire safety or another topic in the safety arena. He stated 5
there are two conference rooms and training rooms that will be public rooms. He stated the 6
security system is designed to allow the rest of the building to be secure, and yet those rooms to 7
be used. 8
9
Councilmember Flaherty asked about the flat screen television and noted these are very 10
expensive. Fire Chief Zikmund that there will only be one flat screen television and the rest will 11
be 27-inch Panasonic televisions. 12
13
Councilmember Flaherty asked if the building will be manned around the clock. Fire Chief 14
Zikmund responded that it will only be staffed during normal working hours during the work 15
week. 16
17
Councilmember Stigney asked if the particular equipment that the City is looking to purchase has 18
gone out to different bidders and if Tierney Brothers is the low bidder of that group. Fire Chief 19
Zikmund stated yes. 20
21
Councilmember Stigney asked if several vendors responded and if it is the lowest price of all that 22
responded. Finance Director Beer stated a multitude of vendors participate in the process. 23
24
Councilmember Stigney asked if each and every item is detailed in the State bid list or if it is the 25
low bidder for the general category. He asked if the bidder lists all of their equipment along with 26
another bidder to make an exact dollar for dollar bid, or if this is a bidder with a typically lower 27
price for the general category of equipment. Finance Director Beer stated the list is prepared and 28
as an example, it may have 15 types of televisions, and this particular bidder was the low bidder 29
on those 15 types. He stated he did not know if the list had specifically the item the Fire 30
Department is looking for. 31
32
Councilmember Stigney stated that knowing this fact, he was even more uncomfortable 33
proceeding with this. 34
35
Finance Director Beer commented that the State Statute reads that it has to be competitively bid 36
at least once, and by participating in the consortium, all items have gone through the competitive 37
bidding process. He stated the State Auditor would not have any issues with this particular 38
purchase. 39
40
Councilmember Stigney asked if there is an actual list of each item bid by each bidder. Finance 41
Director Beer stated there is not. 42
43
Mayor Marty stated the proposal appears reasonable, as it is within the project estimates and the 44
budget. 45
Mounds View City Council March 13, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 5
1
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GUNN. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6759 2
Accepting Proposals/Quotations for Technology and Electronics Package for the SBM Fire 3
Station #3. 4
5
Councilmember Stigney stated he thinks some of the bidding processes should be closed with the 6
State, as there are some areas of uneasiness. 7
8
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 9
10
Fire Chief Zikmund thanked the Council, and reported that the Fire Department did negotiate a 11
$32,000 reduction in fees to the architect for the technology, electronics furniture, fixtures and 12
interior design that the Fire Department did work on. 13
14
B. Resolution 6761 A Resolution Supporting the Constitutional Amendment for 15
Motor Vehicle Sales Tax Dedication to Transportation. 16
17
City Administrator Ulrich explained the North Metro Mayor’s Association would like a 18
resolution of support from the City that supports this proposed amendment. He explained this 19
amendment will dedicate 100 percent of the proceeds from the Minnesota motor vehicle sales tax 20
to highways and transit system improvements. 21
22
City Administrator Ulrich explained currently 54 percent of the motor vehicle sales tax goes to 23
transportation improvements and 46 percent goes to the State’s General Fund without a specific 24
designation. 25
26
City Administrator Ulrich stated that the issue is certainly a high priority for suburban 27
communities to focus on transportation, but on the other hand, there is no free money. He 28
explained the 46 percent of the funds dedicated to transportation from the General Fund would 29
not be available for other General Fund purposes such as education and local government aid. 30
He stated that the North Metro Mayor’s Association does see transportation as a priority and is 31
supportive of the ballot measure to provide dedicated funding. 32
33
City Administrator Ulrich stated the assumption in theory is that the funds are dedicated, and it 34
would not raise taxes or take away from other important items that the State has. He stated it is 35
recommended for adoption. 36
37
Councilmember Flaherty stated he does not know how to give assurances that this will not raise 38
taxes, because if one piece of the pie is given to another, typically only an increase in taxes or 39
fees would fill that slot. He stated he does not know the impact of the transfer of 46 percent of 40
revenue from the General Fund, and is uncomfortable with the fact that the State is so 41
ambiguous. He stated it seems like a very good idea but would like more clarification on what 42
the other purposes are that will be short funded. 43
44
City Administrator Ulrich stated there is no clear answer, as it is not designated revenue and is 45
Mounds View City Council March 13, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 6
used for General Fund purposes. He explained that it is not designated for one particular item, 1
but is part of the pie. 2
3
Councilmember Thomas stated it is inappropriate for the City to be speaking on this issue, and 4
that the City has no role in this matter. She stated she disagrees with the North Metro Mayor’s 5
Association position to ask to the City to do this. She stated it is an individual voter’s decision 6
on the ballot. She stated she cannot support something that is within her job description. 7
8
Mayor Marty asked if the constitutional amendment would be put on the ballot if it was 9
amended. Councilmember Thomas stated it has to be put on the ballot to be amended. 10
11
City Administrator Ulrich stated it was already approved during the last legislative session to 12
have it as a ballot measure for 2006. He explained the North Metro Mayor’s Association is 13
trying to rally support of organizations behind them to insure the passage. 14
15
Mayor Marty pointed out that the 2006 ballot is asking voters to dedicate 100 percent of motor 16
vehicle sales tax to highways and transit, where at least 40 percent of that would go to public 17
transit. He stated it seems like the metropolitan areas would garner this because there is little 18
public transportation outside of the metropolitan area. 19
20
City Administrator Ulrich stated that during the last legislative session, it was very contentious 21
about how much should be dedicated to transit. 22
23
Councilmember Thomas stated the resolution is asking the City Council to take a political stand 24
on this issue. 25
26
Mayor Marty stated he does not want to support something that is going to keep 40 percent of the 27
revenue in the metropolitan area. He stated he has a problem supporting a dictation for all the 28
people in the State. 29
30
Councilmember Thomas asked if the Council wants to vote on the resolution or table the motion. 31
32
Councilmember Stigney stated tabling the motion would not be appropriate. 33
34
MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/GUNN. To waive the reading and deny Resolution 6761 A 35
Resolution Supporting the Constitutional Amendment for Motor Vehicle Sales Tax Dedication to 36
Transportation. 37
38
Councilmember Stigney stated this is going to go on ballot and the people of Minnesota should 39
decide. He stated he has a problem supporting it as a Council. 40
41
Councilmember Thomas suggested that the resolution should be tabled if the Council does not 42
want to make a political stance. 43
44
Councilmember Stigney stated the item should only be tabled if there is something of a more 45
Mounds View City Council March 13, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 7
immediate concern, and asked what that item would be. He stated there is nothing that is 1
interrupting the Council. 2
3
Councilmember Thomas noted it would have to be taken off the table. 4
5
Mayor Marty commented that he could see how voting would put the Council in a situation it 6
may not want to be in. 7
8
Councilmember Stigney suggested another way to handle the item is to postpone it indefinitely, 9
retract the motion of denying it, and change the motion to postpone it indefinitely and take no 10
action, so as not to take a stand on the item. 11
12
Councilmember Thomas suggested no action is necessary if the motion is withdrawn. She 13
pointed out that a vote is not required just because a resolution is put in front of the Council. 14
15
City Administrator Ulrich stated that one option is to make a motion to postpone the item 16
indefinitely. 17
18
Councilmembers Stigney and Gunn agreed to retract the motion on the floor. 19
20
SUBSTITUTE MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/GUNN. To postpone indefinitely Resolution 21
6761 A Resolution Supporting the Constitutional Amendment for Motor Vehicle Sales Tax 22
Dedication to Transportation. 23
24
Councilmember Flaherty stated he agreed with Councilmember Thomas that the resolution 25
should not be in front of the Council. He pointed out that 46 percent of the State’s General Fund 26
works out to be approximately $130 to $150 million. He stated the amendment is too ambiguous 27
to support one way or the other. 28
29
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 30
31
C. Resolution 6758 Approving Contract Award Regarding Easement Clearing 32
for Edgewood Drive and Bona Road. 33
34
Director of Public Works Lee explained there is a ponding problem to the rear of properties on 35
Bona Road and Edgewood Drive, and it was found that the drainage easement to the rear of the 36
properties is not functioning as originally intended. He stated Staff is recommending to correct 37
this situation by repairing the drainage easement and reestablishing it to the grades that were 38
approved under the original grading plan. 39
40
Director of Public Works explained Staff received two quotes, and the low quote was from 41
Mattco Excavating in the amount of $15,230. Staff recommends awarding Mattco Excavating 42
with the contract to perform the work, as per the City’s recently adopted Easement Use and 43
Restoration policy. 44
45
Mounds View City Council March 13, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 8
Mayor Marty stated he has visited the area and has heard from the residents through the years 1
about this issue. 2
3
Director of Public Works Lee explained several neighborhood meetings have been held with the 4
ten individual property owners, and it has been explained what the problem is and possible 5
solutions. He stated they are aware that the issue may be resolved sometime this spring. 6
7
MOTION/SECOND: MARTY/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and approve Resolution 8
6758 Approving Contract Award Regarding Easement Clearing for Edgewood Drive and Bona 9
Road. 10
11
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 12
13
D. Resolution 6773 Approving Transfers Between Funds. 14
15
Finance Director Beer explained the City Council approved a variety of transfers as part of the 16
2005 budget, and this resolution approves the remaining transfers between funds for the year 17
2005. He noted the Office of the State Auditor recommends that the General Fund’s balance 18
should be 35 to 50 percent of the next year’s budgeted revenues or up to five months of operating 19
expenditures. Finance Director Beer noted that if the City made all the budgeted transfers, it 20
would exceed the upper limit. 21
22
Finance Director Beer reviewed several transfers that should be reduced or eliminated. 23
24
Finance Director Beer stated that Staff is looking for direction on where to deposit funds from 25
the Golf Course Enterprise Fund that will have a cash balance once the final liabilities are paid. 26
He stated he recommends the Levy Reduction Fund or Street Improvement Fund. 27
28
Councilmember Flaherty commented that he likes the idea of eliminating the Special Projects 29
Fund. 30
31
Councilmember Flaherty asked what the Golf Course Enterprise Fund will end up at. Finance 32
Director Beer stated there will be between $230,000 and $240,000 in cash left once all liabilities 33
are paid. 34
35
Councilmember Flaherty stated he recommends the Street Improvement Fund as opposed to the 36
Levy Reduction Fund since street improvement is a top priority for the City. He stated the City 37
should take advantage of any opportunity to build the account up to allow the City to move 38
forward at a quicker and more diligent pace. 39
40
Councilmember Gunn agreed with Councilmember Flaherty’s comments. 41
42
Councilmember Stigney asked if the bonding would be lowered for one year by transferring the 43
funds into the Street Improvement Fund. Finance Director Beer responded that the City may be 44
able to lower it for one year, combine bonding for a couple of years, or may not bond for one 45
Mounds View City Council March 13, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 9
year. He stated there are several issues to decide before knowing the extent of the bonding. 1
2
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6773 3
Approving Transfers Between Funds. 4
5
Mayor Marty thanked Finance Director Beer for looking ahead on these items. 6
7
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 8
9
E. Resolution 6767 Approving the Preliminary Feasibility Report, Waiving 10
Public Information Hearing, Ordering the Project, and Authorizing the 11
Preparation of Plans and Specifications to the Medtronic Utility Extension 12
Project. 13
14
Director of Public Works Lee stated the final feasibility report indicates the cost of the project 15
will be $484,700, but may be increased to $608,000 if the casting installed for the extending the 16
sanitary sewer cannot be utilized. 17
18
Director of Public Works Lee commented that Staff suggests waiving a public information 19
hearing, but it does not preclude the public from discussing the issue with the Council. He stated 20
it waives the City’s responsibility to advertise for the public hearing, and will save a month’s 21
time and $1,200 in advertising and administration fees. 22
23
Director of Public Works Lee recommends the Council to order the project and authorize the 24
preparation of plans and specifications 25
26
Councilmember Flaherty stated that waiving the public hearing would go against one of the rules 27
that was set forth on the Council’s retreat of providing information to the public. He asked if an 28
informational meeting could be held as opposed to a public hearing. 29
30
Director of Public Works Lee stated that waiving a public hearing abstains the City from the 31
State requirement of advertising within a certain time frame. He indicated that a public 32
informational meeting can be held. 33
34
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/STIGNEY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6767 35
Approving the Preliminary Feasibility Report, Waiving Public Information Hearing, Holding a 36
Public Informational Meeting, Ordering the Project, and Authorizing the Preparation of Plans 37
and Specifications to the Medtronic Utility Extension Project. 38
39
Mayor Marty referenced page 12 of the feasibility report, utility access and connection charges, 40
and asked if these charges are separate from the installation charges and if they will be billed 41
separately to the developer. 42
43
Director of Public Works Lee stated it is City sewer and water connection charges, and will be 44
charged to Medtronic once a permit is filed to install utilities. 45
Mounds View City Council March 13, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 10
1
Mayor Marty stated he was just worried if the charges came in high, it would impact the amount 2
of money that was going to the Streets Fund. Director of Public Works Lee stated it is separate 3
and charges are established annually by the City Council as part of the fee structure. 4
5
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 6
7
F. First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 769, an ordinance Amending 8
and Revising Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code Relating to Signs and 9
Billboards. 10
11
Community Development Director Ericson explained that the Municipal Code relating to signs 12
and billboards needs to be amended to bring the City Code into compliance with the agreement 13
of the City and Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. relating to the relocation of billboards from the golf 14
course property to elsewhere in the community. 15
16
Director Ericson noted the City Attorney was asked to look at some of the issues relating to the 17
First Amendment relating to free speech, as there were a few court cases relating to sign codes in 18
the metropolitan area that resulted in some proposed changes from the City’s attorney office. 19
20
Director Ericson reviewed the proposed amendments to the Sign Code. 21
22
Director Ericson explained that Clear Channel has requested that the ordinance be drafted to 23
remove the interim use permit revisions relating to billboards. Director Ericson noted that a 24
representative from a Clear Channel Outdoor is present for questions. 25
26
Director Ericson stated Staff recommends adoption of the introduction and first reading of 27
Ordinance 769. He noted the second reading is scheduled for March 27, 2006. 28
29
Director Ericson stated proposed signs could be located anywhere on Interstate 35W, anywhere 30
on Highway 10, Old Highway 8 (South of County Road H), County Road 10 (South of 31
Wooddale), County Road 10 (North of Silver Lake Road). He noted it also has to be consistent 32
with B2, B3, and I1 PUD zoning; in effect, there are little pockets where signs could be located if 33
it meets other setbacks from residential areas and other requirements of the Sign Code. 34
35
Director Ericson states the changes make the Code consistent with the agreement that the City 36
executed with Clear Channel and addresses free speech issues, and the changes also make the 37
Sign Code more defensible to withstand any challenges. 38
39
Director Ericson offered to answer questions. 40
41
Councilmember Flaherty asked for confirmation that of the six original signs, two are maintained 42
on the Medtronic property, one is on the SYSCO Lot A, and three need to be relocated. Director 43
Ericson stated this is correct. 44
45
Mounds View City Council March 13, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 11
Councilmember Thomas asked why the area north of Silver Lake Road is being considered. She 1
stated that area is unsuited being that is all high density and residential housing, with very minor 2
amounts of business. She stated it is a very inappropriate location to be putting billboards. 3
4
Councilmember Thomas stated she was uncomfortable with the maximum height of 45 feet 5
anywhere signs are allowed, even though it may be appropriate in certain locations. She stated 6
there is a big difference between Interstate 35W and residential areas. 7
8
Councilmember Thomas referenced the language about the removal of the sunset provisions, and 9
stated she is surprised that Clear Channel brought it up yet again considering the last six years of 10
negotiations that have gone on regarding sunset provisions and the timelines, and how unwilling 11
the Council was to even go 30 years. She stated more limitations are needed. 12
13
Councilmember Stigney asked if the area north of US Highway 10 is one zoning district or if it is 14
PUD. Director Ericson stated it is a PUD zoning district, and an area where billboards are 15
presently allowed. 16
17
Councilmember Stigney stated the billboard height north of Highway 10 is no problem, and 18
asked if there is language that could be added that specifies the locations that can be at 45 feet. 19
Director Ericson stated it would be possible to not change the height maximum for signs and 20
leave it at 35 feet; however, it is one of the modifications requested by Clear Channel. He stated 21
it was not a modification that he felt the Council would dismiss out of hand, which is why he did 22
not put in language the removal of the interim use permit provisions. He stated this is something 23
that could be negotiated, and if there is a location along 35W where visibility is a concern, there 24
are variance provisions that the Council or Planning Commission may consider. He pointed out 25
this is the first reading and an opportunity to consider changes. 26
27
Councilmember Stigney stated he would prefer a variance be requested for all signs higher than 28
35 feet. 29
30
Councilmember Flaherty referenced the sunset provisions, and stated he is surprised it is 31
suggested to waive it, because Clear Channel had stated it would be the same agreement with the 32
original six signs, which were capped at less than 30 years. He stated he is not in favor of doing 33
that, and does not want to saddle future Councils with a perpetual billboard. 34
35
Councilmember Gunn agreed with Councilmember Flaherty. She asked if garage sale signs are 36
being allowed or not. Director Ericson stated that language is being removed from the Code that 37
allows garage and estate sale signs. Councilmember Thomas confirmed that they are not 38
prohibited, but the language is being removed that allows them expressly. 39
40
Councilmember Stigney stated he agrees that the sunset clause should not be removed. He stated 41
the locations on the west side of the City are not appropriate. 42
43
Director Ericson pointed out that the interim use permit provisions are part of the City Code, and 44
the City Code can be modified and amended as future Councils dictate to be necessary. He stated 45
Mounds View City Council March 13, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 12
Staff recommends leaving the language in there as it is, and indicated that it does not preclude 1
Clear Channel from considering or requesting an additional 10-15 years or modification of the 2
Code to allow for an additional 30 year period. He stated it holds firm to what the Council had 3
negotiated in terms of the relocation agreement being a 30 year period. 4
5
Councilmember Thomas stated the height restrictions should remain at 35 feet. She asked what 6
change is required to not allow signs in the section north of Silver Lake Road on County 10. 7
8
Director Ericson stated the section of text relating to the area north of Silver Lake Road could be 9
eliminated. He stated it is not a zoning issue. 10
11
Mayor Marty referenced the statement regarding the Sign Ordinance Review/First Amendment 12
from the City Attorney, which stated in order for the sign ordinance to be safe from legal 13
challenges, it must not contain provisions to give unbridled discretion to City officials and should 14
not be content based. Mayor Marty questioned the billboards that were approved at the former 15
golf course, and noted if they were in the City, they were not to have alcohol or tobacco 16
advertisements. He commented that nothing like this is in the ordinance, and asked if it has to be 17
stricken. Director Ericson stated the City could specific the requirements upon Clear Channel 18
because it was the land owner and had a contract with Clear Channel, but the City cannot ban all 19
alcohol advertisements in the City. 20
21
Mayor Marty referenced Section 1008.02, the definition of incidental signs, and asked if it should 22
be changed to read no sign with a message that is legible off of premises should be incidental. 23
He asked for an explanation. 24
25
Director Ericson stated this was a change in regard to elimination of the advertising context of 26
the commercial nature. He stated this relates to incidental signs that relate to the flow of traffic 27
on the property. He explained that originally there was some language that was meant to exclude 28
commercial advertising as a definition of an incidental sign. He stated the City Attorney 29
suggested eliminating the commercial or advertising aspect to the incidental sign definition. 30
31
Mayor Marty referenced the chart on Page 2, Section 6, and asked if the numbers indicate the 32
size of the sign. Director Ericson stated they did. 33
34
Mayor Marty referenced the top of Page 3, and asked what the small notations were. Director 35
Ericson explained these are footnotes that talk about the height of billboards increasing to 45 36
feet. He noted this could be stricken based on prior Council discussion tonight. He added this 37
would strike the entire section because it was the only change to the section. 38
39
Mayor Marty referenced Section 8, item F, and noted the line says: “…provided that one or more 40
of the following conditions are applicable.” He asked what the following conditions are. 41
Director Ericson commented that they do not relate to the change in that section. 42
43
Mayor Marty referenced Page 4, Item B, that stated billboards must be located at least 250 feet 44
from residentially zoned property. He noted it would probably meet the 250 feet, but stated he 45
Mounds View City Council March 13, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 13
wanted to extend that footage. 1
2
Mayor Marty stated that he had to hand it to Clear Channel wanting to get rid of the interim 3
provisions because they have come to the Council several times. He stated when the idea of 4
putting in billboards first came to the Council, nobody wanted billboards, but nobody wanted to 5
tax citizens either. He stated that Clear Channel came back to extend from 15 to 20 years, and 6
the City was reluctant, but understood that Clear Channel spent a lot of money at the Supreme 7
Court, etc. Mayor Marty stated that it should be left the way it is and he stated he does not want 8
to saddle future Councils with a possible poor decision. 9
10
Councilmember Thomas stated it is worth pointing out that the Council is not negotiating a 11
contract here, but this is a sign ordinance for permits. She stated should Clear Channel pursue 12
contracts with other private parties, this is a separate issue. She indicated the Council is not 13
going to offer a permit for a longer period of time without Clear Channel having to come back 14
and request a longer period of time. She stated 30 years not to re-address the permit is immense. 15
She stated she is not comfortable with a permit that never has to be addressed again. 16
17
Mayor Marty asked what the height is of the billboard on County Highway 10 by Walgreens. 18
Director Ericson stated it is 35 feet. Mayor Marty indicated that is plenty high for a billboard in 19
town. 20
21
Councilmember Stigney asked why sometimes there is an additional item sticking up on the 22
billboards if there is a 35 foot requirement, and asked who monitors the height requirement. 23
Director Ericson explained this is an extension on the top of billboard that is not to exceed 25 24
percent by City Code, and that the City monitors this. 25
26
Tom McCarver, Clear Channel Outdoor, stated through the negotiation of the agreement to 27
remove signs, Clear Channel was in a somewhat partnership with the City in trying to find areas 28
to relocate these signs. He stated there are not a lot of locations available, and indicated he 29
agreed with the Council on the Silver Lake issue, as it was not even looked at as a possibility. 30
He stated it is not the intent of Clear Channel to put signs in areas where they are not necessary. 31
Mr. McCarver stated the issue is to find suitable locations to get close as close as possible to 32
what is on the other side. He noted when looking at the 45 feet height on the golf course, there 33
were trees and other obstacles to get over, and there will be the same issue on a number of other 34
sites. 35
36
Mr. McCarver stated as far as the interim use permit, some of the areas may potentially be 37
exactly the same. He stated there is some disparity as far as the value is concerned and part of 38
the value is being able to stay for a longer term. He stated if there is a height limit of 35 feet, it is 39
possible that locations could not be found. He stated that 35 feet cannot work on any site on 40
Interstate 35W. He noted in some locations, Clear Channel is allowed to maintain the trees in 41
area, but there is nothing they can do about the trees on Interstate 35W, so that would not be a 42
viable option. 43
44
Councilmember Thomas stated this is why the variance option was discussed for places where 45
Mounds View City Council March 13, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 14
there is a visibility issue. She stated it allows the City to say it is not appropriate for all areas to 1
be at that height, and then the City cannot deny where it would not be appropriate if that is the 2
maximum height allowed. She explained the City would set the maximum across the board and 3
if there are difficulties with the visibility, then the other options would be gone through to allow 4
variances. She explained this will allow flexibility for both parties. 5
6
Mr. McCarver stressed he is looking for quick resolution as there are a couple of interested 7
parties. He commented there are three locations including the City site that are viable, but one is 8
not viable due to the limitations. He noted even with the 45 feet maximum height, he is not sure 9
that one or two of the sites are viable. 10
11
Councilmember Gunn asked if the wording be changed so that 45 feet is allowed in a specific 12
area. 13
14
Mayor Marty stated he is more comfortable leaving it at 35 feet and variances requested for 15
anything above that. 16
17
Councilmember Thomas stated it would allow for points in the future. 18
19
Councilmember Gunn asked if certain areas could be specified in the Ordinance, such as the 20
Interstate 35W area. 21
22
Mayor Marty stated it might take a meeting or two longer for the Council to address a variance 23
once the locations are established. 24
25
Mr. McCarver asked if there is a limitation as far as percent varied above the current height in a 26
variance situation. Councilmember Thomas stated it is based on hardship. 27
28
Councilmember Gunn noted the current Council will not always be here. 29
30
City Administrator Ulrich pointed out that the hardship criteria is one that is sometimes hard to 31
overcome. He stated that Staff can look at adding language to allow height at specific zones 32
before the second reading of the Ordinance. 33
34
Mr. McCarver asked when the next hearing would happen. City Administrator Ulrich stated it 35
would be a minimum of two weeks. 36
37
Mr. McCarver stated he could look at the specific areas. He commented if the billboard is 35 38
feet high at Walgreens, he would have no need for it to be higher than that. He stated there are 39
locations that may work; however, on Interstate 35W, at a minimum the height will need to be 45 40
feet. 41
42
Councilmember Flaherty commented that a variance is a deviation from what the Code says. He 43
stated it could vary up 50 feet, 100 feet, or another amount as part of the variance. He asked if it 44
is possible to get a rendition of what the location will look like. Mr. McCarver stated an accurate 45
Mounds View City Council March 13, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 15
portrayal can be submitted as to what something would look like in certain area. 1
2
Mr. McCarver stated the problem with a variance is that it may get hung up in a legal question 3
depending the way things go, and stated it is his understanding that there are certain criteria to 4
meet to have a variance, and it may not be as easy as the Council indicates. 5
6
Mayor Marty stated the Planning Commission will have to stick with the variances, but the 7
Council has the authority to overrule and decide otherwise. 8
9
Councilmember Gunn added that the same Council is not always going to be here. 10
11
Director Ericson added that in case of the variance approved for the golf course, it was approved 12
solely on the basis of the trees being in the way. He explained the type of variance relates to the 13
type of use. He stated the height of the trees in front of a billboard is the hardship if the billboard 14
cannot be seen. He explained this is a clear hardship that can be demonstrated. Director Ericson 15
stated that Planning Commissions and City Councils change, but when looking at the variance 16
criteria and addressing the fact if there is hardship, it should remain the same regardless of the 17
City Council, and should not be arbitrary. 18
19
City Administrator Ulrich stated looking at a variance is acceptable, and once the Council has set 20
the precedence that a variance is granted on tree height, the City cannot be arbitrary on where the 21
variance is granted, as long as billboards are allowed in the district. He stressed there has to be 22
consistency in how it is applied. He stated this is one reason for designating certain areas for 23
height as opposed to leaving a broad based that a variance can be granted anywhere. 24
25
Mayor Marty asked Clear Channel to review the proposed sites with Staff before the next 26
meeting to see if that type of language can be worked in. 27
28
Mayor Marty noted the City was hoping to install monument signs with brick work on the signs 29
at the golf course, and asked if there was still going to have this type of sign put in there. He 30
stated a variance was given for the billboard in front of Walgreens to expand, and the City asked 31
for more of a base or monument. He asked if the same type of base could be requested if there 32
are any signs on County Highway 10, without being arbitrary, since it is the boulevard area of the 33
City. 34
35
Director Ericson stated he could check with the City Attorney, and that the City can adopt design 36
guidelines that would be implemented city wide on certain construction. He stated the City has 37
not taken a position and the City was fortunate to do that for the existing billboards because they 38
were on Highway 10. 39
40
Councilmember Thomas stated that the Council is not talking about negotiating contracts, but 41
rather only the separate permit process. She stated it is an opportunity of the private property 42
owner to negotiate the design of the billboard. 43
44
Mr. McCarver stated it is the intent to stone work on Signs 1 and Sign 6. He noted the other two 45
Mounds View City Council March 13, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 16
are coming down in the next year, so it is not worth the effort. He noted Sign 7 will have stone 1
work as well. Mr. McCarver stated Clear Channel is very proud of those structures and the 2
concept passed with the City. He indicated that Clear Channel is nationally recognized as an 3
innovative approach, and other cities have approached them for their services. 4
5
Director Ericson asked for consensus from the Council on the two issues, the height of the signs 6
and the location of northwest of Silver Lake Road. He indicated that changes could be made for 7
the second reading. 8
9
Councilmember Thomas stated she still thinks powers should be reserved to future Councils to 10
be able to consider whether it is a variance, but she is willing to consider anything on the 11
Interstate 35W corridor to have a height of 45. She stated there is a point to where there is a limit 12
to draw the line, and she does not have a problem with the variance process as it is there for a 13
reason. She stressed future Councils should have the opportunity to deny or approve as their 14
right on the Council. 15
16
Mayor Marty stated he is fine with Interstate 35W and other locations by the variance process. 17
18
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To approve First Reading of Ordinance 769, an 19
ordinance Amending and Revising Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code Relating to Signs and 20
Billboards, with the suggested amendments and Staff looking into locations. 21
22
Ayes – 3 Nays – 1 (Marty) Absent – (____) Motion carried. 23
24
G. Resolution 6771 Approving Change Orders No. 7-10 for the City Hall 25
Rehabilitation Project. 26
27
Director of Public Works Lee reviewed Change Orders 7-10. He explained Change Order 7 is 28
for additional costs for changes to the boiler system of $3,155, Change Order 8 is for additional 29
costs for modification to the mop sink of $790, Change Order 9 is for additional costs for 30
relocation of Qwest Communication’s main phone line of $2,226, and Change Order 10 is for 31
additional costs for removal of wood partitions of $3,482. 32
33
Director of Public Works stated the consultant for the City has indicated that all changes have 34
been identified for the project. 35
36
Director of Public Works Lee stated that there is $1,600,000 budgeted for the City Hall 37
Rehabilitation Project, and the estimated final cost of the project is $1,495,288. 38
39
Councilmember Stigney asked about Change Order 7 and referenced the notation about the 40
propellers being installed the wrong way, and asked if they were put in with new boilers. 41
Director of Public Works Lee stated they were originally installed incorrectly, and when they 42
were replaced on March 24, 2003, they were also installed incorrectly. He noted that Public 43
Works changed out the pump. 44
45
Mounds View City Council March 13, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 17
Mayor Marty referenced Change Order 7 on the Change Order Summary, and asked why it has a 1
cost of $0. Director of Public Works Lee stated that a contingency of $15,000 was built into the 2
contract, and the some of the change orders are billed toward the $15,000 contingency, so it 3
shows up on the report as $0. 4
5
Mayor Marty referenced Change Order 19 which is a credit of $633 for the removal of dampers. 6
Director of Public Works Lee explained it was not needed to meet the Building Code, so it was 7
deleted from the project. 8
9
Mr. Jahnke stated that the change orders are ironic, because the City projects tend to start at one 10
number and continues to increase. 11
12
Councilmember Thomas pointed out that the project is still under budget. 13
14
Mayor Marty pointed out the Fire Station is coming in on budget, too. 15
16
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/THOMAS. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6771 17
Approving Change Orders No. 7-10 for the City Hall Rehabilitation Project. 18
19
Councilmember Stigney asked if the total amount of the change orders total $94,751. Director of 20
Public Works Lee explained this is all that is anticipated. He explained Change Orders 1 through 21
6 have been approved up to this point, but all 20 Change Orders add up to $94,751. 22
23
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Absent – (____) Motion carried. 24
25
H. Resolution 6768 Approving Out of State Seminars/Schooling. 26
27
Public Works Supervisor Pittman explained there are two out of state seminars Public Works is 28
recommending for approval, American Traffic Safety Service Association (ATSSA) training 29
conference in Fargo, North Dakota, and Elgin Crosswind Street Sweeper Two-Day Training 30
School. 31
32
Public Works Supervisor Pittman stated Public Works is requesting four staff members to go to 33
the Elgin Crosswind Street Sweeper class. He stated this highly sophisticated and expensive 34
equipment was recently purchased. He stated it is a very in depth, hands-on, two-day class. He 35
stressed it would be difficult for only two people to go and then relay what they have learned. He 36
stated the four staff going there would be the ones who will be operating the equipment. He 37
stated the more people that know the equipment, the more accountability there is for the 38
equipment and Staff. 39
40
Public Works Supervisor Pittman noted that it was budgeted for two Staff to attend the ATSSA 41
training conference, but only one Staff will be going. He stated the savings could be transferred 42
towards the Elgin Crosswind Training School. He noted there will are funds from other training 43
classes that Staff will not be participating in that could be transferred to pay for these classes. 44
45
Mounds View City Council March 13, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 18
Mayor Marty referenced the ATSSA training, and noted alternative street markings is one of the 1
items on the agenda. He stated it has been talked about in past years to try to get the crosswalks 2
marked distinctively on County Road 10. He stated there are two intersections in the City that 3
are problematic because of their length and because they are diagonal. He noted this is 4
something that might be able to be addressed by attending this training. 5
6
Public Works Supervisor Pittman stated that is the purpose of going to these classes, to make 7
Staff more accountable and to bring knowledge back to the City to better it. 8
9
Mayor Marty referenced the Elgin Crosswind School information and that it indicates it is 10
designated for new or experienced Crosswind mechanics or maintenance persons and the 11
objectives are all from a mechanical point of view. He stated this is why he questions sending 12
two maintenance staff. 13
14
Public Works Supervisor Pittman stated the three operators and the mechanic are responsible for 15
doing the maintenance on the equipment. He stated the operators may be able to troubleshoot the 16
smaller things to save the mechanic time, so it would be valuable for them to attend the training. 17
He stated taking care of the problem on-site is where it will be a benefit to Staff. 18
19
City Administrator Ulrich stated it is a very expensive piece of equipment, and this training is an 20
investment for the equipment and Staff that run it. Public Works Supervisor Pittman stated the 21
purchase price of the equipment was $126,000. 22
23
Councilmember Gunn agreed and stated that it is extremely expensive equipment, and it is worth 24
the investment to have more people that know what they are doing. 25
26
Public Works Supervisor Pittman mentioned that one person attends the training free, so only 27
people need to be paid for. 28
29
Councilmember Flaherty stated he is looking for assurances that this is what is necessary to 30
maintain the piece of equipment. He stated the maximum total cost is $1,950 for four people. 31
He asked if the class is $400 per person. Public Works Supervisor Pittman stated that is correct. 32
33
Councilmember Flaherty asked how Staff will get there. Public Works Supervisor Pittman stated 34
it is his understanding that a personal vehicle will be used and mileage will be reimbursed. 35
36
Councilmember Flaherty asked if the hotel room is included. Public Works Supervisor Pittman 37
stated it is. 38
39
Councilmember Thomas asked if there is a policy in place of where to draw the line when too 40
much is wrong for Staff to try and fix the equipment. Public Works Supervisor Pittman 41
explained the three operators will be the main people running the equipment. He stated it would 42
be rare that anyone else would be using this equipment. 43
44
Councilmember Stigney asked if there is a City vehicle that could be used. Public Works 45
Mounds View City Council March 13, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 19
Supervisor Pittman there is and that is an option. 1
2
Mayor Marty asked why the registration was not brought up last month for the ATASSA training 3
since there was a lower fee if registration was completed by February 28. Public Works 4
Supervisor Pittman stated registration was confirmed at this lower rate, and this resolution is just 5
looking for approval. 6
7
Mayor Marty stated that if something breaks down, everyone pitches in as the mechanic cannot 8
do it all. He stated he agrees with the justification for the training class. 9
10
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6768 11
Approving Out of State Seminars/Schooling. 12
13
Councilmember Stigney stated he is supporting this reluctantly because now that the City has the 14
$126,000 street sweeper that he voted against, it needs to be maintained. He stated he wants to 15
see people get trained. 16
17
Public Works Supervisor Pittman stated he wrote a memorandum to City Administrator Ulrich 18
about the time saved with the equipment. He stated he hopes the Council understands that 19
money and time is being saved with the equipment. He indicated it used to take three and a half 20
weeks to sweep the City, and it only took one and a half weeks with the new equipment. He 21
mentioned it is a one person operation. He added it can also be used to clean out storm sewers. 22
23
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 24
25
I. Resolution 6789 Approving the Purchase of a 1-Ton 4x4 Pickup Truck. 26
27
Supervisor of Parks Dazenski explained that the Chevrolet ¾-ton pickup truck was scheduled for 28
replacement when it was ten years old, and it is now sixteen years old. He noted that Staff is 29
trying to do away with buying any more ½ ton pickup trucks, because they are not nearly as 30
useful as a ¾-ton or 1-ton pickup truck. He noted that ¾-ton pickup trucks are at the maximum 31
use when loaded with tools. He noted a 1-ton pickup truck provides some leeway for hauling 32
items, and explained other benefits of having a 1-ton pickup truck. 33
34
Supervisor of Parks Dazenski explained that the ¾-ton pickup truck is propane powered, and is 35
the second to last truck that has propane. He stated the propane tank is rusted from the inside out 36
and can only carry a one-third tank of fuel. 37
38
Supervisor of Parks Dazenski explained a 2006 1-ton Ford F-350 4x4 pickup truck can be 39
purchased under state contract for $23,230. He explained the new truck will last longer than ten 40
years. He noted the additional equipment and options necessary to fully utilize the truck can be 41
purchased from local equipment supply companies for approximately $10,000. 42
43
Supervisor of Parks Dazenski explained a reserve of $2,000 will be placed on the pickup when it 44
is sent to the surplus auction. 45
Mounds View City Council March 13, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 20
1
Councilmember Stigney asked if a better value can be received in an auction than for a trade-in. 2
Supervisor of Parks Dazenski explained that the vehicle cannot be traded in because it is a 3
propane powered vehicle, and the parts are virtually impossible to get to do any repairs. 4
5
Councilmember Thomas asked if flexible fuel vehicles have been considered. She stated a lot of 6
State vehicles are flexible fuel vehicles. She stated since the City is taking advantage of the State 7
bid system, this option may want to be considered. She stated she was unsure if it would be 8
available in a truck of this time, but it is something to think about in the future as far as a policy 9
for replacement vehicles. 10
11
Supervisor of Parks Dazenski stated there are e85 vehicles available, but they are not required. 12
He stated the City will eventually will buy vehicles of this type. 13
14
Director Ericson stated e85 is not available in Mounds View yet, so this fact should be 15
considered. 16
17
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/GUNN. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6789 18
Approving the Purchase of a 1-Ton 4x4 Pickup Truck. 19
20
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 21
22
J. Resolution 6770 Approving the Purchase of a Replacement Mower for the 23
Parks Division. 24
25
Supervisor of Parks Department Dazenski explained the Toro 580D Groundsmaster mower, 26
purchased in 2001, has developed problems in the hydrostatic drive that would require extensive 27
repairs. He noted the mower had been scheduled for replacement in 2006. 28
29
Supervisor of Parks Department Dazenski explained Staff has performed an extensive study and 30
evaluation of mowers and has chosen the Jacobsen HR 9016 mower, which has been proven to 31
be safe, dependable and user friendly. He explained the mower has hydraulic blades, the mower 32
is maintenance friendly, and is four-wheel drive. 33
34
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6770 35
Approving the Purchase of a Replacement Mower for the Parks Division. 36
37
Councilmember Stigney asked if the general life of a mower is five years. Supervisor of Parks 38
Department Dazenski stated it was used for 2,600 hours over five years. He noted the mower 39
could be used more, but it needs $3,000 of repairs. 40
41
Councilmember Stigney asked if five years of service can be expected with the new mower. 42
Supervisor of Parks Department Dazenski stated five years or 3,000 hours is the recommended 43
replacement time. 44
45
Mounds View City Council March 13, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 21
Councilmember Stigney asked about the units used at the golf course. Supervisor of Parks 1
Department Dazenski stated the largest unit the golf course had was a 10 foot mower, and that 2
was kept as a backup mower in case of a growth spurt or breakdown of the main mower. He 3
noted that two mowers from the golf course were auctioned off. 4
5
Mayor Marty stated he likes the features on the new mower. 6
7
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 8
9
K. Resolution 6772 Accepting Ramsey County Excess Right-of-Way. 10
11
Director Ericson explained Staff facilitated a discussion with Ramsey County regarding remnant 12
Long Lake Road right-of-way that bisects the SYSCO area. He stated the right-of-way is not in 13
use for its intended purpose and Ramsey County has no plans for the right-of-way. 14
15
Director Ericson stated that the City gave SYSCO direction to work with Ramsey County to 16
determine if the excess right-of-way could be vacated. He indicated that Ramsey County adopted 17
a Resolution which released the excess right-of-way to the City of Mounds View. He stated the 18
City should adopt a Resolution accepting this so it may in turn vacate same to SYSCO, as the 19
City has no plans for the right-of-way. 20
21
Director Ericson explained an ordinance must also be passed in order to vacate any interest in 22
land. He explained SYSCO is aware of Ramsey County’s plans. He explained 16,000 square feet 23
of land would be brought back on to the tax rolls. 24
25
Director Ericson explained there are utilities present in the right of way that would remain 26
protected by an easement dedicated as part of the SYSCO Minnesota Second Addition Plat that 27
would need to come back to the City Council for final plat approval. 28
29
Director Ericson offered to answer questions. 30
31
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/STIGNEY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6772 32
Accepting Ramsey County Excess Right-of-Way. 33
34
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 35
36
L. First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 770, an Ordinance Vacating 37
Excess and Unused Former Ramsey County Right-of-Way to SYSCO 38
Minnesota. 39
40
MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/FLAHERTY. To approve the First Reading and Introduction 41
of Ordinance 770, an Ordinance Vacating Excess and Unused Former Ramsey County Right-of-42
Way to SYSCO Minnesota. 43
44
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 45
Mounds View City Council March 13, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 22
1
Director Ericson noted the second reading would be at the next meeting 2
3
M. Resolution 6763 A Resolution Revising Section 1.53(G) of the Personnel 4
Manual pertaining to Tuition Reimbursement. 5
6
Item was deleted. 7
8
N. Resolution 6762 Approving a Step Increase for Officer Ben Zender of the 9
Mounds View Police Department. 10
11
MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/THOMAS. To approve Resolution 6762 Approving a Step 12
Increase for Officer Ben Zender of the Mounds View Police Department. 13
14
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 15
16
O. Resolution 6765 Approving a Severance Package for Dave Parker, former 17
Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course Employee. 18
19
Councilmember Stigney asked if Mr. Parker completed three full years of service. City 20
Administrator Ulrich indicated he did. 21
22
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GUNN. To approve Resolution 6765 Approving a Severance 23
Package for Dave Parker, former Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course Employee. 24
25
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 26
27
P. Resolution 6774 Appointing Dale Aukee and Thai Vang to the Parks and 28
Recreation and Forestry Commission and Appointing a Chairperson. 29
30
Director of Public Works Lee explained Mr. Dale Aukee and Mr. Thai Vang submitted 31
applications for terms on the Parks and Recreation and Forestry Commission. He added that the 32
Commission made a motion to re-appoint John Kroeger as Chairperson. 33
34
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/THOMAS. To waive the reading and approve Resolution 35
6774 Appointing Dale Aukee and Thai Vang to the Parks and Recreation and Forestry 36
Commission and Appointing John Kroeger as Chairperson. 37
38
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 39
40
Q. Resolution 6775 Approving the 2006 Seasonal Public Works Positions. 41
42
Director of Public Works Lee explained Staff is proposing to hire nine summer seasonal 43
positions, three fall seasonal positions, and one winter seasonal position for 2006. He stated this 44
is the amount of positions that are typically hired, with the exception of the summer seasonal 45
Mounds View City Council March 13, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 23
positions, where ten positions are usually hired. He explained Staff is putting together a proposal 1
to hire a Public Works intern as opposed to a seasonal employee to assist with Public Works with 2
public improvement projects. 3
4
Mayor Marty stated he is concerned about adding another Staff member if nine summer seasonal 5
positions are approved. He explained there is a heavy schedule of items to get done this year, 6
and Director of Public Works Lee will need someone that is more educated with higher technical 7
skills. Mayor Marty pointed out the Council is not voting for this extra position tonight. 8
9
Councilmember Flaherty asked for a quick bio of a typical seasonal worker. Director of Public 10
Works Lee stated typically seasonal workers are aged 18 to 24 and are college students. 11
12
Mayor Marty stated City Administrator Ulrich suggested paying the intern position out of the 13
projects themselves. Director of Public Works Lee noted he would work with City Administrator 14
Ulrich and Finance Director Beer regarding this. 15
16
Director of Public Works Lee stated that $6.5 million in projects are scheduled for later this year 17
and the first part of next year. He noted that the overall City budget is $5.6 million, so there will 18
be a substantial operating change. He stated more assistance in the office area will be required 19
for the projects to get going. 20
21
Mayor Marty commented that there have not been any projects for a number of years. 22
23
Councilmember Stigney asked if any of the seasonal employees will be allowed to apply for the 24
intern position. Director of Public Works Lee indicated that the position has not been defined 25
yet, but noted that other cities have had a difficult time finding a technical person, so Staff may 26
look at someone who is not in the engineering field as a possibility. 27
28
MOTION/SECOND: MARTY/GUNN. To waive the reading and approve Resolution 6775 29
Approving the 2006 Seasonal Public Works Positions. 30
31
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 32
33
R. Resolution 6776 Approving Execution of a Supplemental Letter of 34
Agreement with Short, Elliot, Hendrickson, Inc. for Community Center 35
Remodeling. 36
37
City Administrator Ulrich stated that the recommendation was to consider a supplemental 38
agreement with Short, Elliot, Hendrickson, Inc. for proposed services for the Community Center 39
as outlined by the Mounds View Community Center Task Force and pursuant to the direction by 40
the Council at the worksession. He stated the cost of proposed services is estimated to be 41
$9,500. He noted an additional proposal was received this evening for $5,000 to do similar 42
services. 43
44
City Administrator Ulrich stated he recommends the item be postponed by the Council, so that 45
Mounds View City Council March 13, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 24
the additional proposal can be analyzed to see if money can be saved. 1
2
Councilmember Thomas stated she agrees that the item should be postponed. She commented 3
that the other proposal came in from the firm that did the North St. Paul project, which is very 4
similar to this one. She stated she would like to obtain more information from them including 5
what the 6 percent of the Phase 2 ideas is, what items would fall under that and to get a total on 6
that. 7
8
MOTION: STIGNEY/. To postpone indefinitely Resolution 6776 Approving Execution of a 9
Supplemental Letter of Agreement with Short, Elliot, Hendrickson, Inc. for Community Center 10
Remodeling. 11
12
Councilmember Thomas asked why a motion needs to be made to postpone the item. 13
14
Motion died for lack of a second. 15
16
No action was taken on the resolution at this time. 17
18
City Administrator Ulrich stated the item will be discussed at the next regular Council meeting. 19
20
S. Resolution 6777 Approving Contract Amendment with Canyon Catering, 21
LLC. 22
23
City Administrator Ulrich noted the proposal is for an interim temporary lease with Canyon 24
Catering for $2,000 per month under a 30 day automatically renewing lease, which would allow 25
them to continue operation of the banquet center catering on the interim basis until the City 26
makes a final determination on the direction of the Community Center, based on the 27
recommendation of the Mounds View Community Center Task Force. 28
29
City Administrator Ulrich noted he has not heard back from Canyon Catering, and noted that the 30
Resolution could be unilaterally approved at this time if the Council agrees with the terms and 31
conditions. He stated if the terms and conditions are revised by the Council, it could be reviewed 32
with Canyon Catering. He stated Staff recommends the terms and conditions. 33
34
Councilmember Thomas asked how it reflects the fact that the City will still be occupying the 35
space for the month of April. She asked if there should be a waiver for rent while the City still 36
occupies the space. 37
38
City Administrator Ulrich explained in the original agreement, the lease is waived during the 39
period of time the City occupied the building. He stated the City is occupying the building for 40
another month due to construction delays. He stated the question is if the City should waive the 41
lease payment for the month of April. 42
43
Councilmember Thomas stated there is still no agreement for the month of April, and suggested 44
something still needs to be put into place that would cover April. She stated putting the interim 45
Mounds View City Council March 13, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 25
agreement into place and waiving the fee for April is acceptable. She clarified that the rent 1
should be waived while the City occupies the space. 2
3
Councilmember Gunn asked if it is only going to be for April or if will stretch farther. 4
5
City Administrator Ulrich suggested adding a provision that the current arrangement should 6
continue until the City is no longer occupying the building. 7
8
Mayor Marty stated that giving up $3,000 per month for the interim agreement will cost the City 9
$36,000 per year in revenue and also the church’s rent is $1,500 per month. He stated Canyon 10
Catering is basically paying $500 per month plus taxes, so they are getting a good deal in the 11
interim. 12
13
Councilmember Thomas noted that they cannot plan ahead for future events. 14
15
Councilmember Flaherty noted that Mr. Dobbs clearly put in the resignation that Canyon 16
Catering will not renew their contract under the current stipulation. He noted that the City is 17
actually gaining $3,000 per month because otherwise Canyon Catering would have just ended 18
their contract. He stated it is a good deal where either party can cancel the contract. He noted 19
the City is moving forward with other plans for the facility. 20
21
Mayor Marty referenced Page 7, Item 26, in regard to the intent of the parties of the agreement, 22
and that the City is a recipient of an End Grant from the State of Minnesota to be utilized for a 23
portion of the renovation of the facility. He mentioned he was not aware of this in the past. 24
25
Director Ericson explained that was a grant that was submitted by the previous Park and 26
Recreation Committee director to help with some of the renovations of the facility. 27
28
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GUNN. To waive the reading and approve Resolution 6776 29
Approving Execution of a Supplemental Letter of Agreement with Short, Elliot, Hendrickson, 30
Inc. for Community Center Remodeling, as amended. 31
32
Councilmember Stigney asked what is the amendment. Councilmember Thomas stated it is to 33
put the structure in place on April 1, and waive the $2,000 rent while the City occupies the 34
building. 35
36
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 37
38
8. CONSENT AGENDA 39
40
Councilmember Stigney asked to remove Item E. 41
42
A. Licenses for Approval 43
B. Resolution 6764, Approving a Charitable Gambling Permit for Twin Cities 44
North Chamber of Commerce. 45
Mounds View City Council March 13, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 26
C. Resolution 6766 Replacement of Asphalt Cold Planer. 1
D. Set a Public Hearing for 7:05 p.m., Monday, March 27, 2006, to Consider the 2
Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 770, an Ordinance Vacating 3
Excess and Unused Right of Way to SYSCO Minnesota. 4
E. Resolution 6778 Revising the Funding for the Random Park Replacement 5
Project. 6
7
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/FLAHERTY. To Approve the Consent Agenda Items A-D. 8
9
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 10
11
8E. Resolution 6778 Revising the Funding for the Random Park Replacement 12
Project. 13
14
Councilmember Stigney stated a change was requested for a 60/40 split from the Special Project 15
Fund to contribute 60 percent to the Park Dedication Fund, reducing the money to $40,000 from 16
the Special Project Fund. He noted this will cost the City $24,000. He stated he sees no reason 17
not to stay at the 50/50 level it was at before. He stated his disagreement with this Resolution. 18
19
MOTION: STIGNEY/. To waive the reading and deny Resolution 6778 Revising the Funding 20
for the Random Park Replacement Project. 21
22
Motion died for lack of a second. 23
24
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To waive the reading and approve Resolution 6778 25
Revising the Funding for the Random Park Replacement Project. 26
27
Councilmember Stigney pointed out that the money in the Special Projects Fund can be used for 28
other purposes but the Park Dedication Fund is strictly for parks, so by taking money out of the 29
Special Projects Fund, it cuts back what the City can do with the Fund. He stated the Special 30
Projects Fund will be short $24,000 to the benefit of Parks and Recreation, when it already has 31
$865,000 coming from Medtronic. 32
33
Councilmember Thomas stated the only thing that might possibly be added is for the language 34
reflecting the additional costs of the parking lot, so there is not a precedence issue in the future. 35
She explained a 60/40 split was decided because it was a 50/50 split with the additional cost of 36
parking. 37
38
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 39
40
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/FLAHERTY. To extend the meeting past 10:00 p.m. for 30 41
minutes. 42
43
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 44
45
Mounds View City Council March 13, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 27
9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 1
2
Mayor Marty referenced about the item to Kennedy and Graven for general legal services that 3
notes the hazard abatement. He wondered if this is being billed back to the property. Director 4
Ericson stated it is not and it is a property that the Council authorized Staff to seek an appraisal 5
on. He noted an offer was made on the property and there are some foundation issues that Staff 6
has been dealing with for some time. 7
8
Mayor Marty asked about check number 118043 for framing and matting for $148.19. Director 9
Ericson stated the Community Development ordered a frame for an award on the Medtronic 10
project that matches the existing frames in the hallways of City Hall. 11
12
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To approve the Just and Correct Claims as Presented. 13
14
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 15
16
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 17
18
A. February 27, 2006 City Council Meeting Minutes 19
20
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/STIGNEY. To Approve the February 27, 2006 City Council 21
meeting minutes as corrected. 22
23
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 24
25
11. REPORTS 26
27
A. Reports of Mayor and Council 28
29
Councilmember Gunn stated the clubhouse was moved to Random Park early Saturday morning. 30
She noted several groups of people that helped including the Police Department, Fire 31
Department, and Ramsey County. She commented it will look really nice there. 32
33
B. Reports of Staff 34
35
1. Reports of City Administrator Ulrich 36
37
City Administrator Ulrich reported the Charter Commission would like to set up a joint meeting 38
with the City Council. 39
40
The Council agreed to hold the meeting on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. 41
42
City Administrator Ulrich reported that the bonding bill passed the Senate for the correction of 43
language needed for the County Road J project. He stated with it anticipated to pass, the City 44
Mounds View City Council March 13, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 28
will no longer need an agreement with the Minnesota Department of Trade and the Economic 1
Development Department, and it is in the intention to cancel that agreement. 2
3
2. Reports of Community Development Director Ericson 4
5
Director Ericson explained a special Council worksession is needed to review Community 6
Development Department policies and philosophies. 7
8
The Council agreed to hold the special City Council worksession meeting on Wednesday, March 9
29, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. 10
11
Director Ericson reported that an appraisal was received on the Premium Stop property that does 12
support the purchase agreement price between the property owner and City of Mounds View. He 13
stated that the property owner signed the purchase agreement today. He noted that there was 14
slight tweaking of the environmental language. He noted the purchase agreement can be 15
executed after the meeting. 16
17
Director Ericson reported that tree removal began on the Harstad property on Long Lake Road 18
and County Road H2. He commented that Rice Creek Watershed District has not issued the 19
permit yet although they have most of what they need to issue the permit. He stated that the 20
application and fee for the grading permit for the City of Mounds View have not been received 21
yet. He explained that these are the two things that are stopping the project from moving 22
forward. 23
24
Director Ericson reported that he spoke with four of the six property owners, and they indicated 25
they do not want anything to do with the pool or tennis court, and would be happy if the $60,000 26
was donated to the City for Park and Recreation purposes. Director Ericson commented he will 27
let the Council know when feedback is received from the other two property owners. 28
29
30
12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, March 20, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. (Special 31
Work Session) 32
Next Council Meeting: Monday, March 27, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. 33
34
13. ADJOURNMENT 35
36
The meeting was adjourned at 10:24 p.m. 37
38
Transcribed by: 39
40
Annette Anderson 41
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 42