Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2006/05/22 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MOUNDS VIEW CITY HALL Monday, May 22, 2006 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, Thomas 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC INPUT: Citizens may speak to issues not on tonight’s agenda. Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the minutes. Also, please limit your comments to three minutes. 6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS A. Senator Betzold and Representative Bernardy would like to speak to the Council in Regard to this year’s legislative session. B. Resolution 6816, A Resolution of Appreciation for the City of New Brighton for the use of their Council Chambers during the Mounds View Rehabilitation Project. C. Resolution 6817, A Resolution of Appreciation for the City of Roseville IT Department for their services during the Mounds View Rehabilitation Project. D. Resolution 6818, A Resolution of Appreciation for the City of Spring Lake Park for use of their Council Chambers for Mounds View Planning Commission Meetings during the Mounds View Rehabilitation Project. E. Resolution 6819, A Resolution of Appreciation for the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Department for the use of their facilities during the Mounds View Rehabilitation Project. F. Review of Annual Storm Water MS4 Permit. (Nick Fleischhacker 10 mins) 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. 7:05pm Public Hearing for the Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 772, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 of the Mounds View City Charter. (ROLL CALL VOTE) B. 7:10pm Public Hearing (1) Resolution 6804, Final Plat and Wetland Alteration Permit Approval for the SYSCO Second Addition Major Subdivision (2) Public Hearing, Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 761, an Ordinance Rezoning Three Acres of Land Associated with the SYSCO Project (ROLL CALL VOTE) (3) Public Hearing, Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 762, an Ordinance Authorizing the Transfer of Three Acres of Land to SYSCO (ROLL CALL VOTE) (4) Public Hearing, Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 763, an Ordinance Authorizing the Vacation of Excess Easements Associated with the SYSCO Development (ROLL CALL VOTE) C. 7:15pm Public Hearing (1) Resolution 6814, Consideration of a Transfer of an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Business License from Mounds View Jakes, Inc. to Moe’s located at 2400 Highway 10 in Mounds View. (2) Resolution 6820, Resolution Approving a Restaurant and Tobacco License for Moe’s. D. Resolution 6821 Approving Police Detective Larry Siluk’s Severance Package. E. Resolution 6822 A Resolution Approving the use of the Automark Ballot Marking Device for Mounds View Municipal Elections. F. Resolution 6823 Authorizing the Preparation of a Feasibility Report and Consultant Selection for the 2007-2008 Street and Utility Improvement Project May 8, 2006 City Council Meeting Agenda Page 2 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS CONTINUED G. Resolution 6824 Authorization to Hire Don Burda to the Position of Full-Time Temporary Building Inspector H. Resolution 6811 Authorization to purchase Window Treatments for Renovated City Hall. I. Resolution 6825 Approving Change Orders No. 20 through 26 for the City Hall Rehabilitation Project J. Resolution 6829 Resolution in Support of Local Cable and Video Provider Franchising. K. Resolution 6828 Authorizing the purchase of a replacement civil defense siren. 8. CONSENT AGENDA A. Resolution 6815 Amending Resolution 6694 Relating to Plan review Services Associated with the Medtronic Development B. Licenses for Approval C. Set a Public Hearing for 7:05 pm, Monday, June 12, 2006, to Consider a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversize Garage at 8283 Knollwood Drive. D. Set a Public Hearing for 7:10 pm, Monday, June 12, 2006, to Consider a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversize Garage at 5308 St. Stephen Street. G. Set a Public Hearing for 7:15pm, Monday, June 12, 2006, to Consider Resolution 6830, an Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor License Renewal for ABC Liquor located at 2840 Highway 10. H. Set a Public Hearing for 7:20pm, Monday, June 12, 2006, to Consider Resolution 6831, an Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor License Renewal for Big Top Liquor located at 2577 Highway 10. I. Set a Public Hearing for 7:25pm, Monday, June 12, 2006, to Consider Resolution 6832, an Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor License Renewal for Vino & Stogies locates at 2345 County Road H2. J. Set a Public Hearing for 7:30pm to Consider Resolution 6833, an On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Robert’s Sports Bar and Entertainment located at 2400 County Road H2. K. Set a Public Hearing for 7:35pm to Consider Resolution 6834, an On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for The Mermaid located at 2200 Highway 10. L. Set a Public Hearing for 7:40pm to Consider Resolution 6835, Approving an On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Liquor License for Taiko Sushi located at 2394 Highway 10. 9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. May 8, 2006 City Council Minutes. 11. REPORTS A. Reports of Mayor and Council B. Reports of Staff C. Reports of City Attorney 12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, June 5, 2006, at 7pm Next Council Meeting: Monday, June 12, 2006 at 7pm Item 06B Special Order of Business May 22, 2006 City Administrator Review: _________ RESOLUTION NO. 6816 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR THE CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON FOR THE USE OF THEIR COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND FACILITIES DURING THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY REHABILITATION PROJECT WHEREAS, Mounds View City Hall has been under construction for approximately seven (7) months due to the City Habilitation Project; and WHEREAS, the City of New Brighton graciously let the City use their Council Chambers and facilities during this construction period; and, WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View was able to utilize New Brighton City Hall for many City Council, EDA, Committee and Commission Meetings at little to no cost to the City; and WHEREAS, the New Brighton Cable Department assisted the City of Mounds View with their expertise in recording and televising services with great attention to detail during the City Hall Rehabilitation Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council and City Staff of the City of Mounds View, expresses its appreciation to the City of New Brighton and the New Brighton Cable Department for allowing the City of Mounds View to utilize their Council Chambers and facilities during the Mounds View City Rehabilitation Project. Adopted this 22nd day of May, 2006. ATTEST: _________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor ______________________ ____________________ Councilmember Flaherty Councilmember Gunn ______________________ _____________________ Councilmember Stigney Councilmember Thomas ________________________ Kurt Ulrich City Clerk/Administrator (seal) Item 06C Special Order of Business May 22, 2006 City Administrator Review: _________ RESOLUTION NO. 6817 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE IT DEPARTMENT FOR THE USE OF THEIR SERVICES DURING THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY REHABILITATION PROJECT WHEREAS, Mounds View City Hall has been under construction for approximately seven (7) months due to the City Habilitation Project; and WHEREAS, the City of Roseville IT Department worked many hours to ensure a smooth transition during the move to the Community Center and back to the rehabilitated Mounds View City Hall; and WHEREAS, due to Roseville IT Department’s dedication and hard work, the City of Mounds View was able to have an easy transition back and forth from the Mounds View Community Center and City Hall, with little to no disruption in City communication and services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council and City Staff of the City of Mounds View, expresses its appreciation to the City of Roseville IT Department for assisting the City of Mounds View in the moving transition during the Mounds View City Rehabilitation Project. Adopted this 22nd day of May, 2006. ATTEST: _________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor ______________________ ____________________ Councilmember Flaherty Councilmember Gunn ______________________ _____________________ Councilmember Stigney Councilmember Thomas ________________________ Kurt Ulrich City Clerk/Administrator (seal) Item 06D Special Order of Business May 22, 2006 City Administrator Review: _________ RESOLUTION NO. 6818 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR THE CITY OF SPRING LAKE PARK FOR THE USE OF THEIR COUNCIL CHAMBERS DURING THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY REHABILITATION PROJECT WHEREAS, Mounds View City Hall has been under construction for approximately seven (7) months due to the City Habilitation Project; and WHEREAS, the City of Spring Lake graciously let the City use their Council Chambers for a number of Planning Commission Meetings during this construction period; and, WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View was able to utilize Spring Lake Park’s City Hall for a number of Planning Commission Meetings at no cost to the City; and WHEREAS, the Spring Lake Cable Department assisted the City of Mounds View with their expertise in recording and televising services with great attention to detail during the City Hall Rehabilitation Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council and City Staff of the City of Mounds View, expresses its appreciation to the City of Spring Lake Park for allowing the City of Mounds View to utilize their Council Chambers during the Mounds View City Rehabilitation Project. Adopted this 22nd day of May, 2006. ATTEST: _________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor ______________________ ____________________ Councilmember Flaherty Councilmember Gunn ______________________ _____________________ Councilmember Stigney Councilmember Thomas ________________________ Kurt Ulrich City Clerk/Administrator (seal) Item 06E Special Order of Business May 22, 2006 City Administrator Review: _________ RESOLUTION NO. 6819 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR THE RAMSEY COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE IN ARDEN HILLS FOR THE USE OF THEIR FACILITY TO TEMPORARILY HOUSE THE MOUNDS VIEW POLICE DEPARTMENT DURING THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY REHABILITATION PROJECT WHEREAS, Mounds View City Hall has been under construction for approximately seven (7) months due to the City Habilitation Project; and WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office graciously let the City use their space to temporarily house the Mounds View Police Department during this construction period; and, WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View was able to utilize the space provided by the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Department at no cost to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council and City Staff of the City of Mounds View, expresses its appreciation to the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office for allowing the City of Mounds View to utilize facility to temporarily house the Mounds View Police Department during the Mounds View City Rehabilitation Project. Adopted this 22nd day of May, 2006. ATTEST: _________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor ______________________ ____________________ Councilmember Flaherty Councilmember Gunn ______________________ _____________________ Councilmember Stigney Councilmember Thomas ________________________ Kurt Ulrich City Clerk/Administrator (seal) Item No. 6F Meeting Date: May 22, 2006 Type of Business: Special Order of Business 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: Nick Fleischhacker, Surface Water Technician Item Title/Subject: Annual Storm Water Permit Review STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM ANNUAL PUBLIC REVIEW The City of Mounds View invites all interested parties to attend a public informational meeting on Monday, May 22, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. at the Mounds View City Hall, located at 2401 Highway 10, across from the Community Center. This meeting will be conducted as part of a regularly scheduled City Council Meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to present and discuss the City’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP). The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) required that all urbanized cities develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) by March of 2003, as part of their permit to operate a municipal storm sewer system. Information will be presented and discussed regarding the activities the City has been and will be engaging as a result of implementing the SWPPP. Items that will be verbally discussed include: the original SWPPP, progress toward achieving the measurable goals, and planned activities for the next year. A copy of the SWPPP is available for review at the Mounds View City Hall. A copy of the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) General Permit is also available at Mounds View City Hall and online: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/wq-strm4-51.pdf Respectfully Submitted, Nick Fleischhacker, Surface Water Technician Nick.Fleischhacker@ci.mounds-view.mn.us Item No: 07A Meeting Date: May 22, 2006 Type of Business: CB Administrator Review: ____ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Desaree Crane, Assistant to the City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing for the Second Reading of Ordinance 772, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 of the Mounds View City Charter Relating to Taxation and Finances Introduction: On April 18, 2006, the Mounds View Charter Commission adopted Resolution 2006-05 which put forward suggested amendments to the Charter in Chapter 7 relating to “Taxation and Finances.” These amendments were discussed at the April 18, 2006 Special Work Session between the Mounds View Charter Commission and the Mounds View City Council. A first reading of this Ordinance was done at the April 24, 2006 City Council Meeting, and the first reading was approved. Discussion: The intent of the Charter Commission with this resolution is to clarify language in the charter relating to the Taxation and Finances in Chapter 7 of the Mounds View City Charter. Consistent with state law, the ordinance would go into effect 90 days after unanimously being adopted by the City Council. Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council to open the Public Hearing for the Second reading of Ordinance 772. This requires a Roll Call Vote, and the vote must be unanimous in order for the ordinance to pass. If the City Council accepts the Ordinance unanimously, then only a summary of the Ordinance will be published in accordance with the City Charter. Respectfully submitted, Desaree Crane ORDINANCE NO. 772 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CHARTER BY AMENDING CHAPTER 7 OF THE CHARTER RELATING TO TAXATION AND FINANCES THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Mounds View, pursuant to the recommendation of the City of Mounds View City Charter Commission, has hereby determined that Chapter 7 of the Charter of the City of Mounds View relating to “Taxation and Finances” be amended by the addition of the bold and underlined language and by the deletion of the bold and stricken as follows: CHAPTER 7 TAXATION AND FINANCES Section 7.01 Council to Control Finances. (no changes) Section 7.02 Fiscal Year. (no changes) Section 7.03 System of Taxation. (no changes) Section 7.04. Submission of Budget. Subdivision 1. Annually, on or before the 15th calendar day of September of each year or as specified by MN Statute 275.065, as amended, the Clerk-Administrator shall submit to the Council the budget estimates for funds levying property taxes for the ensuing fiscal year and an accompanying summary message in accordance with a budget calendar to be established by resolution. The total proposed operating budget to be provided from the property tax shall not exceed the amounts authorized by state law and this Charter. Consistent with these provisions, the budget shall contain such information and be in the form prescribed by the City Council. The final budget shall provide a complete financial plan for all City funds and activities for the ensuing fiscal year and except as required by state law or this Charter, shall be in such form as the Council may require. It shall include a summary and show in detail all estimated income and all proposed expenditures, including debt service and comparative figures for the current fiscal year, actual and estimated, and the preceding year. In addition to showing proposed expenditures for current operations, it shall show proposed capital expenditures to be made during the year and the proposed method of financing each such capital expenditure. The total proposed operating budget to be provided from the property tax shall not exceed the amounts authorized by state law and this Charter. Consistent with these provisions, the budget shall contain such information and be in the form prescribed by ordinance and by state law. Subdivision 2. For each utility enterprise operated by the City, its proposed and final budgets shall show income, expenditure, and anticipated net surplus or deficit and with the proposed disposition method. of its disposition; and subsidiary budgets for each such utility giving income and expenditure information shall be included or attached as appendices. Subdivision 3. The Clerk-Administrator's message shall explain the budget, both in fiscal terms and in terms of the work programs, linking programs to goals of the City and community priorities. It shall outline the proposed financial policies and programs of the City for the ensuing fiscal year and the impact of those policies and programs compared to the City's current five-year plan, as adopted by the City Council. It shall describe the important features of the budget, indicate any major changes in financial policies, expenditures, and revenues together with the reasons for such changes. It shall summarize the City's debt position for each fund, including factors affecting the ability to raise resources through debt issues, and include such other material as the Clerk-Administrator deems desirable or as requested by the City Council Subdivision 4. Budget Planning Guideline The purpose of this section is to provide the public with a general time table for the annual budget process. The dates are guidelines and subject to change by the City Council and MN Statute 275.065, as amended. Activity Estimated Time Period Five-Year Plan: Development Jan. 1 to May 1 Five-Year Plan: Public Review May 1 to May 20 Five-Year Plan: Council Approval May 20 to June 1 Annual Budget Calendar: Adopted by Council June 1 Five-Year Plan: Published to Public June 1 to Aug. 1 Annual Budget: Public Input to Department June 1 to Sept 1 Annual Budget: Clerk-Administrator Develops Summary and Estimate Proposal for Council Aug. 1 to Sept. 15 Annual Budget: Estimates Submitted to Council Sept. 15 Annual Budget: Proposal and Tax Levy Estimates Council Adoption Sept. 15 Annual Budget: Council Review and Amend Sept. 15 to Nov 23 Annual Budget and Tax Levy: Proposal Published to Public Sept. 15 to Dec. 1 Annual Budget and Tax Levy: Public Review Sept. 15 to Dec. 20 Annual Budget: Public Hearing Advertised Nov. Annual Budget and Tax Levy: Initial Public Hearing Nov. 29 to Dec. 20 Annual Budget and Tax Levy: Council Adoption Dec. 5 to Dec. 20 Annual Budget and Tax Levy: Final Council Budget Summary Published to Public Dec. 20 to Feb. 1 Section 7.05 Long TermFive-Year Financial Plan. Subdivision 1. The City Council shall have prepared a long-termfive-year financial plan commencing in thewith the ensuing calendar year. 1980. The City Council shall hold a public hearing on the long-termfive-year financial plan and adopt it by ordinance, with or without amendment, by June 1st of each year. The financial plan shall consist of at least the following fourthree elements as specified in subdivisions 2-54 which follow: Subdivision 2. The Public Service Program. The program shall be a continuing five-year plan for all public services, estimating future needs for the public health, safety and welfare of the City. It shall measure the objectives and needs for each City department, the standard of services desired, and the impact of each such service on the annual operating budget. Subdivision 32. The Capital Improvement PlanProgram. This program shall consist of projects and facilities that are or will be needed by the City in carrying out the anticipated program of public services. It shall includecontain a list of all capital improvements proposed to be undertaken during the next five fiscal years, with appropriate supporting information as to the necessity for such improvements; cost estimate, method of financing and recommended time schedule for each such improvement; and the estimated annual cost of operating and maintaining the facilities to be constructed or acquired. This information shall be revised and extended each year for capital improvements still pending or in process. Subdivision 43. A -Long-TermFive-Year Revenue Programand Expense Estimate . This program shall consist ofcontain a tentative revenue policy whichthat describes long-termfive- year plans for financing public services and capital improvements. It shall measure the objectives and needs for each City department, the standard of services desired, and the impact of each such service on the annual operating budget. Subdivision 54. The Capital Budget. This program shall be a summary on the basis of a five-year period of the capital or money requirements for the above described programs. It shall list a priority for each anticipated investment in community facilities and balance this with a consideration of the availability of necessary revenues. Subdivision 65. A summary of the long-termfive year financial plan shall be published before August 1st each year in the City newsletter annually.official City newspaper, the City newsletter, and, if available, the City web site. Section 7.06. Council Action on Budget. Subdivision 1. The Council shall annually adopt a budget calendar by June 1st. The calendar will establish the time line for development and submission of the budget and allow for public review and comment in accordance with this Charter, the City Council, and MN Statute 275.065, as amended. The budget shall be considered at the first regular monthly meeting of the Council in September and at subsequent meetings until a budget is adopted for the ensuing year. The budget calendar will provide a 30-day period for public review and input to the annual budget prior to final approval by the City Council. The meetings shall be so conducted as to give interested citizens a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The Council may revise the proposed budget but no amendment to the budget shall increase the authorized expenditures to an amount greater than the sum of estimated income. and reserves. The Council shall adopt the budget by a resolution that shall set forth the total for each budgeted fund and each department. with such segregation as to objects and purposes of expenditures The budget shall indicate the sums to be raised and from what sources and the sums to be spent and for what purpose as the Council deems necessary for purposes of establishing the budget control. The Council shall also adopt a resolution levying the amount of taxes provided in the budget, and the Clerk-Administrator shall certify the tax resolution to the County Auditor in accordance with state law. Adoption of the budget resolution shall constitute appropriations at the beginning of the fiscal year of the sums fixed in the resolution of the several purposes named. Subdivision 2. At least two weeksAs specified by MN Statute 275.065, as amended, before the budget is adopted for the ensuing fiscal year, a summary shall be given a public hearing notice and summary of the proposed budget will be published in the official City newspaper, the City Newsletter, and, if available, the City web sitein draft form, of the budget. Such summary shall be set forth in language designed toshould be readily understoodandable by the layperson, and shallshould provide appropriate supporting information as to the necessity for any increase in the budget over the total for the current fiscal year. , but fFailure to provide the specified summary will not invalidate the budget. The final budget will be published in accordance with Minnesota Statutes on Truth in Taxation or no later than 60 days after adoption by the Council in the official City newspaper, the City newsletter and, if available, the City web site. Subdivision 3. If the Council fails to adopt the budget by the beginning of the next fiscal year, the preceding months fiscal year budget shall go into effect for up to thirty-one (31) days or until the Council adopts a budget. Section 7.07. Enforcement of the Budget. The Clerk-Administrator may designate department heads or other staff who may assist with each fund or department in the annual budget. It shall be the duty of the Clerk-Administrator to strictly enforce the detail provisions of the budget. The City Council shall strictly enforce strictly the provisions of the budget. ItThe City Council shall not authorize any payment or the incurring of any obligation by the City, unless an appropriation has been made in the budget resolution, and there is a sufficient unexpended balance after deducting the total past expenditures and encumbrances against the appropriation. No officer or employee of the City shall place any order or make any purchase except for a purpose and tounless the amount is authorized in the budget resolution. and in compliance with; the purchasing policies of the City as established by the City Council, the City Charter, the City Code, and Minnesota Statutes. Any obligation incurred by any person in the employ of the City for any purpose not authorized in the budget resolution, or for any amount in excess of the amount authorized, shall be a personal obligation upon the person incurring the obligation. No check shall be issued or transfer made to any account other than one owned by the City until the claim to which it relates has been supported by an itemized bill, payroll, or time sheet or other document approved and signed by the responsible City officer who vouches for its correctness and reasonableness. Section 7.08. Alterations in the Budget. After the budget resolution has been adopted, the Council may amend the budget by resolution, but shall not increase the amounts fixed in the resolution beyond the sum of estimated receipts and reserves, except to the extent that actual receipts exceed the estimate or to implement Section 7.12 herein. At anytime the Council may, by resolution approved by a majority of its members, reduce the sums appropriated for any purpose by the budget resolution, to increase reserves or authorize the transfer of sums from unencumbered balances of appropriations in the budget. resolution to other purposes. Section 7.09. Funds. (no changes) Section 7.10. City Indebtedness. Subdivision 1. Except as provided in Sections 7.11 and 7.12, no obligation shall be issued to pay current expenses, but the Council may issue and sell obligations for any other municipal purpose in accordance with state law and within the limitations prescribed by law. Except in the case of obligations for which an election is not required by this Chapter or by state law, no such obligations shall be issued and sold without the approval of the majority of the voters voting on the question at a general or special election. Subdivision 2. A description of each such proposed issue shall be published in the official City newspaper, the City Newsletter, and, if available, the City web site, but failure to give such description, or any defect in the description, shall not invalidate the issue. Section 7.11. 1. Anticipation Certificates. At anytime after January 1, in accordance with MN Statute 412.261, as amended, with the following restrictions; the Council may issue certificates of indebtedness in anticipation of state and federal aids and the collection of taxes levied the previous year for any fund and not yet collected. The total amount of certificates issued against any fund for any year together with interest thereon until maturity shall not exceed 90% of the total state and federal aids and current taxes due to the fund and uncollected at the time of issuance. Such certificates shall be issued on such terms and conditions as the Council may determine, but they shall become due not later than April 1August 1st of the year following their issuance. The proceeds of the tax levied and such state or federal aids as the governing body may have allocated for the fund against which tax anticipation certificates are issued, and the full faith and credit of the City shall be irrevocably pledged for the redemption of the certificates. Section 7.12. Emergency Debt Certificates. Subdivision 1. If in any year the receipt from taxes, availability of reserves, or other sources should for some unforeseen cause become insufficient for the ordinary expenses of the City, or if any calamity or other public emergency necessitates the making of extraordinary expenditures, the Council may by ordinance issue, on such terms and in such manner as the Council determines, emergency debt certificates not to exceed 10% of the total City budget and to run not to exceed three years. axA tTaxes sufficient to pay principal and interest on such certificates with the margin required by law shall be levied as required by law. The ordinance authorizing the issue of such emergency debt certificates shall state the nature of the emergency and be approved by at least three members of the Council. It may be passed as an emergency ordinance. Subdivision 2. A description of each such proposed certificate shall be published in the City Newsletter, but failure to give such description, or any defect in the description, shall not invalidate the certificate. SECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect 90 days after its publication in the official City newspaper. INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 24th day of April, 2006. PUBLIC HEARING, SECOND READING AND ADOPTION by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 22nd day of May, 2006. ______________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (seal) APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________ Scott Riggs, City Attorney ORDINANCE SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 772 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CHARTER BY AMENDING CHAPTER 7 OF THE CHARTER RELATING TO TAXATION AND FINANCES On May 22, 2006, the Mounds View City Council adopted an ordinance amending Chapter 7 of the Charter relating to Taxation and Finances. The intent of this Ordinance is to clarify language in the charter relating to the Taxation and Finances in Chapter 7 of the Mounds View City Charter. Consistent with state law, the ordinance would go into effect 90 days after publication. The full and complete text of this ordinance 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/772.pdf. Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk-Administrator Item No: 7B Meeting Date: May 22, 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 and Consideration of the SYSCO Final Plat, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the Rezoning, Transfer of Land and Vacation of Easements and Right of Way Associated with the SYSCO Business Expansion Introduction: SYSCO Minnesota has submitted an application for a major subdivision of their land located at 2400 County Road J and the City-owned land between SYSCO and the Golf Course (commonly referred to as SYSCO Outlot A). The subdivision is a replat of the original SYSCO plat, approved in 1989. The replat takes three acres from SYSCO Outlot A and combines it with SYSCO Lot 1 Block 2 to create a larger development area which would be used to accommodate SYSCO’s parking lot expansion and relocation of the drive aisle. Currently the developed SYSCO parcel is 24.2 acres while the undeveloped Outlot A is 45.8 acres. After the subdivision, the SYSCO site would be 27.2 acres and the undeveloped outlot reduced to 42.8 acres. Even though no additional lots will be created as a result of the subdivision, a major subdivision is still required to effectuate this transaction as the total land area involved exceeds 2 acres. The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on September 26, 2005. The wetland alteration permit will be considered in resolution approving the final plat. In addition to consideration of the final plat and wetland alteration permit, the area to be transferred will need to be rezoned to be consistent with the SYSCO site and ordinances approved relating to the transfer of land and vacation of easements associated with the development. These ordinances were first read and considered by the City Council on September 26, 2005. Because of the amount of time between readings, staff re-noticed the actions for public hearing. The SYSCO Minnesota site is presently zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development. The subdivision would be consistent with the existing zoning of the property, and the Planning Commission and Council reviewed and approved an amendment to the PUD to allow for the expanded development area and also reviewed and approved an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Map. Four separate actions will be required of the Council for this project to move forward—approval of Resolution 6804, which is an approval of the final plat and wetland alteration permit, approval of the second reading of Ordinance 761 which rezones the three-acre piece of Outlot A, approval of the second reading of Ordinance 762 which authorizes the sale to Sysco, and finally approval of the second reading of Ordinance 763, an ordinance vacating the portion of the easement covering the wetland proposed to be filled. SYSCO Second Addition May 22, 2006 Page 2 Final Plat Discussion The preliminary plat was approved by the Council on September 26, 2005. One of the expressed desires of the Council at that time was consideration of the combination of the two lots into one larger lot. For that to happen, Ramsey County would need to release its interest ion the excess Long Lake Road right of way, which it did in December of 2005. In January of 2006, the City Council took possession of the excess Long Lake Road ROW and immediately prepared an ordinance (Ord 770) to vacate the right of way to SYSCO. The ordinance was approved by the City Council on March 27, 2006. The other change to the final plat from the preliminary plat was the creation of a second outlot labeled Outlot B. Outlot B represents that area released from the SYSCO right of reverter clause by virtue of the adopted Land Exchange and easement Rights agreement with SYSCO. The plat is in proper format and copies have been sent to Ramsey County, the Public Works department, the Fire Marshal and the City Attorney for review. The graphic below illustrates the present configuration of the lots associated with the SYSCO development. There are three lots altogether, the two primary lots divided by the excess Long Lake Road right of way, and Outlot A, which was deeded to the City when the SYSCO plat was originally approved in 1989. The shaded area between SYSCO blocks 1 and 2 represents the residual Long Lake Road right of way from when Long Lake Road terminated at County Road J, before Highway 10 was constructed. It is this ROW that Ramsey County turned back to the City and the City vacated to SYSCO. While there are utilities within the former right of way, they would continue to be protected by a utility easement, as shown on the final plat. Lot 1 Block 1 Lot 1 Block 2 SYSCO Outlot A SYSCO Second Addition May 22, 2006 Page 3 Final Plat Graphic Easements The Final Plat identifies all existing and proposed easements on the SYSCO site including those drainage easements within Outlot A. One such easement area over a wetland area will need to be partially vacated, as the new lot line would bisect the easement. The area disconnected from the wetland would need to be vacated (as it will be replaced with a driveway and parking lot.) New easements are shown for the relocated storm water pond and the strip of land alongside the relocated driveway on the east side of the lot. The new easements to be dedicated and the partial easement to be vacated are shown on Exhibit A later in this report. Lot 1 Block 1 Outlot A Outlot B MEDTRONIC SYSCO SECOND ADDITION SYSCO Second Addition May 22, 2006 Page 4 Park Dedication Fees As was discussed at previous City Council meetings, because SYSCO has already paid a park dedication fee for their development and because SYSCO had deeded the 46 acre Outlot A to the City at no cost, it appeared to be the consensus of the Council that no park dedication fee would be applied in this case. Wetland Alteration Permit The requirements and conditions associated with an alteration of a wetland are jointly reviewed and considered by the City Council as well as Rice Creek Watershed District, with Rice Creek holding ultimate authority over the wetlands. The project indicates a total wetland impact of 1.83 acres. (The area of impact is larger than originally indicated as Rice Creek took the position that the old stormwater pond at the south end of the SYSCO site was a wetland.) In return for this modification, Rice Creek also made the determination that the new relocated stormwater pond would count toward the mitigation requirements. Replacement will take the form of 0.66 acres of new wetland, 1.30 acres of new stormwater ponding, and 1.77 acres of “public value credits (PVC).” The PVC is an upland buffer area identified alongside the wetland that would remain undisturbed. The Permit application to Rice Creek Watershed District as well as Rice Creek’s response is attached for the Council’s reference. Rice Creek will act upon the request on Wednesday, May 24, 2006. The standard for City approval of alterations basically is the “minimum alteration necessary to accommodate the site development”. Staff believes this to be the case and supports the alteration approval. A map of the mitigation is included for the Council’s reference. Recommendation: Hold the public hearing, review and consider the SYSCO Second Addition final plat and wetland alteration permit. Resolution 6804 is attached for the Council’s action. Rezoning Discussion Rezonings of land are effectuated by ordinance in Mounds View. While the 3.5 acre piece of Outlot A to be transferred to SYSCO already bears a Light Industrial zoning designation, it made more sense to amend the zoning to be consistent with SYSCO’s PUD zoning designation. The rezoning would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which was recently amended to allow for this project to move forward. While there would be some impact to the wetlands as a result of the parking lot expansion, as addressed above, however there would be no adverse effects associated with the rezoning. Recommendation: Hold the public hearing and consider the second reading and adoption of Ordinance 761. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the ordinance which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and consistent with the amendment to the SYSCO Planned Unit Development. SYSCO Second Addition May 22, 2006 Page 5 Vacation of Easement The City Charter in Section 12.06 indicates that vacations of street right of way or any other publicly held interest in land (such as an easement) may be vacated only by ordinance. As such, consistent with the SYSCO Second Addition preliminary Plat, Ordinance 763 has been prepared which authorizes the vacation of that part of the easement over that part of the wetland that would be filled associated with the parking lot expansion. Recommendation: Hold the public hearing and consider the second reading and adoption of Ordinance 763. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the ordinance which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the City Charter and consistent with the amendment to the SYSCO Planned Unit Development. Land Disposition Similar to vacations, the City Charter in Section 12.05 indicates that disposition of real property is to occur by ordinance. The City will not derive any financial gain from the disposition given that SYSCO had originally deeded the land to the City in 1989 at no cost. The consensus of the Council was that the land would be deeded back to SYSCO in the same fashion, without imposition of a park dedication fee. Recommendation: Consider the second reading and adoption of Ordinance 762. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the ordinance which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the City Charter and consistent with the amendment to the SYSCO Planned Unit Development. Summary In summary, there are four actions before the City Council this evening relating to the SYSCO parking lot expansion. These actions are identified as follows: 1. Resolution 6804 which approves the SYSCO Second Addition preliminary plat, with conditions. 2. Second reading of Ordinance 761, an ordinance rezoning the three-acre piece of SYSCO Outlot A from I-1 to PUD. 3. Second reading of Ordinance 762 which approves the transfer of land back to SYSCO. 4. Second reading of Ordinance 763 which approves the partial vacation of an easement dedicated with the original SYSCO subdivision. SYSCO Second Addition May 22, 2006 Page 6 Staff and the Planning Commission recommend favorable action on all of the above actions to permit the parking lot expansion and drive-aisle relocation for SYSCO Food Services of Minnesota. James Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial view of site 3. SYSCO Second Addition Final Plat 4. Resolution 6804 5. Ordinance 761 6. Ordinance 762 7. Ordinance 763 8. Wetland Permit Application, dated April 11, 2006 9. Wetland Mitigation Map 10. Rice Creek Watershed District report, dated Zoning Map Aerial View RESOLUTION NO. 6804 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SYSCO SECOND ADDITION FINAL PLAT; PLANNING CASE NO. MA2005-001 WHEREAS, SYSCO Minnesota, represented by president Phil Seipp, has applied for a major subdivision to combine the original two SYSCO lots and divide three acres of land from SYSCO Outlot A and rezoning it to be consistent with the balance of the SYSCO property; and, WHEREAS, SYSCO Minnesota is located at 2400 County Road J and is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development, bearing a future land use designation of Heavy Industrial (HI) according to the City’s Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, the final plat date-stamped April 14, 2006 identifies three distinct lots to be created—Lot 1 Block 1, Outlot A and Outlot B; and, WHEREAS, the proposed major subdivision encompasses land within a Wetland Zoning District and because wetlands will be impacted, a Rice Creek Watershed District permit is needed as is a Mounds View Wetland Alteration Permit; and, WHEREAS, SYSCO proposes to impact 1.83 acres of designated wetland and has made application to mitigate said impacts with 3.73 acres of on- and off-site replacement and buffer area; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Preliminary Plat, date stamped Aug 25, 2005 4. Final Plat, date-stamped April 14, 2006 5. Parcel A Survey and Description 6. Wetland Permit Application dated April 11, 2006 7. Rice Creek Watershed District Memo dated May 12, 2006 8. Staff Report NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact related to the proposed SYSCO Second Addition final plat: Res. 6804 Page 2 1 The major subdivision combines the original SYSCO Lot 1 Block 1 and Lot 2 Block 1 lots into one contiguous lot supplemented by an additional 3.0+ acres subdivided from the original SYSCO Outlot A, with said lot identified as SYSCO SECOND ADDITION Lot 1, Block 1,. 2 No new or additional lots are created by this subdivision 3 Part of an easement will need to be vacated and new easements are dedicated by this plat, as shown in Exhibit A. 4 The preliminary plat was reviewed and approved by the City Council on September 26, 2005. 5 The major subdivision anticipates 1.83 acres of wetland impacts over which Rice Creek Watershed District retains jurisdictional authority with allowance for local approval concurrence via the wetland alteration permit process. The extent of the impact is the minimum amount necessary to accommodate the proposed parking lot expansion and driveway relocation. 6 No park dedication shall be required as a result of this subdivision, based on the minimal increased intensification of the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View City Council, based upon the above findings of fact, its review of the documentation presented and the Planning Commission’s and staff’s recommendation of approval, does hereby approve of the SYSCO Second Addition final plat, with stipulations as follows: 1. Within 120 days of this approval, the applicant shall record the final plat with Ramsey County and provide a fully-executed Mylar and paper copy of the plat illustrating the execution and recordation. 2. Upon project completion, the Applicant shall supply the City with complete set of Mylar as-built plans. Adopted this 22nd day of May, 2006 ____________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor Attest: ____________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk / Administrator (Seal) Resolution 6627 Page 3 EXHIBIT A. New Easement Area New Easement Area Easement to be Vacated New Easement Area ORDINANCE SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 761 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A REZONING OF THE THREE ACRE PIECE OF SYSCO OUTLOT A ASSOCIATED WITH THE SYSCO SECOND ADDITION PLAT FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (I-1) TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) On May 22, 2006, the Mounds View City Council adopted an ordinance which changes the zoning of a three-acre strip of land adjacent to SYSCO, north of Highway 10, from “Industrial” to “Planned Unit Development.” The rezoning is intended to make the designation consistent with the SYSCO property with which it will be combined. The action will allow for the expansion of the SYSCO parking lot and realignment of the drive aisle through the property. 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/761.pdf. Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk-Administrator ORDINANCE 761 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A REZONING OF THE THREE ACRE PIECE OF SYSCO OUTLOT A ASSOCIATED WITH THE SYSCO SECOND ADDITION PLAT FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (I-1) TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Appendix A of the Mounds View Municipal Code entitled “Specific Rezonings” is hereby amended to include reference to the following Ordinance 761. Subdivision 1. Purpose. The Mounds View City Council has determined that to further economic development and organized land use controls that the present zoning classification of certain parcels should be reclassified to be consistent with the Mounds View Zoning Code and the proposed Mounds View Comprehensive Plan. Subdivision 2. The Mounds View City Council has determined that there would be no adverse effects to adjoining properties resulting from the rezoning and that the rezoning would not be detrimental to the community at large. Subdivision 3. Accordingly, the Mounds View City Council approves the rezoning and directs that the City’s official Zoning Map and the zoning classification for the following described parcel be amended as follows: Parcel Legal Description Existing Zoning Designation New Zoning Designation That part of SYSCO Outlot A, Ramsey County, Minnesota, which lies westerly of the following described line: Commencing at the northwest corner of said Outlot A; thence South 25 degrees 38 minutes 43 seconds West (assumed bearing) along the westerly line of said Outlot A 300.59 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 00 degrees 15 minutes 35 seconds West 827.37 feet; thence South 53 degrees 18 minutes 11 seconds West 494.68 feet to the southwesterly line of said Outlot A and said line there terminating. I-1 PUD and as shown on the map attached Exhibit A. Ordinance 761 Page 2 SECTION 2. This ordinance is effective thirty days after its publication. First read and introduced by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 26th day of September, 2005. Second reading and adoption by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 22nd day of May, 2006. _______________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST _______________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk / Administrator (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________ Scott Riggs, City Attorney Ordinance 761 Page 3 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of the area to be rezoned from I-1 to PUD: That part of SYSCO Outlot A, Ramsey County, Minnesota, which lies westerly of the following described line: Commencing at the northwest corner of said Outlot A; thence South 25 degrees 38 minutes 43 seconds West (assumed bearing) along the westerly line of said Outlot A 300.59 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 00 degrees 15 minutes 35 seconds West 827.37 feet; thence South 53 degrees 18 minutes 11 seconds West 494.68 feet to the southwesterly line of said Outlot A and said line there terminating. ORDINANCE SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 762 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY TO SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF MINNESOTA INC On May 22, 2006, the Mounds View City Council adopted an ordinance which authorizes the transfer of an approximately three-acre parcel of City owned land to SYSCO Minnesota. The tract of land had been part of a 46-acre tract of land deeded to the City of Mounds View from SYSCO Minnesota in 1989. The transfer will allow for the expansion of the SYSCO parking lot and realignment of the drive aisle through the property. 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/762.pdf. Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk-Administrator ORDINANCE 762 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY TO SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF MINNESOTA INC THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Appendix D of the Mounds View Municipal Code entitled “Special Ordinances” is hereby amended to include reference to the following Ordinance 762. Subdivision 1. The City of Mounds View owns 46 acres of land (the “Property”) north of Highway 10 legally described as: Outlot A, SYSCO Ramsey County, Minnesota Subdivision 2. SYSCO Food Services of Minnesota, Inc. (SYSCO) originally deeded the Property to the City of Mounds View in 1989 and now desires three acres of said Property deeded back to facilitate a business expansion. Subdivision 3. SYSCO has prepared a survey which describes the three-acre parcel to be divided from Outlot A to be incorporated into the SYSCO property as shown on Exhibit A. Subdivision 4. The legal description of the land to be transferred is as follows: That part of SYSCO Outlot A, Ramsey County, Minnesota, which lies westerly of the following described line: Commencing at the northwest corner of said Outlot A; thence South 25 degrees 38 minutes 43 seconds West (assumed bearing) along the westerly line of said Outlot A 300.59 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 00 degrees 15 minutes 35 seconds West 827.37 feet; thence South 53 degrees 18 minutes 11 seconds West 494.68 feet to the southwesterly line of said Outlot A and said line there terminating. Subdivision 5. The City Council has determined that conveyance of the City property to SYSCO will further the public interest. Subdivision 6. Consistent with Section 12.05 of the City Charter, the City Council authorizes conveyance of the above-referenced property to SYSCO for one dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is acknowledged by the City. Ordinance 762 Page 2 Subdivision 7. The City Council authorizes and directs City staff and consultants to take any and all necessary action to prepare the appropriate documents and/or agreements to facilitate the directives and intent of the City Council as provided herein. SECTION 2. This ordinance is effective thirty days after its publication. First read and introduced by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 26th day of September, 2005. Second reading and adoption by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 22nd day of May, 2006. _______________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST _______________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk / Administrator (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________ Scott Riggs, City Attorney Ordiance 762 Page 3 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of the area to be transferred to SYSCO: That part of SYSCO Outlot A, Ramsey County, Minnesota, which lies westerly of the following described line: Commencing at the northwest corner of said Outlot A; thence South 25 degrees 38 minutes 43 seconds West (assumed bearing) along the westerly line of said Outlot A 300.59 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 00 degrees 15 minutes 35 seconds West 827.37 feet; thence South 53 degrees 18 minutes 11 seconds West 494.68 feet to the southwesterly line of said Outlot A and said line there terminating. Land to be transferred to SYSCO ORDINANCE NO. 763 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE VACATING AN EXCESS DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THE SYSCO SECOND ADDITION SUBDIVISION On May 22, 2006, the Mounds View City Council adopted an ordinance which authorizes the vacation of an excess drainage and utility easement associated with the SYSCO Minnesota development. The easement will no longer serve its intended purpose and will serve no public purpose. The vacation will allow for the expansion of the SYSCO parking lot and realignment of the drive aisle through the property. New easements are dedicated to replace the vacated easement area. 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/763.pdf. Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk-Administrator ORDINANCE NO. 763 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE VACATING AN EXCESS DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THE SYSCO SECOND ADDITION SUBDIVISION WHEREAS, SYSCO Food Services of Minnesota, Inc. (SYSCO) has applied for a major subdivision to replat the properties described as SYSCO, Lot 1, Block 1, Lot 1 Block 2, and Outlot A; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has approved the SYSCO Second Addition final plat; and, WHEREAS, the SYSCO Second Addition plat encroaches on an easement dedicated for drainage and utility purposes and will need to be vacated 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. 763. Subd. 1. The City has made a determination that the drainage and utility easement illustrated and described on Exhibit A no longer serves a public purpose, and as such, it is in the public interest to vacate such easement. Subd. 2. There are no public utilities, buried or otherwise, within the easement to be vacated. Subd. 3. The City Council of the City of Mounds View finds that there is no public interest or purpose served in retaining the original utility easement proposed for vacation in that it will be developed for parking and driveway purposes. Subd. 4. The drainage and utility easement described in Exhibit A is hereby vacated. Ordinance 763 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 26th day of September, 2005. Public hearing, second reading and adoption by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 22nd day of May, 2006. Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk-Administrator APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ City Attorney (SEAL) EXHIBIT A Easement to be Vacated Item No. 07C1 Type of Business: PH & CB Meeting Date: May 22, 2006 City Administrator Review: ______ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Desaree Crane, Administrative Assistant Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Resolution 6814, a Resolution Approving a Transfer of Ownership for an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License from Jake’s Sports Café, Inc. to JVM Investments, Inc., dba Moe’s located at 2400 Highway 10 Section 502.08 of the City Code requires that a public hearing be held prior to any intoxicating liquor license. The City of Mounds View issued an on-sale intoxicating liquor license for Jake’s Sports Cafe on June 27, 2005. Jake’s Sports Café will close after the Memorial Day holiday and will open as Moe’s in mid-June. JVM Investments, Inc.’s owner, Jeffrey Moritko has submitted the city liquor license application materials (to include the application to stay open until 2am per Ordinance 717), and the applicable fees. The following investigations and inspections have been conducted to determine whether there is cause for the City to deny any of the above referenced intoxicating liquor license application: Police Inquiry and Investigations The report has not come back from the Minnesota Department of Criminal Apprehension for Jeffrey Moritko, owner of JVM Investments, Inc. The Intoxicating liquor license will be pending a satisfactory report from this agency. This report should arrive within a week. Utility Billing Inquiry (City of Mounds View) Jake’s Sports Café does owe the City of Mounds View $6,770.64. This bill is not due until May 31, 2006, and this transfer of liquor license will not be processed unless this payment is made in full. Jake’s Sports Café recently had a water leak, which caused the large amount owed on the utility bill. Fire Inspection (City of Mounds View Fire Marshal) The City’s Fire Marshal has inspected the location currently called Jake’s Sports Café and issued a satisfactory report. However, the establishment will be re-inspected when the transferring of building ownership is finalized at the end of May. Recommendation Staff recommends approval transfer of ownership from Jake’s Sports Café to JVM Investments, Inc., pending the payment of the utility bill and a satisfactory report from the Minnesota Department of Criminal Apprehension. The establishment will have another fire inspection when the building ownership is finalized. Respectfully Submitted Desaree M. Crane RESOLUTION 6814 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA Resolution Approving an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for JVM INVESTMENTS, INC., dba MOE’S WHEREAS, Jake’s Sports Cafe’s is transferring ownership to JVM Investments, Inc., dba Moe’s for an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License located at 2400 Highway 10; and WHEREAS, all City of Mounds View business licenses must be approved by the City Council; and WHEREAS, all necessary inspections for the establishment located at 2400 Highway 10 have been conducted; and WHEREAS, staff recommends approval of JVM Investments, Inc., with the condition that a satisfactory report from the Minnesota Department of Criminal Apprehension and the utility bill is paid in full on the establishment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does hereby approve an Intoxicating Liquor License for JVM Investments, Inc., dba Moe’s, under the condition that a satisfactory report is received from the Minnesota Department of Criminal Apprehension and utility bill is paid in full on the establishment. Adopted this 22nd day of May, 2006. ________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (seal) Item No: 07C2 Meeting Date: May 22, 2006 Type of Business: CB City Administrator Review: _____ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Desaree M. Crane, Administrative Assistant Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6820 Approving a Tobacco and Restaurant License for Moe’s located at 2400 Highway 10 Jake’s Sports Café is transferring ownership to Jeffrey W. Moritko of JVM Investments, Inc. Mr. Moritko will be changing the name of the establishment to Moe’s. Mr. Moritko also owns a restaurant business called Mayslack’s located in Minneapolis. A Fire Inspection has been done on the establishment (currently called Jake’s Sports Café); however, the establishment will be re-inspected when the transferring of ownership is finalized at the end of May. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Tobacco and Restaurant License pending the re-inspection of the establishment when the transfer of ownership is finalized at the end of this month. Respectfully submitted, Desaree M. Crane RESOLUTION 6820 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA A Resolution Approving a Tobacco and Restaurant License for Moe’s WHEREAS, all City of Mounds View businesses wishing to operate certain types of businesses must apply to the City for business licenses; and WHEREAS, Jeffrey Moritka (JVM Investments, Inc., dba Moe’s) has applied for a Tobacco and Restaurant License in order to transfer ownership from the current owner; and WHEREAS, Jeffrey Moritka (JVM Investments, Inc., dba Moe’s) has submitted the proper paperwork and fees, and WHEREAS, all City of Mounds View business licenses must be approved by the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does hereby approve a Tobacco and Restaurant License for JVM Investments, Inc., dba Moe’s located at 2400 Highway 10. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the licensing period shall be from June 1, 2006-June 30, 2007. Adopted this 22nd day of May, 2006 Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (seal) Item No. 07D Type of Business: CB Meeting Date: May 22, 2006 City Administrator Review: _____ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Desaree Crane, Administrative Assistant Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6821 Authorizing Severance Payment for Police Detective Larry Siluk Background Larry Siluk has retired from the Mounds View Police Department effective April 30, 2006. Attached is Resolution 6821, which authorizes severance payment to Larry Siluk. These payments are in accordance with the Mounds View Personnel manual and the LELS Police Officers Labor Agreement. Resolution 6821 provides a cash payout for Larry Siluk’s vacation time of $1,100.43. This is calculated as 34.26 accrued vacation hours times his hourly rate of $32.12. Resolution 6821 also provides for a cash payout of Larry Siluk’s sick time. In accordance with the LELS Police Officers Labor Contract, is eligible to contribute 65% of his accumulated and banked sick leave for contribution to the employee Retirement Health Savings plan. This is calculated as 1,370.50 accrued/banked sick hours times 65% times his hourly rate of $32.12. This comes to $28,613.46 to be contributed to the Retirement Health Savings plan. Recommendation Staff recommends severance payment and contribution to the Retirement Health Savings Plan for Larry Siluk in accordance with the City’s Personnel Manual and LELS Police Officers Labor Agreement. Respectfully submitted, Desaree Crane RESOLUTION NO. 6821 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING SEVERANCE FOR LARRY SILUK WHEREAS, Larry Siluk has retired from the Mounds View Police Department effective April 30, 2006; and WHEREAS, the balance of accrued and unused vacation time is 34.26 hours as of May 5, 2006; and WHEREAS, the balance of accrued and unused sick leave time is 1,370.50 hours effective May 5, 2006; and WHEREAS, Larry Siluk’s current rate of pay of $32.12 per hour; and WHEREAS, the maximum potential payout of vacation time will be 34.26 hours x $32.12 = $1,100.43 and the contribution to the Retirement Health Savings Plan will be 1,370.50 hours x 65% x $32.12 = $28,613.46. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council approve a one-time payout of accrued and unused vacation time in an amount not to exceed $1,100.43 and contribution to the Retirement Health Savings Plan not to exceed $28,613.46 as of May 5, 2006 to Larry Siluk. Adopted this 22nd day of May, 2006. ________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (seal) Item No: 07E Meeting Date: May 22, 2006 Type of Business: CB 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 6822, Resolution Approving the Use of the Automark Ballot Marking Devise for Mounds View Municipal Elections Congress enacted the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in 2002 to ensure that the voting method utilized in every polling place includes a ballot marking devise that is accessible for individuals with disabilities. This provides them the ability to vote privately and independently. The Ramsey County Board of Commissioners has adopted the local equipment plan to acquire and operate a ballot marking device that is accessible to persons with disabilities. Ramsey County recently received a grant in the amount of $1,256,572 to acquire and operate such a ballot marking devise. The City of Mounds View will be receiving five such marking devises from Ramsey County. (one for each Precinct and one for absentee voting). Staff has done the initial testing of the equipment, and all five machines passed. The Minnesota Secretary of State’s Office has certified the Automark ballot marking devise be used for the state. In addition, the Ramsey County Auditor has also authorized the Automark ballot devise in all elections in Ramsey County. The operation and maintenance of the Automark ballot marking devise will be conducted in the same manner as the voting systems in the joint powers agreement between the City and Ramsey County dated April 24, 2001. The City is required to pass a resolution authorizing the use of this equipment. This resolution will then be forwarded to the Ramsey County Auditor for their record. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Resolution 6822. It is the intention of Staff, to display this equipment and have information about this equipment at least 60 days prior to the state primary. Public demonstrations will also happen at least 6 weeks prior to the State Primary. The State Primary in 2006 will be on September 12, 2006. Respectfully submitted, Desaree Crane RESOLUTION NO. 6822 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING THE USE OF THE AUTOMARK BALLOT MARKING DEVISE FOR MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS WHEREAS, Congress enacted the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in 2002 to ensure that the voting method utilized in every polling place includes a ballot marking device that is accessible for individuals with disabilities and provides them the ability to vote privately and independently; and WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners has adopted the local equipment plan developed by the cities and school districts in the County to acquire and operate a ballot marking device that is accessible to persons with disabilities; and WHEREAS, Ramsey County has received a state grant in the amount of $1,256,572 to acquire and operate such a ballot marking device for disabled voters; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota secretary of state has certified the Automark ballot marking device for use in this state; and WHEREAS, the Ramsey County auditor has authorized the use of the Automark ballot marking device in all elections in Ramsey County. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Mounds View authorizes the use of the Automark ballot marking device for all elections held in the City of Mounds View, in accordance with applicable state and federal laws; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the operation and maintenance of the Automark ballot marking device be conducted in the same manner provided for voting systems in the joint powers agreement between the City of Mounds and the County adopted by the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners on April 24, 2001; and be it further BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the city clerk provide information on the use of the Automark ballot marking device to the public during the 60 days prior to the 2006 state primary and public demonstrations of said device during the six weeks prior to the 2006 state primary, in accordance with state law; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be provided to the Ramsey County auditor. Adopted this 22nd day of May, 2006. ________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (seal) Item No: 7G Meeting Date: May 22, 2006 Type of Business: CB Administrator Review : _______ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6824, Authorization to Hire a Temporary Full-time Building Inspector in the Community Development Department Introduction: With the approval of the Medtronic project and subsequent land sale, there is a need to hire additional staff to deal with the workload created by the Medtronic project construction. The Council authorized advertising for a full time temporary building Inspector on November 14, 2005. On December 4, 2005, the posting was published online with the League of Minnesota Cities, and in print in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Applications for the position were received through December 22, 2005. On January 23, 2006, the City Council authorized the hire of Isaac Stensland. Mr. Stensland began his employment with the City on January 30, 2006 and worked until May 3, 2006, at which point he took a permanent full time position in another community. Because of Mr. Stensland’s departure, however unfortunate, we reconsidered our options relative to staffing levels necessary to address our present needs. Discussion: Upon learning of Mr. Stensland’s resignation, Building Official Osmonson and I considered our options regarding replacement. Three viable alternatives were considered—readvertising for the position, hiring the next available candidate originally interviewed in January, or contracting with a private inspection firm on a long-term basis to satisfy our inspection needs. Each of the alternatives were reviewed based on the anticipated pros and cons. OPTION PROs CONs Re-advertise for the position o Create a new list of potential candidates to fill the position o Cost to advertise is expensive o Amount of time involved at least two months Hire Candidate #2 o Application process complete o Interviews already conducted o Candidate can start immediately o Limits applicant pool to those who applied in December Contract with a private inspection firm o Can begin immediately o Little or no training required o Cost to exceed $65 per hour o Would not do administrative tasks, necessitating the hire of a pt temp admin assistant Based on the above considerations, Ms. Osmonson and I concluded that it would be most cost- effective and most expeditious to offer the position to the next qualified candidate, that person being Mr. Donald Burda. Building Inspector Report May 22, 2006 Page 2 The hourly wage scale for this position as negotiated by the City and the union is as follows: Step 1: $19.96 Step 2: $21.21 Step 3: $22.46 Step 4: $23.70 Step 5: $24.95 Following our standard personnel policy practice, Mr. Burda would begin employment at Step 1, with an increase to Step 2 after six months of employment. Step 3 would occur after 12 months of employment with Steps 4 and 5 due 12 months thereafter, respectively. It should be noted that the position may conclude prior to reaching Step 5.) Again, this step progression is as outlined in the City’s personnel manual. It has further been noted to Mr. Burda that his employment would be contingent upon City Council authorization and satisfactory criminal background checks. Personal and employment references were all found to be positive. Recommendation: Staff is requesting Council authorization of the hire of Don Burda to the position of temporary full time building inspector in the Community Development Department under the terms and conditions articulated in the attached Resolution 6824. Respectfully submitted, _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Resolution 6824 RESOLUTION NO. 6824 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE HIRE OF DON BURDA TO THE POSITION OF FULL-TIME, TEMPORARY BUILDING INSPECTOR WITHIN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has given direction to advertise for the position of full-time temporary building inspector within the Community Development Department; and, WHEREAS, the position was posted and the City received twenty-two applications; and, WHEREAS, Don Burda possesses the necessary background, training and skills to perform the duties assigned to this temporary, full-time position; and, WHEREAS, Mr. Burda shall be compensated at the rate of $19.96 per hour, Step 1 of the negotiated wage schedule; and, WHEREAS, Mr. Burda’s employment shall begin on or after May 23, 2006; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does hereby approve the hire of Don Burda to the position of full-time, temporary building inspector within the Community Development Department, subject to satisfactory background checks. Adopted this 22rd day of May, 2006. ______________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (Seal) Item No. 7I Meeting Date: May 22, 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 6825 Approving Change Orders No. 20 through 26 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. On March 27, 2006, the City Council approved Resolution 6784 authorizing Change Orders No. 11 through 17. On May 8, 2006, the City Council approved Resolution 6810 authorizing Change Orders No. 18 and 19. 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 several ASI items for which we currently have prices/credits and their associated Change Orders have been submitted: Change Order No. 20 ASI-35: in the credited amount of $633.00. This ASI represents the deletion of nine (9) fire dampers from the project. These dampers are not needed as per current fire code. Change Order No. 21 ASI-NA: in the amount of $2,744.00. This is for various electrical changes. Change Order No. 26 deletes this change order in its entirety. Change Order No. 22 ASI-NA: in the amount of $1,602.00. This ASI represents the cost to remove the existing fire alarm infrastructure. The system is longer required by code. However, the existing fire alarm panel was re-used. The panel now serves as the monitor / recall panel for the elevator. A credit to the construction cost will be forthcoming, as a new panel was specified for this function. Change Order No. 23 ASI-NA: in the amount of $518.00. This ASI represents the cost to paint the ceilings in rooms 002 and 008 and is related to previous Change Order No. 4. - a credit back to the City in the amount of $1,193.00 for the deletion of ACP and gypsum board bulkheads in the basement. Change Order No. 24 ASI-NA: in the amount of $568.00. This ASI represents the cost of the glazing in the doors that were ordered as part of Change Order No. 11. Change Order No. 11 added twelve (12) doors. However, that change order did not include the cost of the additional glazing. Change Order No. 25 ASI-21: in the amount of $880.00. This ASI represents the cost to modify the existing wall in Unisex 152 in order to accommodate the wall hung toilet fixture. Change Order No. 26 ASI-NA: in the amount of $347.00. This ASI represents the deletion of Change Order No. 21 in its entirety. This change order only includes a cost for additional work to move the fire alarm panel back to its original location as requested by the fire marshal. 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 Orders 20 through 26 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 has been reduced from the amount given in the March 13, 2006 Staff report of $94,751.00, to the new estimated amount of $93,570.00 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 $93,570 Grading Contractor $5,500 Vegetation Establishment / Landscape Contractor $7,500 Part time / Temporary employee (did not do –was $5800) $0 Re-Settlement Work $6,000 Furniture Budget $61,525 Furniture contract adjustment 2/27/2006 $2,104 Furniture contract adjustment 6/12/2006 $X,XXX Moving contractor $20,000 Police Office Space Rental $0 Storage Shelving $8,800 Interior Decorations / Pictures $3,000 Window Treatments $7,400 Community Center Rental $40,000 Estimated Total $1,486,400 Recommendation: It is recommended the Council adopt the attached resolution approving Change Orders No. 20 through 26 for the City Hall Rehabilitation Project. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Lee, Director of Public Works RESOLUTION 6825 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA APPROVING CHANGE ORDERS NO. 20 THROUGH 26 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 several items for which we currently have prices and associated change orders have been submitted; and WHEREAS, Change Order No. 20, ASI-35, in the credited amount of $633.00, represents the deletion of nine (9) fire dampers from the project; and WHEREAS, Change Order No. 21, ASI-NA, in the amount of $2,744.00, is for various electrical changes; however, Change Order No. 26 deletes this change order in its entirety; and WHEREAS, Change Order No. 22, ASI-NA, in the amount of $1,602.00, represents the cost to remove the existing fire alarm infrastructure; and WHEREAS, Change Order No. 23, ASI-NA, in the amount of $518.00, represents the cost to paint the ceilings in rooms 002 and 008 and is related to previous Change Order No. 4; and WHEREAS, Change Order No. 24, ASI-NA, in the amount of $568.00, represents the cost of the glazing in the doors that were ordered as part of Change Order No. 11; and WHEREAS, Change Order No. 25, ASI-21, in the amount of $880.00, represents the cost to modify the existing wall in Unisex 152 in order to accommodate the wall hung toilet fixture; and WHEREAS, Change Order No. 26, ASI-NA, in the amount of $347.00, represents the deletion of Change Order No. 21 in its entirety and only includes a cost for additional work to move the fire alarm panel back to its original location as requested by the fire marshal; and WHEREAS, it is recommended that funds to finance change orders No. 20 through 26 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. 20 through 26 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 22nd day of May 2006. (ATTEST) ____________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor (SEAL) ____________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator Item No: 7J Meeting Date: 05/22/06 Type of Business: CB City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6829 Resolution in Support of Local Cable and Video Provider Franchising. Recently, bills have either been introduced or drafted in Congress that would hinder or preclude the Cities from requiring providers of cable and video services that use City rights-of-way to fully meet local community needs, or to comply with existing franchise fee requirements. There is a concern among local cable administrators that the reduction in fees could severely limit the local public cable services that will remain available. The NWCC/CTV Administrator, Coralie Wilson, will be present at the Council meeting to review the potential impacts and answer questions in regard to the proposed legislation. Recommendation The attached Resolution 6829 in Support of Local Cable and Video Provider Franchising is presented for Council adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 6829 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF LOCAL CABLE AND VIDEO PROVIDER FRANCHISING WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View is committed to ensuring that all of its citizens have access to the most technologically advanced broadband services available in the marketplace today as a means to ensure the competitiveness of the City, as well as its corporate and individual citizens; and WHEREAS, the City, by means of the local cable franchising process, has obtained commitments to meet the cable-related needs and interests of the community, including full access to a wide array of video and broadband services for all citizens of the City; public, educational and government access channels; financial support for facilities and equipment for the production of programming; free cable services to schools and governmental facilities, and an Institutional Network and other services that support important government, educational, and public interests; and WHEREAS, in Congress, bills have either been introduced or drafted and discussed in committee that would hinder or preclude the City from requiring providers of cable and video services that use City rights-of-way to fully meet local community needs; and WHEREAS, these bills – HR 5252 and S 2686 – would effectively nationalize the franchising of video services, setting a course toward preemption of all local authority over the provision of cable and video services within the community; and WHEREAS, HR 5252 and S 2686 would reduce the funding support for public, educational and government access services provided by the North Suburban Access Corporation/CTV North Suburbs by 80%, lowering its income from $1 million to $218,000, thereby decreasing the ability of the community to produce programs about local issues, people, organizations and activities; and WHEREAS, HR 5252 and S 2686 would eliminate any build-out requirements for any video service provider, thereby allowing providers to cherrypick the City’s most lucrative neighborhoods while leaving others unserved; and WHEREAS, HR 5252 and S 2686 would permit companies that may not be financially, legally, or technically qualified to get a license or franchise to build and operate a cable systems in the City’s public rights-of-way; and WHEREAS, HR 5252 and S 2686 would deprive City residents of the ability to address issues locally by removing to the state and federal government all customer service issues and transferring local enforcement of franchise issues to the federal bureaucracies and courts; and WHEREAS, HR 5252 and S 2686 would threaten the ability of the City to manage its public rights-of-way by allowing video service providers with a national license or new cable franchise to appeal the City’s regulations to the Federal Communications Commission; and WHEREAS, local cable franchising allows for cities and towns around the country to exercise local authority, decision-making and consumer protection, to establish and support commercial-free community television, and to receive franchise fees that private companies pay as compensation for their use of local public rights-of- way; and WHEREAS, the City objects to legislation that creates a subsidy to the telecommunications industry at the expense of the City’s taxpayers; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Mounds View: That the City is opposed to federal legislation that: 1. Pre-empts the local franchising process; 2. Limits the City’s ability to negotiate local franchises that enable the community to obtain commitments to meet the cable-related needs and interests of the community, 3. Voids existing cable franchises; 4. Limits or preempts the City’s ability to require any entity that is issued a video provider franchise to fully build out a franchise area such that said services are equally available to all residents in the franchise area; and 5. Limits or preempts the ability of the City to manage its public rights- of-way in the best interest of its corporate and individual residents. That the City, for the reasons stated above, urges the Minnesota Congressional Delegation and all other members of Congress to oppose HR 5252 and S 2686 and any other bills promoting national franchising and preferential treatment of providers of cable and video services entering the market and to support legislation that encourages fair competition to all areas of the City and that does not reduce the compensation paid by franchised cable operators, including the funding of public, educational and governmental access television. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council directs that this Resolution be forwarded immediately to the members of the Minnesota Congressional Delegation, State Legislators and other members of Congress and House of Representatives as deemed appropriate. Adopted this 22nd day of May 2006. (ATTEST) ____________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor (SEAL) ____________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator Item No: 8A Meeting Date: May 22, 2006 Type of Business: CA Administrator Review : ____ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Resolution 6815, a Resolution Amending Resolution 6694 Relating to Plan Review Fees Associated with the Medtronic CRM Development Introduction: On April 24, 2006, I alerted the Council to a situation relative to the Medtronic development and the permits issued for the parking ramp, north and central buildings. The total valuation for the project, as indicated on the permit applications, exceeds the original projected value by $26,000,000. Permit and plan review fees have also increased by a similar margin. Discussion: Building permits for the project are being issued separately for each of the four structures. The north and central buildings and the parking ramp permits have all been issued. The permit fee valuations for the parking ramp, north and central buildings amount to $93,300,000. (The valuation for the south building is $28,700,000 bringing the total valuation up to $122,000,000, approximately $26,000,000 more than originally anticipated.) The building permit and plan review fees collected for the project thus far total $497, 097. The plan review fees for the original Phase 1 (parking ramp, north building and central building) amount to $195,826, which is $59,094 more than what was anticipated. According to the plan review agreement approved by the City Council on January 9, 2006, G & H Consultants was contracted to conduct the plan review for the original Phase 1 project in conjunction with the City’s building official. The terms of the contract (the “Agreement”) indicate that G & H would be compensated at the rate of twenty-five percent (25%) of the plan review fees collected for the Phase 1 construction. At the time of the approval, 25% was calculated at $34,183 and the resolution incorporated this figure as the maximum amount of compensation to be paid, assuming that the valuation would not increase. G & H has completed the plan review for the ramp and north building and have submitted an invoice consistent with the Agreement which totals $32,074.66. The invoice was paid in two equal installments; the first half paid on April 11, 2006 with the second half paid on May 9, 2006. The invoice for the central building plan review is $16,881.93. Altogether, the amount owed to G & H consistent with the Agreement will exceed the amount indicated in the authorizing resolution. In recognition of this, staff has drafted Resolution 6815 which revises Resolution 6694 to allow for payments consistent with the plan review Agreement. Medtronic Permit Fees Report May 22, 2006 Page 2 Recommendation: Staff requests the Council consider the attached Resolution 6815 which amends and revises Resolution 6694, authorizing plan review services for the Medtronic CRM development with G & H Consultants. Respectfully submitted, ________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Attachments 1. Plan review Agreement 2. Resolution 6690 3. Resolution 6815 RESOLUTION NO. 6694 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH G & H CONSULTANTS LLC FOR PLAN REVIEW SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH THE MEDTRONIC CRM PHASE 1 CONSTRUCTION WHEREAS, providing high quality and timely plan review for Phase 1 of the Medtronic CRM project is a priority for the City; and, WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View has requested quotes from qualified consultants to provide plan review services associated with the Medtronic CRM Phase 1 construction project; and, WHEREAS, the City received five responses from qualified consultants with fees ranging from $34,183 and $190,600; and, WHEREAS, one proposal did not include a total fee and others could not estimate the length of time it would take to complete the review; and, WHEREAS, the consultant team of Katherine Gove and Gary Hagedorn doing business as G & H Consultants LLC submitted the lowest proposal of $34,183; WHEREAS, Gove and Hagedorn have agreed to provide additional plan review assistance to be included with the estimated fee of $34,183 providing the City with significant potential cost savings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mounds View authorizes execution of an agreement with G & H Consultants LLC to provide plan review services for Phase 1 of the Medtronic CRM development with compensation set at 25% of the plan review fees collected for Phase 1, not to exceed $34,183. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the costs for these plan review services will be paid from the collected Medtronic plan review fees. Adopted this 9th day of January 2006. ____________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor T: ATTEST: ____________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (SEAL) RESOLUTION NO. 6815 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND REVISING RESOLUTION 6694 AUTHORIZATING A CONTRACT WITH G & H CONSULTANTS LLC FOR PLAN REVIEW SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH THE MEDTRONIC CRM PHASE 1 CONSTRUCTION WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Mounds View approved Resolution 6694 on January 9, 2006 which authorized an Agreement with G & H Consultants to provide plan review services for the Medtronic CRM project; and, WHEREAS, Resolution 6694 authorized a total maximum compensation of $34,183, which represents 25% of the anticipated plan review receipt of $136,732; and, WHEREAS, the actual plan review fees collected from the original Phase 1 development total $195,826; and, WHEREAS, according to the approved Agreement, the City is to compensate G & H at the rate of 25% of the collected plan review fees, which presently represents a total compensation due G & H of $48,957. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, in recognition of the additional work conducted by G & H and in keeping with the terms of the Agreement, the City Council of the City of Mounds View authorizes an amendment and revision to Resolution 6694 to eliminate the maximum reimbursement provision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mounds View authorizes reimbursement to G & H at the rate of 25% of the collected plan review fees associated with the original Phase 1 Medtronic development, consistent with the approved Agreement. Adopted this 22nd day of May 2006. ____________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor T: ATTEST: ____________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 08B Meeting Date May 22, 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. Anderson Heating & Air Conditioning HVAC Renewal Fran’s Tree Service Tree Trimming/Removal Renewal NS/I Mechanical Contracting Co. HVAC New Topline Advertising, Inc. Sign Installation New Vogel Concrete Construction Cement/Masonry New Yours By Design Heating & Coolings HVAC New Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested. PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL 1 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2 RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3 4 Regular Meeting 5 May 8, 2006 6 New Brighton City Hall 7 803 Old Highway 8, New Brighton, MN 55112 8 7:02 P.M. 9 10 11 1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 12 13 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 14 15 3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, and Thomas 16 17 NOT PRESENT: None. 18 19 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 20 21 A. Monday, May 8, 2006 City Council Agenda 22 23 MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/FLAHERTY. To Approve the Monday, May 8, 2006 agenda as 24 presented. 25 26 Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 27 28 5. PUBLIC INPUT 29 30 Kathleen Smith, 7405 Spring Lake Road, presented a proposal to the City to amend Chapter 7.01 31 relating to animals and specifically to allow the keeping and raising of honeybees via permitting 32 or licensing. She noted that honeybees got lumped into the ordinance of farm animals, and this 33 may have been done because the City may have been trying to follow suit of actions brought on 34 by other cities or because honey is considered a variant crop. 35 36 Ms. Smith stated many people have fears of bees, but do not realize that honeybees are not like 37 hornets, wasps and yellow jackets that continually sting. She stated honeybees are nowhere near 38 that and they are not an aggressive species by their behavior. She passed around an example of 39 honeybees that she had collected from 18 inches around her personal hive, and showed how their 40 legs contained different colors of pollen. She noted honeybees collect pollen from several 41 flowering trees and all garden vegetables. She stated honeybees are crucial to maintain these 42 populations of honeybees to enhance crops, make fruit bigger and better, and increase 43 production. 44 45 Mounds View City Council May 8, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 2 Ms. Smith stated that honeybees are having a tough time because there are mites and diseases 1 that are hitting them hard. She stated commercial people are using chemicals while hobby 2 beekeepers not. She noted honeybees are social creatures and are fascinating to watch. She 3 stated that it is beneficial for the City to recognize this and be open-minded to seeing the benefits 4 of honeybees. 5 6 Ms. Smith explained she works for the DNR and also volunteers to educate women about the 7 outdoors. She stated she desires to partner with the City to create an observation hive that would 8 be a double pane window frame that would show the bees working. She noted she could have 9 demonstrations to school-aged children that would educate them about the history of honeybees 10 and their biology, behavior and benefits. She noted she has spoken with Staff about this 11 potential. She stated many children do not have enough things to do or enough interests, and this 12 could be a potential hobby for young children to get into. 13 14 Ms. Smith stressed she wants to dismiss the fear about honeybees versus hornets, bees and 15 wasps. 16 17 Councilmember Thomas asked what range of distance the bees travel away from the hive to 18 determine what the proper notification would be for a permit or license issue. 19 20 Ms. Smith stated that the typical honeybee is not going to go any farther than it has to for its food 21 source. She explained honeybees take vertical flight when they come out of the hive. She stated 22 the typical range for a food source is two miles, but if the food source is tough, then they will 23 travel up to ten miles. She noted that typically local gardens are very close in the area. She 24 pointed out that many people are amazed at the production of fruits and vegetables when a hive is 25 in the area. She added that the range for water source is within half a mile, but even small 26 puddles will be adequate. 27 28 Councilmember Flaherty asked what a honeybee sting is like. Ms. Smith stated it is a normal 29 sting, but the big difference is that hornets, wasps and yellow jackets sting repeatedly and are 30 very aggressive. She explained that honeybees die the minute that they sting. She stated the 31 basic biology of honeybees does not dictate them wanting to sting people as it defeats the 32 purpose of their life. 33 34 Councilmember Flaherty asked if honeybees know they die when they sting. Ms. Smith stated 35 this is correct, and their whole purpose is to defend the queen and the hive, and not themselves. 36 37 Councilmember Flaherty stated his concern is that children have no fear of anything. He asked if 38 honeybees will attack or be aggressive. Ms. Smith stated honeybees will defend, but not attack. 39 She stated she is willing to teach children and others how to act around honeybees. She stated 40 she is able to pull the hive out of the bee frame with her bare hands, and the honeybees will crawl 41 on her fingers but will not sting her as long as she does not aggravate them or make fast 42 movements. She stressed the main focus of honeybees is pollen, nectar and the queen. 43 44 Mounds View City Council May 8, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 3 Councilmember Stigney stated that some people are allergic to bee stings and can get severe 1 reactions. Ms. Smith stated that she one of those people that are allergic to bee stings. She 2 explained the venom in honeybees is different from the venom in hornets, wasps and yellow 3 jackets, and people react differently to the different types of stings. 4 5 Mayor Marty suggested the item could be referred to a Work Session. 6 7 Ms. Smith suggested ideas of different signage that could be presented and noted she gave 8 handouts to the Council. She stated she would love to have anyone out to observe and learn what 9 honeybees are all about. She stated it is critical to educate children that do not get enough 10 sciences and hands-on experience. 11 12 Mayor Marty asked Ms. Smith if she has raised bees before. Ms. Smith stated she has not, and 13 became interested in honeybees after seeing the honey display at the State Fair. 14 15 Kenneth Glidden, 5240 Edgewood Drive, stated he was in support of the proposed change as he 16 has a garden and raspberry patch where the presence of honeybees is essential. He pointed out 17 there are honeybees naturally in the area, and this change would not present an additional danger. 18 He stated he has yet to be stung by a honeybee, and naturally they are very docile. 19 20 Councilmember asked if the honeybees are very territorial and if they stick around their hives. 21 Ms. Smith stated honeybees’ territory is the box. 22 23 Councilmember Flaherty wondered what happens to the bees in the winter. Ms. Smith stated 24 they can survive over the winter by putting a wax-dipped box over the hive. She stated 25 honeybees will leave the box on warmer days. She stated that survival depends on the severity of 26 the winter and the amount of honey that can be produced. 27 28 Lisa Rolfs, 8429 Eastwood Road, commented about the lack of a pedestrian bridge in the long 29 term vision of the Highway 10 corridor improvement program. She stated she was pleasantly 30 surprised by vision of the City Hall renovation project and is an excellent initiative by the City to 31 make it a livable and welcoming community by reinforcing the business corridor. She stated her 32 main concern is that there is no pedestrian bridge as part of that vision. She stated she does not 33 want to slow down the progress but wants to enhance the vision because without a pedestrian 34 bridge, the vision is missing a key component. She stated with the recent injury of a fifth grade 35 bicyclist and one previous fatality, safety is on everyone’s mind. 36 37 Ms. Rolfs stated that her past impression about the bridge is that there was a concern about the 38 investment required and that it would not change people’s patterns in using the bridge. She 39 stated that is the wrong way to look at it, because right now there is not a 100 percent safe way 40 for people to cross the road. She stated that one does not know what could happen with 41 individual incidents, but the risk can be managed. She stated parents would have more control 42 over their children with a pedestrian bridge. She stated the corridor will have increased usage 43 with Medtronic and the intersection at Edgewood is growing with the movie theater and the 44 Mounds View City Council May 8, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 4 Community Center. She stressed it is more important than ever to provide a safe way to cross the 1 road. 2 3 Ms. Rolfs asked the Council to reintroduce the component in some way and to look at it seriously 4 to provide a safe crossing. 5 6 Councilmember Thomas noted that the Council dealt with this issue significantly in the past, and 7 it was not just a financial issue, but a space issue, due to the amount of room a pedestrian bridge 8 would require on both sides of the corridor. She stated there is no place to construct the bridge, 9 and businesses would have to be bought out to do so. She stated that the really busy places are 10 not places that a pedestrian bridge can be used. 11 12 Councilmember Gunn recalled one location was from Mounds View Square to the library which 13 was going to take up a huge chunk of the parking lot and over where the empty land is by the 14 library. She stated there is a huge amount of space needed to install a pedestrian bridge with 15 ramps. 16 17 Ms. Rolfs wondered if Edgewood has been seriously considered. Councilmember Thomas 18 replied that some of the usages have changed on the corridor, and it is worth looking into, but it 19 comes down to not being a workable solution because of space. 20 21 Ms. Rolfs stated it is important to make sure all options are truly exhausted before chalking it up 22 to be difficult or expensive. She stated it is that important to address in the long range vision. 23 She stated there is just not an error proof way to cross right now, and leaves too much up to 24 individual driver attentiveness, equipment failure or the individual walkers or bikers. 25 26 Mayor Marty commented that Channel 9 News recently did a special investigative report on 27 crosswalks and how they varied. He stated the City has been looking at crosswalks for awhile, 28 and the story gave some good ideas and examples. He stated the report ended with saying that 29 for those communities that felt that the amount of time to cross the street is not adequate, that 30 MnDOT can be petitioned, and that the City of Mounds View did just that to extend all crossing 31 times for every intersection on County Highway 10. He noted a printout of the article was 32 received from Channel 9, and a copy of the videotape has been requested by Staff. 33 34 Mayor Marty explained Director of Public Works Lee has been mulling over some possibilities 35 as far as safety in the crossings. Mayor Marty noted he would like to see some of these ideas and 36 this videotape presented at a future Work Session. He stated the City cannot spend enough time 37 trying to make the intersections and crossings safer. He stated County Highway 10 runs for a 38 long stretch through Mounds View, and not even two pedestrian bridges could be installed. He 39 stated he would like to look into how much space would be needed, and possible costs. 40 41 Director of Public Works Lee stated he could present some of these ideas at a Work Session. 42 43 Mounds View City Council May 8, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 5 Mayor Marty stated the Channel 9 report did raise questions and brought forward suggestions to 1 incorporate. He stated when the information is received from MnDOT, it will be put on a future 2 Work Session agenda. 3 4 Ms. Rolfs stated there is no perfect solution for the long term vision, but having the option of a 5 pedestrian bridge puts the burden on the parent and presents a huge advantage. 6 7 6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUISNESS 8 9 None. 10 11 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS 12 13 A. 7:05 p.m. Public Hearing, Resolution 6803, Re-Approval of an Expired 14 Conditional Use Permit for an Oversize Garage at 2832 Woodale Drive. 15 16 Community Development Director Ericson explained that the applicant is request re-approval of 17 a conditional use permit to construct an oversize garage of 1,248 square feet. He noted the 18 conditional use permit was originally approved in 2000, but the garage was not built within a 19 year’s time, so the permit expired. 20 21 Director Ericson noted Staff and the Planning Commission reviewed the possible adverse effects 22 of the proposed conditional use, found no adverse effects associated with this request, and 23 recommends approval. 24 25 Director Ericson stated that the applicant is present for questions. 26 27 Director Ericson stated that he received one phone call from a resident in the nearby area 28 indicating their support. 29 30 Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. 31 32 Barbara Haake, 3024 County Road I, stated that she talked to one of petitioner’s neighbors, and 33 the neighbor indicated that they were not in support of this conditional use permit due to the 34 extraordinarily large building. She added the neighbor does not like to do something against the 35 neighborhood. 36 37 Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 7:32 p.m. 38 39 Councilmember Thomas indicated she was generally in favor of allowing more space to store 40 things inside instead of storing things outside. 41 42 Mayor Marty asked the applicant what took six years to come back to the Council with the 43 conditional use permit. 44 45 Mounds View City Council May 8, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 6 Mr. Thomas Stampfle, 2832 Woodale Drive, stated he was ready to begin the garage project 1 when he lost his job. He explained he obtained a new job but did not have the vacation time to 2 complete the garage project. He noted he has now been working full-time for three years and is 3 ready to do the project. 4 5 Mayor Marty noted the square footage has increased in the City Code since that time, and that 6 there were no problems found with the original conditional use permit. He stated that as a family 7 grows and things change, more room may be needed for storage. He indicated the garage cannot 8 be used to run or a business or used for living quarters, and the decision seems to be straight 9 forward. 10 11 MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To waive the reading and approve Resolution 6803, 12 Re-Approval of an Expired Conditional Use Permit for an Oversize Garage at 2832 Woodale 13 Drive. 14 15 Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 16 17 B. Adoption of Ordinance 769, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1008 of the 18 Mounds View Municipal Code Relating to Signs and Billboards. 19 20 Director Ericson explained that this item has been discussed extensively at previous meetings. 21 He noted that changes are needed to the ordinance to provide for additional locations to allow 22 billboards in the community. He stated the locations that are presently allowed are Interstate 23 35W, Highway 10, and Old Highway 8. He explained the other changes would be relating to 24 billboard height and spacing, as well as providing for free speech and consistency with First 25 Amendment rights. He explained that language was added to the proposed ordinance for design 26 guidelines that would provide the Council with some flexibility on permit approvals. He noted 27 separate authorization would be needed for the actual design of the billboard. 28 29 Director Ericson offered to answer questions, and commented that a representative from Clear 30 Channel was also present for questions. 31 32 Mayor Marty commented that four billboards need to be relocated, and there has been a site 33 already chosen for one of the billboards, so three remaining sites are needed. 34 35 Director Ericson stated that no permit applications have been received from Clear Channel, but a 36 lease has been authorized with Clear Channel for the Sysco outlot to put a billboard on that site, 37 and Clear Channel supports that location. He confirmed there are three additional signs that need 38 to be relocated for the rest of the community. 39 40 Mr. Glidden asked what the status is of billboards allowed on County Road 10. Councilmember 41 Stigney stated that County Road 10 is not presently an allowed location. 42 43 Mayor Marty added that the locations will be decided at this meeting. 44 45 Mounds View City Council May 8, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 7 Mr. Glidden stated that adding billboards to County Road 10 is not taking any steps to 1 beautifying the area. He encouraged the City to not place billboards on County Road 10. He 2 stated there may be other locations owned by the City, County or State that could be possible 3 locations for billboards. He suggested the City should pursue location billboards in those kinds 4 of locations because the revenue generated from the placement of billboards could go to the City, 5 County or State, as opposed to a private property owner. He stated this would help to lower tax 6 burdens for everyone. 7 8 Mayor Marty asked if Staff has talked to the County or State about possible locations of 9 billboards. Director Ericson reported that both Ramsey County and MnDOT do not support 10 billboards on their properties, but Clear Channel is free to approach both entities. 11 12 Dan Hall, 2200 Highway 10, stated that a lot of people are not remembering that if a good faith 13 effort is not made by the City Council to help Clear Channel find locations for the billboards, 14 then Medtronic is not going to pay for the billboard relocation. He stated Clear Channel has 15 indicated that there are no locations on Old Highway 8 that will work. He stated that by blocking 16 the business district, the City is not making a good faith effort. He recalled the memorandum 17 that was received from Medtronic that they did not think it was a good faith effort in not allowing 18 billboards below the intersection of Woodale Drive. He stated he believes Clear Channel would 19 have already exhausted every possibility of approaching the County or State to put billboards up 20 before billboards were constructed on the golf course. He stated three possible signs times 21 $850,000 per sign is a lot of money to have to offset. 22 23 Mayor Marty stated that Clear Channel expended quite a bit of money for the billboard permits at 24 the golf course area. He stated the City needed to rezone the area. He wondered if Clear 25 Channel has approached MnDOT or Ramsey County. 26 27 Director Ericson wondered what properties the County or MnDOT would own that would be 28 possibilities. Mayor Marty pointed out the locations on the map. 29 30 Director Ericson stated that one of the properties is right-of-way, and it would be like putting up 31 a sign in the middle of Highway 10. He stated that Clear Channel can approach MnDOT about 32 the property. He noted there can be no signs on County parkland in terms of Ramsey County. 33 He stated the other issue is there needs to be a 250 foot separation distance from residential 34 properties. Director Ericson stated MnDOT has not approved property that is not zoned 35 commercial or industrial property in the past. He stated if there are other areas on Highway 10 or 36 I-35W that are City or County owned, the City would support Clear Channel moving forward. 37 38 The Council had extensive discussion on whether to use the ordinance document as it was 39 prepared in the Council packet that excluded the amendments voted on at the last meeting, but 40 did include the change of the language relating to design guidelines, or to use the document with 41 the knowledge that there were amendments that were voted on at the last meeting but were not 42 included in the ordinance document in the Council packet. 43 44 Councilmember Gunn and City Administrator Ulrich reviewed the amendments that were voted 45 Mounds View City Council May 8, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 8 on during the last Council meeting. 1 2 MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/GUNN. To use the Ordinance document as it was prepared in 3 the Council packet as a base document for discussion. 4 5 Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Thomas) Motion carried. 6 7 MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/GUNN. To waive the reading and approve Ordinance 769, an 8 Ordinance Amending Chapter 1008 of the Mounds View Municipal Code Relating to Signs and 9 Billboards. 10 11 Ms. Haake wondered if it is acceptable to not have the same language in the first and second 12 readings of the ordinance. The Council and City Staff stated that the language could change 13 amongst the different readings. 14 15 Ms. Haake confirmed that in the Phase 2 agreement with Medtronic, that if the City made a good 16 faith effort to relocate the billboards, but if locations cannot be found, Medtronic will be due 17 $850,000 per sign and will buyout the Clear Channel billboards. Mayor Marty stated that it 18 would be a determination of the City’s good faith effort. 19 20 Ms. Haake wondered that if the billboards were put on County or State property because of the 21 beautification of Highway 10, if they would all be put at the entrance into Mounds View along 22 Highway 10. She confirmed the sites could be on the south side of new Highway 10 by Arden 23 Park, by the Mounds View Industrial Park, and by Old Highway 8. She asked for confirmation 24 on the idea that the State or County could earn $20,000-$25,000 per year for the placement of 25 signs that would be rented on the right-of-ways. 26 27 Mayor Marty stated that the locations would be wherever Clear Channel could work out a deal. 28 29 Ms. Haake wondered if the County or State would want to earn this revenue and if they did not, it 30 could mean they want beautification of County and State highways, and they did not want 31 billboards. She wondered if the City would also not want billboards for the beautification of 32 County Road 10. 33 34 Director Ericson stated that it would be a policy decision for each entity involved, and the 35 ordinance does not preclude location of billboards on County or State land. He stated the City’s 36 provisions are based on zoning. 37 38 Councilmember Gunn wondered if the City could restrict how many billboards can be located on 39 the area south of Woodale Drive and if it can be limited to one via the spacing. 40 41 City Administrator Ulrich stated the spacing as proposed would not limited it to one billboard 42 with the current code. He stated it could be limited with spacing, but it would then eliminate 43 some other locations. He suggested the area could be restricted from Woodale Drive. 44 45 Mounds View City Council May 8, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 9 Director Ericson stated that he passed out a handout that showed the area south of Woodale 1 Drive on County Road 10, where there are three property owners, and if one takes into 2 consideration the setback requirement of 250 feet from residential properties and 500 feet 3 spacing requirement between signs, it is possible to have three billboards south of Woodale 4 Drive. He noted it depends on where they are located and the billboards’ own spacing. 5 6 Councilmember Thomas stated that the issue is that it would not be best usage of resources for 7 Clear Channel and they will approach the highest traffic areas first. 8 9 Mayor Marty stated that if Clear Channel cannot get them along I-35W or Highway 10, they may 10 come back to this area. 11 12 Councilmember Thomas stated this goes back to the City’s good faith effort to find appropriate 13 locations for billboard. 14 15 Councilmember Stigney commented that Clear Channel may not want to put a billboard in that 16 area, but other billboard companies could come in. 17 18 Director Ericson stated that is a valid point and Staff is proposing that if Clear Channel is unable 19 to find locations for some of the signs, the Code would be amended to lower the number of 20 allowed billboards. He stated this has been anticipated all along. He stated the door should not 21 be left open for additional billboards. He stated until two years from July 2005, no additional 22 billboards may be located in the City by virtue of the ordinance. 23 24 Councilmember Stigney commented that if someone gets a permit, and the ordinance is changed 25 within 18 months, it would open the City up for a lawsuit. 26 27 Director Ericson stated that is correct, but there will be no permits issued for a billboard if it is 28 not one that is replacing a Clear Channel billboard due to the cap and replace ordinance. He 29 stated there cannot be any more than the present ten billboards in the community. He stated the 30 code would be amended before any permits can be issued by the City. 31 32 Mayor Marty wondered what would happen if another billboard company applies for a permit 33 after the ordinance is approved if Clear Channel does not have the permits yet and have not 34 negotiated contracts for the remaining three billboards. He wondered if the permit would need to 35 be granted in this case. 36 37 Director Ericson stated that this ordinance was reconsidered in March because of that fact. He 38 explained that the new language, that has not been adopted yet, says that the maximum number 39 of billboards at any one time is limited to ten, including any billboards that legally exist at the 40 time of the ordinance. He stated there is basically a quota of billboards allowed in the City, and 41 the City is currently at that quota. 42 43 Bruce Sontaire, Clear Channel, stated that two of the current billboards are owned by Viacom 44 and are in good locations, and any of remaining locations might be moved to would not be 45 Mounds View City Council May 8, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 10 advantageous to them, so those two signs will not move. 1 2 Mr. Sontaire stated that with a cap and replace ordinance, one has to have permit ownership of 3 the structure to move it somewhere else in the City. He stated that if the ordinance is passed with 4 that particular language, that is the only way the existing billboards can be moved. He stated it is 5 a tightly regulated and complicated business due to City regulations and State regulations. He 6 stated the zoning is the most important thing, because the billboards cannot be built unless the 7 zoning is appropriate. He stated that if there is a desire on the City’s part to change the zoning in 8 a particular area to accept billboards, MnDOT would still not approve it because the City would 9 be cited for spot zoning. 10 11 Mr. Sontaire stated that when the spacing from the existing billboards and the spacing from 12 residential areas are considered, and that the billboards have to have value from how many 13 people can see them and the clarity of the signs, the number of spots available very limited. He 14 stated that MnDOT has no permit authority on County Highway 10. He stated he would need to 15 go to the MnDOT for anything on I-35W and Highway 10. 16 17 Mr. Sontaire recommended leaving the spacing requirement on any state controlled roads at the 18 state minimum of 500 feet. He stated that any road that is not controlled by the 19 State, such as County Road 10, could have increased spacing requirements to whatever is needed. 20 21 Councilmember Stigney asked for clarity in the language that relates to billboards that are in the 22 process of being relocated. He wondered what billboards are in the process of being relocated at 23 the time the ordinance is passed. 24 25 Director Ericson indicated that the City Attorney reviewed the language and determined that it is 26 sufficient for the City’s needs in terms of identifying the billboards that are present in the 27 community and including in the count the ones that need to be relocated. He stated he is not 28 convinced there is ambiguity in the language. He stated that if there are billboard companies 29 seeking a permit to locate a billboard in the City, the City would indicate that it is at the 30 maximum number of billboards that are allowed and no additional billboard permits can be 31 issued. 32 33 Councilmember Stigney stated that nothing reflects the contract with Clear Channel. He stated 34 he sees none that are in process because there are no permits. 35 36 City Administrator Ulrich suggested to specify the ten locations that currently exist that are 37 intended to be included. 38 39 Mr. Sontaire suggested the ordinance could indicate they would be billboards currently permitted 40 in the City of Mounds View. He stated permits are specific to each location with location 41 descriptions upon them that would identify the present ten billboards. 42 43 Councilmember Stigney stated that this might accommodate it with the exception if Clear 44 Channel does not go ahead with some, why another company cannot come in. He wondered if 45 Mounds View City Council May 8, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 11 the City can hold off other billboard companies for 18 months and the ordinance does not say 1 this. 2 3 Mr. Sontaire stated that it does indicate in the ordinance that it is a cap and replace ordinance, 4 and if one does not presently own a billboard and the corresponding permit, one cannot make an 5 application to put a billboard in the City of Mounds View. 6 7 Councilmember Stigney wondered if Clear Channel elects not to put in two billboards and if it 8 would tie up another billboard company from coming in. Mr. Sontaire stated that it would 9 because they do not have a permit for the billboard. He stated only the existing permitted ten 10 billboards in the City of Mounds View can be relocated where the zoning and ordinance are 11 applicable. 12 13 City Administrator Ulrich stated that the City Attorney indicated that as part of the buyout 14 agreement, the City would concurrently amend the ordinance to allow only eight sites if two of 15 the sign locations were bought out. 16 17 Councilmember Stigney wondered why this would not be incorporated now. 18 19 Councilmember Thomas asked how long the permits are good for. Director Ericson responded 20 that there are leases in existence for the billboards, and with the agreement with Medtronic and 21 Clear Channel, some of the leases have been bought out to be relocated. He stated that he cannot 22 state what point the permit terminates if the billboards are taken down. He stated this may be a 23 gray area but the fact is that the four signs need to be relocated within two years from July 2005, 24 and suggested that is when they terminate. He commented that if any leases have to be bought 25 out, there would be a concurrent ordinance brought forward to the City Council to limit the 26 number of billboards down to the number of leases that need to be bought out from ten. 27 28 Mayor Marty recalled that the original permits were for 20 years. 29 30 Director Ericson stated the original permits were actually for 15 years. 31 32 Councilmember Stigney suggested adding language to reduce the quantity of billboards at the 33 time of the buyout, so the City is covered. 34 35 Mayor Marty asked if that language could be incorporated into the ordinance. 36 37 Director Ericson stated that the ordinance could certainly be amended to reflect a future 38 provision, but suggested to defer the issue until the City Attorney is present to suggest such 39 language. 40 41 Councilmember Thomas commented that the City needs to be very careful with the language so 42 that it is not discriminatory. She stated there is some legal ambiguity on whether that would 43 cause any legal problems. 44 45 Mounds View City Council May 8, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 12 Mayor Marty stated that there are some gray areas that potentially another billboard company 1 could come in and argue this. He stated there would be ten billboards but they might not all be 2 replacements for Clear Channel. 3 4 Councilmember Thomas noted that this could be solved by adding just the word “permitting” to 5 the language to the cap and replace. 6 7 Councilmember Flaherty stated that there is not an issue in regard to someone else coming in, but 8 the City could reach a snag if the City opens up the area south of Woodale, that three billboards 9 could be fit in the area, the City needs to change that so that cannot happen. 10 11 Director Ericson stated he is not suggesting the Council holds off on adopting anything tonight, 12 but not to add language that ties approvals to a future date in time. He stated he is not suggesting 13 doing this, but pointed out that the current language with the exception of adding in the phrase of 14 “or permitted”, is more than adequate given that the City Attorney did look at it. 15 16 Councilmember Gunn suggested adding the amendments that were voted on previously, 17 changing the distance, vote on the ordinance, and then work on the language with the City 18 Attorney if necessary. 19 20 Councilmember Stigney wondered what the rush is if the ordinance would be changed again. 21 22 Councilmember Gunn stated that instead of holding back the ordinance any longer, the ordinance 23 should be voted on and the additional language needed to be reviewed by the City Attorney can 24 be added at a later date. 25 26 Director Ericson stressed that the City Attorney has reviewed the ordinance and is fine with the 27 current language. He stated that Clear Channel presently is not able to relocate billboards in the 28 community because the code does not allow it. He explained that the code should be changed so 29 that Clear Channel can move forward with the relocation process. 30 31 Councilmember Stigney stated he is trying to advert a potential problem because it could be 32 fairly significant. 33 34 City Administrator Ulrich stated his preference is that the ordinance comes back for a final 35 reading at the next meeting. He stated there is a distance requirement, but a number has not been 36 established yet. He stated there is a desire to restrict it to one billboard if along Highway 10. He 37 stated that the other language could also be added about reducing the number of billboards in the 38 future. 39 40 Councilmember Thomas stated that would be a waste of time and the Council needs to act on this 41 item. She stated the Council does not need to worry about the lease language at this time. She 42 stated it can be a complete and usable ordinance that probably will never have to be touched 43 again. She pointed out the ordinance can be brought forward to be amended in the future if 44 necessary. 45 Mounds View City Council May 8, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 13 1 Councilmember Stigney stated there are several amendments and language changes to the 2 ordinance, and there should be something black and white before there final approval is made. 3 4 AMENDMENT MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To amend the Ordinance in regard to 5 Subdivision 6, Section 9, Item B, relating to location (and any other parts that need to be 6 adjusted), to remove Old Highway 8 and insert County Highway 10 south of Woodale Drive to 7 County Road H at the entrance to Mounds View in the commercial area only. 8 9 Councilmember Stigney stated it is discriminatory to allow billboards on the south side but not 10 on the north side. He stated he does not want billboards on County Road 10 at all. 11 12 Councilmember Thomas stated she agreed with Councilmember Stigney but is putting the 13 amendment back into the form that made at the last meeting. 14 15 Mayor Marty stated the City is still working on the beautification of County Highway 10. He 16 noted lighted trailways and landscaping will be added on both sides of the road. He stated that 17 adding billboards on County Road 10 is contrary to the boulevard look. He added that the City 18 cannot control the content of the billboards because they will be on private property. He 19 commented the City could try and help Clear Channel talk with MnDOT or Ramsey County to 20 find other locations that are not on County Highway 10. 21 22 Councilmember Stigney stated this would allow up to three billboards between Woodale Drive 23 and County Road H with the spacing requirements for up to 30 years. He noted the results from 24 the Town Hall survey indicated that only one or two residents wanted billboards on County 25 Highway 10. 26 27 Councilmember Flaherty stated he is trying to protect the integrity and the character of the City. 28 He stated the City had made a good effort to negotiate and have communicated to Medtronic that 29 it would do anything possible to relocate the billboards, and it was all fine until Phase 2, when 30 someone heard that they would be willing to buy them out. He stated that if the City needs to 31 make a good faith effort to relocate the billboards as previously discussed, and should deal fair 32 with Clear Channel, Medtronic, and any other businesses or potential businesses in the City. 33 34 Mayor Marty stated that Medtronic does not want billboards in their backyard, but are willing to 35 have them in the City’s front yard. He stated that when one comes into Mounds View off I-35W 36 or Highway 10, it is the gateway and entrance to Mounds View. He stated there will be an 37 entrance sign on the north side of the road, and that was one of the reasons to keep billboards on 38 the south side of the road. He stressed that he has never wanted billboards in town, and they 39 were only used on the golf course so that the citizen taxpayers would not have to pay for the golf 40 course. 41 42 Mayor Marty stated that the City is not trying to stick Medtronic with the billboards. He stated 43 he would personally do his best to help try to find locations in the areas that were previously 44 agreed to on the first reading. He stated there was adequate spacing according to City Staff. He 45 Mounds View City Council May 8, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 14 noted Staff changed the language to cap the number of billboards in the City to ten. He stated he 1 feels that the billboards can be placed in other locations without putting them on Highway 10. 2 He stated billboards on Highway 10 will be there until 2037, and this will impact residents and 3 future residents. He stated he concern with such a long range agreement. He stated he does not 4 want to saddle the City and future councils with a poor decision. 5 6 Ayes – 3 Nays – 2 (Marty, Stigney) Amendment Motion carried. 7 8 AMENDMENT MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To restrict the billboard height on 9 County Road 10 to 35 feet, and restrict billboard height of all other sites to 45 feet. 10 11 Councilmember Stigney wondered about the sign by the mobile home park. 12 13 Director Ericson commented that the existing sign on I-35W by the mobile home park is nowhere 14 near 45 feet, but if there was a permit to replace it at a higher height, the City would disallow it 15 because it is not zoned consistently. He stated the City should not have to worry about Clear 16 Channel increasing the height to 45 feet. 17 18 AMENDMENT MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/MARTY. To exclude the billboard by the 19 mobile home park from the height limitations. 20 21 Councilmember Thomas stated that there may be a legal issue with excluding this sign. 22 23 Director Ericson stated that there is not an interim use permit for that location, but if it was 24 chosen to be rebuilt to gain the extra height, an interim use permit would be required, and the 25 City would not approve it because it is not zoned consistently. 26 27 Councilmember Thomas stated the height limitations only apply to the areas where it is zoned. 28 She indicated the particular sign is not zoned. 29 30 Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Thomas) Amendment Motion carried. 31 32 (Amendment motion to restrict the billboard height on County Road 10 to 35 feet, and restrict 33 billboard height of all other sites to 45 feet.) 34 35 Ayes – 3 Nays – 2 (Marty, Stigney) Amendment Motion carried. 36 37 AMENDMENT MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/MARTY. To allow only one billboard on 38 County Highway 10 between Woodale Drive and County Road H. 39 40 Ayes – 2 Nays – 3 (Flaherty, Gunn, Thomas) Amendment Motion failed. 41 42 AMENDMENT MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To change the spacing requirement 43 between billboards must be 500 feet for all state-controlled roadways and 1,500 feet for all other 44 roadways. 45 Mounds View City Council May 8, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 15 1 City Administrator Ulrich wondered how the ordinance applies to signs in other communities. 2 Director Ericson stated the ordinance is silent on whether it is measured from other communities. 3 He stated that ordinances typically do not take the next community into consideration. He stated 4 that if the issue was looked at literally, and the minimum spacing between billboards was 1,500 5 feet, that would be a gray area because there is a billboard on the other side in New Brighton. 6 7 Director Ericson suggested an additional amendment could be to specify the spacing for Old 8 Highway 8. 9 10 Councilmember Thomas suggested adding language to only specify billboards in the City of 11 Mounds View. 12 13 Councilmember Flaherty stated that Clear Channel may have an issue with this, and he is trying 14 to find as many spots as possible for Clear Channel. 15 16 Director Ericson stated that there may be an overriding issue with MnDOT if the Old Highway 8 17 location would be permitted by MnDOT because it can be viewed from I-35W. He stated if that 18 is the case, it would be subject to the 500 foot separation and it would be taken into the 19 consideration for the New Brighton sign. He stated there is the assurance that there will still be a 20 500 feet separation. He stated he did not know if Old Highway 8 would be permitted by MnDOT 21 and it may be a question for Clear Channel. 22 23 Councilmember Thomas stated that the City can give its best shot for possible sites, but the City 24 cannot control the states’ rulings. 25 26 Ayes – 3 Nays – 2 (Marty, Stigney) Amendment Motion carried. 27 28 AMENDMENT MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/FLAHERTY. To allow billboards on Old 29 Highway 8. 30 31 Councilmember Stigney stated that in making a good faith effort, specific locations should not be 32 ruled and the ordinance should be made as open as possible. 33 34 Councilmember Thomas stated she cannot support billboards that close to residential areas. 35 36 Councilmember Stigney stated he feels a 250 feet setback is adequate. 37 38 Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Thomas) Amendment Motion carried. 39 40 AMENDMENT MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/MARTY. To remove the 1,500 foot spacing 41 requirement for Old Highway 8 and change the spacing requirement to 500 feet. 42 43 Director Ericson stated that it may be easier to offer an amendment that would allow for 44 minimum spacing to be 500 feet with the exception of County Road 10 which is 1,500 feet. He 45 Mounds View City Council May 8, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 16 stated perhaps the amendment should be back to the original language that the spacing for 1 billboards in Mounds View should be 500 feet with the exception of County Road 10 which is 2 1,500 feet. 3 4 Councilmember Stigney accepted the language presented by Staff. 5 6 Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Marty) Amendment Motion carried. 7 8 Mayor Marty reviewed the five adopted amendments to the Ordinance: 9 10 • Allow billboards on the south side of County Highway 10 from Woodale Drive to 11 County Road H, and remove Old Highway 8. 12 • Restrict the billboard height to 35 feet on County Highway 10 and all others to 45 feet 13 except for the one existing billboard at the mobile home park. 14 • Increase the spacing requirement to 1,500 feet on non-state controlled roads. 15 • Allow billboards on Old Highway 8. 16 • Allow a 500 feet spacing requirement on Old Highway 8. 17 18 City Administrator Ulrich stated the language of “currently permitted” is recommended to be 19 inserted into the ordinance. 20 21 AMENDMENT MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GUNN. To add language of “currently 22 permitted” to the ordinance. 23 24 Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Amendment Motion carried. 25 26 The Council voted on the original motion to adopt Ordinance 769. 27 28 ROLL CALL VOTE: 29 30 Mayor Marty Nay 31 Councilmember Flaherty Aye 32 Councilmember Gunn Aye 33 Councilmember Stigney Nay 34 Councilmember Thomas Aye 35 36 Ayes – 3 Nays – 2 (Marty, Stigney) Motion carried. 37 38 Councilmember Gunn left the meeting at 9:28 p.m. 39 40 C. Resolution 6813 Adopting a Calendar for the Preparation of the 2007 41 Budget. 42 43 Finance Director Beer explained there are several requirements in the City Charter to adopt a 44 Mounds View City Council May 8, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 17 calendar for the budget process. He reviewed the noteworthy dates. 1 2 MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/STIGNEY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6813 3 Adopting a Calendar for the Preparation of the 2007 Budget. 4 5 Mayor Marty stated he likes having the dates set out to make it clear for everyone. 6 7 Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Absent – 1 (Gunn) Motion carried. 8 9 D. Resolution 6807 Approving a Public Works Intern Position. 10 11 Councilmember Gunn returned to the meeting at 9:31 p.m. 12 13 Director of Public Works Lee explained that Staff has proposed to hire only nine seasonal 14 positions instead of the historical ten. He stated that in lieu of the tenth position, Staff proposes 15 the hiring of a Public Works Intern. He stated this position will better enable Public Works to 16 administer activities associated with the numerous public improvements needed to meet the 17 City’s goals. He noted there is $6 to $6.5 million of improvements scheduled for the upcoming 18 year, and this position will help address the goals set by the City Council earlier this year. 19 20 Director of Public Works Lee explained the position would be financed by utilizing funds that 21 were budgeted for the tenth position, and the remaining salary would be derived from public 22 improvement projects. 23 24 Councilmember Flaherty asked if the City will suffer with the reduction of one seasonal staff 25 member or if the intern would take more of an administrative role. Director of Public Lee stated 26 that priorities of the City were shifted to take one person away from the maintenance area and put 27 more of a focus on the administration area of Public Works due to the amount of public 28 improvements scheduled in the next couple of years. He noted the intern position will be an 29 indoors administrative position. 30 31 Councilmember Flaherty wondered if the City will be able to maintain the level of service to the 32 community. Director of Public Works Lee stated there will be a minor reduction in the level of 33 service, but that it will be hopefully not that noticeable to the general public. 34 35 Councilmember Stigney wondered how long the position will be in effect. Director of Public 36 Works Lee stated the position would be indefinite, and would be a budgeted position that would 37 be approved or eliminated each year in the budget, based on the needs at the current time. 38 39 Councilmember Stigney asked what the annual cost would be. Director of Public Works Lee 40 responded that it would be a hourly, part-time position with no benefits, similar to a summer 41 seasonal position. 42 43 MOTION/SECOND: MARTY/GUNN. To waive the reading and approve Resolution 6807 44 Approving a Public Works Intern Position. 45 Mounds View City Council May 8, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 18 1 Councilmember Stigney commented that he was not in support of adding additional staff to the 2 City. 3 4 Mayor Marty stated that the City typically has ten seasonal employees. He noted there is a 5 significant amount of projects and construction going on. 6 7 Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 8 9 E. Resolution 6808 Authorization to Advertise for the Public Works Lead 10 Utility Worker Position. 11 12 Councilmember Thomas left the meeting at 9:38 p.m. 13 14 Director of Public Works Lee explained that William Hanggi, Lead Utility Worker in the Water 15 Division of the Public Works Department submitted a letter of resignation and will be resigning 16 effective May 31, 2006. 17 18 Director of Public Works Lee explained this position is responsible for operation, maintenance, 19 and monitoring of the City’s entire water supply system. 20 21 MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6808 22 Authorization to Advertise for the Public Works Lead Utility Worker Position. 23 24 Mayor Marty stated he would be sad to see Bill go as he has been a fixture in the City for many 25 years. 26 27 Councilmember Stigney wondered about the salary of the position to be hired. Director of Public 28 Lee explained the resolution is only to authorize to advertise for the position, and there will be an 29 additional resolution to hire the person which will include the salary that is fixed by contract. 30 31 Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Absent – 1 (Thomas) Motion carried. 32 33 F. Resolution 6811 Authorization to Purchase Window Treatments for 34 Renovated City Hall. 35 36 City Administrator Ulrich explained window treatments have been chosen and three bids were 37 received for 21 exterior windows and one interior glass wall. He noted that the low bidder is 38 Abbey Carpet. He stated this does not cover some of the windows in the front of the building, 39 but it does include all the office windows. 40 41 Councilmember Thomas returned to the meeting at 9:41 p.m. 42 43 City Administrator Ulrich stated that there appears to be a discrepancy in the total number of 44 window treatments in the Abbey Carpet bid, and stated he was concerned it may not be a full bid. 45 Mounds View City Council May 8, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 19 1 City Administrator Ulrich recommended approval given the Abbey Carpet bid is a comparable 2 bid in quantity. 3 4 MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6811 5 Authorization to Purchase Window Treatments for Renovated City Hall, given the Abbey Carpet 6 bid is a comparable bid in quantity. 7 8 There was discussion amongst the Council and City Staff in regard to the discrepancy of number 9 of window treatments amongst the three bids. 10 11 Councilmembers Gunn and Thomas withdrew the motion and second. 12 13 City Administrator Ulrich stated he would bring the item back at the next Council meeting. 14 15 No action was taken. 16 17 8. CONSENT AGENDA 18 19 Councilmember Flaherty asked to remove Items D and G. Mayor Marty asked to remove Item F. 20 21 A. Licenses for Approval 22 B. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, May 22, 2006 at 7:05 PM for a Second 23 Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 772, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 24 of the Mounds View City Charter. 25 C. Set a Public Hearing for 7:10 PM Monday, May 22, 2006 to Consider the 26 Second Readings and Adoption of Ordinances 761, 762 and 763 Relating to 27 the Rezoning, Land Transfer and Easement Vacation Associated with the 28 SYSCO Minnesota Development 29 D. Resolution 6810 Approving Change Orders No. 18 and 19 for the City Hall 30 Rehabilitation Project 31 E. Resolution 6809 Acceptance and Final Payment Approval for the Emergency 32 Vehicle Preemption (EVP) Installation Project 33 F. Resolution 6806 Proclaiming May 9, 2006 as Arbor Day 34 G. Set a Public Hearing for 7:15 PM for Monday, May 22, 2006 to Consider a 35 Transfer of an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Business License from Mounds 36 View Jakes, Inc. to Moe’s located at 2400 Highway 10 in Mounds View. 37 38 MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GUNN. To waive the reading and approve Consent Agenda 39 Items A, B, C and E. 40 41 Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 42 43 8D. Resolution 6810 Approving Change Orders No. 18 and 19 for the City Hall 44 Rehabilitation Project. 45 Mounds View City Council May 8, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 20 1 Councilmember Flaherty asked for more information on Change Order 18. Director of Public 2 Works Lee stated that there is a newly created desk in front of where the Public Works 3 department and Administration will be. He explained there needs to be a gate in front of the desk 4 for security purposes. He stated that this item was originally intended but was missed in the 5 original bid. 6 7 Mayor Marty commented that City Hall would not be able to locked without this gate. 8 9 Mayor Marty wondered why this gate was not included in the original bid. He wondered if SEH 10 could be responsible for the costs of the gate since it should have been included in the original 11 bid price. He noted that if this item would have been bid out, the City might have received a 12 more favorable bid as opposed to a change order. 13 14 Councilmember Thomas commented that everything was behind a locked door before the 15 remodel project, so a gate was not necessary before. 16 17 City Administrator Ulrich stated that Public Works was relocated in the building, and now gate 18 security is required. 19 20 Councilmember Thomas commented that the SEH cannot be made responsible since it was not in 21 the plans and specifications approved by the City Council. 22 23 Director of Public Works Lee commented that Staff does have a call into SEH and this item will 24 be discussed. 25 26 Mayor Marty asked if there will be any additional change orders. Director of Public Works Lee 27 stated that a list of change orders was provided to the Council two months ago and there are no 28 additional change orders from that list. He commented that there are two or three more change 29 orders left to be approved from that list. 30 31 MOTION/SECOND: MARTY/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and approve Resolution 32 6810 Approving Change Orders No. 18 and 19 for the City Hall Rehabilitation Project. 33 34 Councilmember Stigney commented that the original budget for the City Hall Rehabilitation 35 Project was $1.6 million, and the cost is currently at $1.5374 million. He noted the City is going 36 to spend right up to $1.6 million. 37 38 Mayor Marty asked if the Staff report for this item included window treatments. Director of 39 Public Works Lee stated it did not. 40 41 Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 42 43 8F. Resolution 6806 Proclaiming May 9, 2006 as Arbor Day. 44 45 Mounds View City Council May 8, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 21 Mayor Marty read the resolution, and commented this was the 24th year that Mounds View was 1 selected as Tree City USA. 2 3 MOTION/SECOND: MARTY/THOMAS. To approve Resolution 6806 Proclaiming May 9, 4 2006 as Arbor Day. 5 6 Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 7 8 8G. Set a Public Hearing for 7:15 PM for Monday, May 22, 2006 to Consider a 9 Transfer of an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Business License from Mounds 10 View Jakes, Inc. to Moe’s located at 2400 Highway 10 in Mounds View. 11 12 Councilmember Flaherty asked if the duration of the license started over once the license was 13 transferred. Director Ericson explained the transfer would apply for the remaining period of 14 time. 15 16 MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/GUNN. To set a Public Hearing for 7:15 PM for Monday, 17 May 22, 2006 to Consider a Transfer of an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Business License from 18 Mounds View Jakes, Inc. to Moe’s located at 2400 Highway 10 in Mounds View. 19 20 Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 21 22 9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 23 24 Councilmember Flaherty referenced check number 118373 to Ace Solid Waste for refuse 25 collection for City Hall/Police for $348. He noted this building has not been occupied for six 26 months. Director of Public Works Lee commented that it is actually for service at the 27 Community Center. 28 29 Councilmember Flaherty referenced check number 118395 to Duke’s Root Control, Inc. for 30 $14,461.05. He asked for an explanation of this item. Director of Public Works Lee explained 31 that this is an annual service that is part of a three-year Council-approved contract where the 32 roots within the sanitary sewer system are chemically treated. Councilmember Flaherty 33 wondered if the City had an auger for this service. Director of Public Works Lee explained that 34 an auger is used for bad problems with roots, but the roots are chemically treated for medium 35 problems. 36 37 Councilmember Flaherty referenced check number 118400 to G&H Consultants for Medtronic 38 Plan Review for $16,037.33. He asked what they are reviewing. Director Ericson stated that it 39 was for contracted plan review services for the building permits and it is the first half of the 40 payment relating to the parking ramp and the north building. He stated there will be an 41 additional invoice from G&H Consultants relating to the central building that is yet to be 42 presented to the City for payment. 43 44 Mounds View City Council May 8, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 22 Councilmember Flaherty referenced check number 118427 to Radco for Medtronic Delta 1 Toolbox for $213.87. He wondered if this is for the pickup truck. Director Ericson stated that is 2 correct. 3 4 MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/FLAHERTY. To approve the Just and Correct Claims as 5 Presented. 6 7 Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 8 9 MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/FLAHERTY. To extend the meeting past 10:00 p.m. 10 11 Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 12 13 10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 14 15 A. April 24, 2006 City Council Meeting Minutes 16 17 MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/FLAHERTY. To Approve the April 24, 2006 City Council 18 meeting minutes as corrected and with corrections that Staff received. 19 20 Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 21 22 11. REPORTS 23 24 A. Reports of Mayor and Council 25 26 Mayor Marty indicated that there was a delivery issue with the Mounds View Matters, and some 27 residents did not get it delivered before the Town Hall Meeting. 28 29 City Administrator Ulrich stated he would check into the delivery service. 30 31 Mayor Marty noted that City Hall is open, and there are still several things to do, but it looks like 32 a whole new building. He commented the building looks really nice and encouraged residents to 33 stop by next week. 34 35 Mayor Marty pointed out Active Living Ramsey County walkability workshop will be held on 36 Thursday from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m. at the Community Center and the public is invited to attend. He 37 noted the workshop is trying to promote exercise and how to find trails and sidewalks in the 38 community so that residents do not have to drive everywhere. 39 40 B. Reports of City Staff 41 42 1. Report on Progress Toward Goals 43 44 Mounds View City Council May 8, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 23 City Administrator Ulrich reported that the City is making good progress on the ten goals. He 1 noted the City is a little behind on some goals, but Staff is keeping track to try to ensure that all 2 goals are completed. He reviewed the goals and the progress that has been made. He 3 commented that progress of the goals will continue to be monitored and reports will be made 4 every few months to the Council. 5 6 Mayor Marty thanked the City of New Brighton and their cable staff, as they were more than 7 helpful in allowing the City of Mounds View to use its Council chambers and some conference 8 rooms for various City meetings. He commented that the City of Mounds View would 9 reciprocate if there should ever come a time. 10 11 C. Reports of City Attorney 12 13 None. 14 15 12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, June 5, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. (Mounds 16 View City Hall) 17 Next Council Meeting: Monday, May 22, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. (Mounds 18 View City Hall) 19 20 Mayor Marty noted that the ribbon cutting and official grand opening of Mounds View City Hall 21 will be on May 22, 2006 at 5:30 p.m. and all residents are invited to attend. 22 23 13. ADJOURNMENT 24 25 The meeting was adjourned at 10:23 p.m. 26 27 Transcribed by: 28 29 Annette Anderson 30 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 31