HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2006/08/14CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
MOUNDS VIEW CITY HALL
Monday, August 14, 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 – Approval of Minutes
A. June 26, 2006 Regular Session
B. July 10, 2006 Regular Session
C. July 10, 2006 Executive Session
D. August 7, 2006 Executive Session Minutes
E. The July 24, 2006 City Council Minutes will be presented at the next City Council Meeting, August
24, 2006.
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. 7:05pm Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6901 Approving a Conditional Use
Permit for an Oversize Garage at 2932 Woodale Drive.
B. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 773, an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Code
Relating to Landscaping, Fences and Retaining Walls. (ROLL CALL VOTE)
C. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 776, an Ordinance Adopting the Five Year
Financial Plan (ROLL CALL VOTE)
D. Public Hearing, Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 777, an Ordinance Vacating
Part of a Drainage and Utility Easement Associated with Lot 5, Hidden Hollow (ROLL CALL
VOTE)
E. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 774, an Ordinance Amending Chapters 701
and 1106 of the Mounds View Municipal Code Relating to Dog Kennels (ROLL CALL
VOTE)
F. Resolution 6902 Resolution 6902 Amending contract for Fire Protection Services; Amended
Exhibit A (Lease of Real Property)
G. Resolution 6892 Approval of Interim Lease Agreement in the Mounds View Community
Center for Oops Dinner Theatre
H. Resolution 6894 Approval of the Ramsey County Countywide Public Safety Radio
Communications Subsystem Subscriber Agreement
I. Resolution 6917 Authorization to Hire a Replacement Police Officer for the Mounds View
Police Department.
J. Resolution 6903 Severance payment for Thomas Baumgart, Mounds View Police Officer
K. Resolution 6904 Severance Payment for Jodi Salmonson, Mounds View Receptionist
L. Resolution 6912 Authorizing a Step Increase for Mark Beer, Mounds View Finance Director
M. Resolution 6915 Authorization to Hire for a Receptionist in the Administration Department.
N. Resolution 6895 Approving a Contract for the SCADA System Upgrade No. 2
O. Resolution 6905 Approving Change Order No. 1 for the Groveland Park Building
Replacement Project
P. Resolution 6898 Approval of the Dispatch Services Agreement with Ramsey County
Q. Resolution 6907 Approval of a Supplemental Furniture Order for the City Hall Remodel
R. Resolution 6918 Approval of the LELS Local 232 (Police Sergeants) 2005-2006 Labor
Agreement.
City Council Agenda
August 14, 2006
Page 2
8. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Licenses for Approval
B. Resolution 6908 Approving Appointment of Election Judges for the 2006 Primary and
General Election.
C. Set a Public Hearing for August 28, 2006 at 7:05pm for the introduction, and First Reading
of Ordinance 778, an Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Xcel Energy Electric and
Natural Gas Operations within the City of Mounds View for the Year 2007.
D. Set a Public Hearing for August 28, 2006 at 7:10pm for the introduction, and First Reading
of Ordinance 779, an Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Center Point Energy
Natural Gas Operations within the City of Mounds View for the Year 2007.
E. Resolution 6896 Approving a Contract Award for the Repair of Leaking Catch Basins
F. Resolution 6900 Approval of the Century College Training Contract for the Police
Department
G. Resolution 6909 Amending the 2006 General, Tax Increment Financing District 1 Special
Revenue, 2004 Street Improvement Debt Service, Water Enterprise, Street Improvement
Capital Projects, the Levy Reduction Special Revenue, and the Vehicle and Equipment
Special Revenue Fund budgets.
H. Resolution 6910 Accepting a Donation from Bethlehem Baptist Church
I. Resolution 6897Approving SEH for Architectural Services for 2006 Building Upgrades for
W ells and Treatment Plants
J. Resolution 6915 Setting a Public Hearing Date for the County Road 10 Trailway Project -
Segments 9 & 10
K. Resolution 6916 Adopting Attorney’s Recommendation in Regard to Taxability of Employee
Severance Benefits
L. Authorization to Hire Cable Assistants in the Cable Department.
1. Resolution 6913 Authorizing to Hire for a Part-Time Cable Assistant Vacancy in the
Cable Department.
2. Resolution 6914 Authorizing to Hire Dave Olson as a Part-Time Cable Assistant in
the Cable Department.
9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS
10. REPORTS
A. Reports of Mayor and Council
B. Reports of Staff
1. Police Department Quarterly Report
2. Progress toward 2006 Goals
3. Water Meter Surcharge
C. Reports of City Attorney
11. Next Council Work Session: Tuesday, September 5, 2006 at 7pm
Next Council Meeting: Monday, August 28, 2006 at 7pm
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL 1
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3
4
Regular Meeting 5
June 26, 2006 6
Mounds View City Hall 7
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 8
7:00 P.M. 9
10
11
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 12
13
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 14
15
3. ROLL CALL: Mayor Marty, Councilmember Stigney, Councilmember Gunn, 16
Councilmember Flaherty, and Councilmember Thomas 17
18
NOT PRESENT: None 19
20
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 21
22
A. Monday, June 12, 2006 City Council Agenda 23
24
City Administrator Ulrich recommended that Item 7M be considered before Item 7G because 25
there are many people here to speak to that agenda item. 26
27
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/GUNN. To Approve the Monday, June 26, 2006 agenda 28
amended. 29
30
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 31
32
5. PUBLIC INPUT 33
34
There was none. 35
36
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS 37
38
None 39
40
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS 41
42
A. Public Hearing, Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 773, an 43
Ordinance Amending the Zoning Code Relating to Landscaping, Fences and 44
Retaining Walls (ROLL CALL VOTE) 45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 2
1
Community Development Director Ericson stated this action will update the zoning code 2
regarding retaining walls, fencing, and landscaping. He said the Planning Commission discussed 3
retaining walls and considered adding a definition for terraces and how the function of the code 4
works in a practical sense, and recommended the amendment that was presented at the last City 5
Council meeting. 6
7
Community Development Director Ericson stated the ordinance adds definitions for landscaping 8
and retaining walls, and clarifies that a retaining wall can be located in the same manner as a 9
fence, cannot be located on a property line, but can be located without a setback. 10
11
12
Community Development Director Ericson said Staff feels it is a good compromise and clarifies 13
that a fence or retaining wall is not subject to a setback requirement. He noted the ordinance also 14
prohibits certain kind of fencing, such as barbed wire or electrified fencing except in special 15
cases such as water treatment facilities or those that need additional security. He said that such 16
fences would be subject to public notifications and hearings. 17
18
Community Development Director Ericson said the first reading of the ordinance was read at the 19
last Council meeting and this is the second reading and adoption of the ordinance. 20
21
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. 22
23
Valerie Amundsen, 3048 Wooddale Drive, noted that she had two suggestions dealing with 24
safety and liability issues that she feels should be the concern of the Council. 25
26
Ms. Amundsen suggested that “unless the said retaining wall will be directly next to an existing 27
fence specifically installed to meet the building code requiring a minimum 5-foot fence around a 28
swimming pool” be added to the retaining wall language. She explained that her neighbor built a 29
retaining wall next to her fence, which she feels compromised the intent of the code. She said 30
because of her neighbors’ action, she and her husband spent extra money and time to increase the 31
height of their fence to bring it up to code. She said her family built the fence taller for safety’s 32
sake and asked the Council to keep safety a priority. 33
34
Ms. Amundsen stated that her instance may have been isolated, but if something had happened, 35
she and the City could have been sued. She said she does not want herself or the City to be 36
subject to a liability because of outdated codes. She said she also does not think it is fair for 37
residents to have to pay to update their property to meet new safety codes. 38
39
Ms. Amundsen also suggested for language to be added requiring all retaining walls two feet or 40
higher to have safety devices, such as a fence or railing. She explained that someone could fall 41
off a high retaining wall and it is no different than having railings on stairs. She noted that off of 42
County Road H2, there is a very large retaining wall without a fence, which she believes is an 43
accident waiting to happen. She said the Council needs to consider safety and liability when 44
making these decisions. 45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 3
1
Brian Amundsen, 3048 Wooddale Drive, noted that Community Development Director Ericson 2
spoke to him after the last meeting and that he appreciated the offer to speak to the Council about 3
additional language. He stated that rather than changing the code and having to go back and 4
change it again, it would make more sense to change it right the first time.. He asked the Council 5
to consider additional issues and language. 6
7
Mr. Amundsen asked whose insurance would be liable if a resident builds a retaining wall along 8
a lot line, and someone else accidentally fell off – the person owns the wall, or the neighbor onto 9
whose property the person fell. He asked the Council to consider such a liability issue before the 10
code is voted upon. 11
12
Mr. Amundsen asked if retaining walls are allowed to be built up to the easement or street in the 13
front yard and asked how high they could be built. He stated he felt the Planning Commission 14
did not address such issues. He suggested the code include language stating “at the discretion of 15
City Staff.” He asked the Council to not approve the ordinance and to send it back to the 16
Planning Commission to address safety and liability issues. 17
18
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. 19
20
Mayor Marty said the Amundsens raised some good points. 21
22
Councilmember Flaherty said he believes the Amundsens have excellent suggestions, particularly 23
addressing height of retaining wall against an existing fence. Councilmember Flaherty noted, 24
however, the safety railing on any retaining wall could be problematic. He said he understands 25
the liability question, but does not know if the code could cover all contingencies. He does 26
believe some language regarding heights of existing fences would be beneficial. 27
28
Councilmember Thomas agreed, but stated that she believes Ms. Amundsen’s language is too 29
specific. 30
Councilmember Thomas also suggested that any retaining walls over a certain amount of feet, to 31
be specified by the Council, be subject to safety inspections.. She added that both of the 32
suggested languages could be inserted and would solve the issues. 33
34
Councilmember Gunn asked if the judgment would be made by one person. Councilmember 35
Thomas suggested it should come before the Council. 36
37
Mayor Marty also agreed that Ms. Amundsen’s language was too specific, but agrees with 38
several of her points. He asked if the code should be investigated and sent back to the Planning 39
Commission. He stated that when he refinished his deck, there were certain safety requirements 40
he had to meet. He added that he understands how someone could step off a retaining wall. 41
42
Community Development Director Ericson stated there were a few issues of concern and that it 43
would have been helpful to have such suggestions before the second reading of the ordinance 44
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 4
because an amendment such as what is being proposed would require significant work. He 1
suggested tabling the action would be the best option. 2
3
Director Ericson said that procedurally, the ordinance could go back to the Planning Commission 4
for further review, but that typically, after the first reading, an ordinance does not go back to the 5
Planning Commission. 6
7
Director Ericson stated that he talked with the Public Works Director regarding the retaining 8
walls, and that while there are some instances in which a railing or fence would be necessary, he 9
does not believe it should be legislated. He stated there may be a way to build some 10
discretionary review into the ordinance, but would have to research the issue with City Attorney 11
Riggs. 12
13
Community Development Director Ericson said the issues could be discussed with City Attorney 14
Riggs, the Amundsens, and Planning Commission, and then brought back to Council. He added 15
that he agrees with Amundsens that the ordinance should only be improved upon once. 16
17
Mayor Marty said he would like to take the time to straighten out the ordinance now rather than 18
amending or changing it later. He said he would like something more specific and safety-19
related. He said he would be okay grandfathering in people who already have retaining walls and 20
believes in the future, adding more language will cover the Council. 21
22
Councilmember Thomas said the issues of 2-feet and under were brought up and said she does 23
not want to get too specific with the code. She said she does not want to over-legislate what 24
happens on private property. She added she would like to allow a City Staff person the discretion 25
to make decisions regarding these issues. She said all over-legislation will do is make people not 26
update these properties. 27
28
City Attorney Riggs said Community Development Director Ericson’s recommendations would 29
be appropriate. Regarding the liability question, he said if something happens on private 30
property, the City’s insurance is not liable. He added that the issues brought up before the 31
Council warrants further discussion. 32
33
Councilmember Gunn said she agrees with Councilmember Thomas. She asked if it is the City’s 34
place to determine liability if people fall off one wall into a neighbor’s yard. She said it is a 35
private property issue. She said she agrees that specific legislation will make people not update 36
their properties. 37
38
Councilmember Stigney asked about the railing, and what kinds of railings would have to be 39
legislated. He said he also believes the Council is over-legislating. 40
41
Mr. Amundsen commented that the building code already legislates specifics, including steps off 42
of decks. He stated that if decks require certain things, retaining walls should require them as 43
well. He said such legislation for retaining walls is well within the Council’s ability. He added it 44
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 5
is the Council’s ability and responsibility to maintain neighborly relations and the code should 1
help encourage friendly neighborly relations. 2
3
Councilmember Stigney replied that decks do require railings, and using the same analogy 4
toward retaining walls will require too many things. Mr. Amundsen said his point is that the 5
Council does legislate safety issues. 6
7
Mayor Marty said he would like to table the discussion and have Community Development 8
Director Ericson, City Attorney Riggs, and the Planning Commission take another look at the 9
code. 10
11
Councilmember Thomas said sending this to the Planning Commission is too much, that Staff 12
should be able to complete changes. Councilmember Gunn said she likes Councilmember 13
Thomas’ suggested amendment. 14
15
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/MARTY. To postpone action on the Adoption of 16
Ordinance 773, an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Code Relating to Landscaping, Fences 17
and Retaining Walls, until the July 24, 2006 meeting 18
19
Councilmember Flaherty asked if July 10 would allow enough time, Community Development 20
Director Ericson responded the last meeting in July will be sufficient. 21
22
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 23
24
B. Public Hearing to Consider a Rezoning Request Submitted by Integra Homes 25
Relating to the Properties at 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 and the West 26
Half of 8060 Groveland Road to R-3, Medium Density Residential 27
28
1. Community Development Director Ericson explained to the Council that Ron 29
Lillestrand requests approval of re-zoning for the site of a proposed townhome 30
development. He stated the development originally entailed 21 town home units and 31
that the Planning Commission recommended denial of the request based on several 32
factors, including density, privacy issues, an impact on adjoining properties, and lack of 33
guest parking. 34
35
Director Ericson stated that the developers have re-submitted a re-development application for a 36
simple re-zoning request. He stated the developers have reduced the density to 19 units, 37
reconfigured the layout of the town homes, added guest parking, and changed the width and 38
internal configuration of the driveways. 39
40
Director Ericson explained the Planning Commission had difficulty with the application because 41
they questioned if it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the County Road 10 42
corridor and the City’s vision of how the area should be redeveloped. 43
44
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 6
Director Ericson said the Comprehensive Plan designates the area as mixed-use, Planned Unit 1
Development, within which housing is indicated as a component. He stated the proposed 2
development project is consistent with such a mixed-use designation. 3
4
Director Ericson said a concern is the project is due to a remaining PUD area that could no 5
longer be used if the town home project would go forward. He said the Planning Commission 6
felt the townhouse project was not what the City was looking for and was not consistent with the 7
Planning Commission and City’s vision for the area. He said the resolution attached 8
recommends denial. 9
10
Director Ericson said the Planning Commission is requesting that the City authorize a market 11
analysis of the property if the re-zoning is denied. He said that the Planning Commission 12
considered other potential uses of the property, and considering traffic on the corridor, 13
determined the town home project is not what they felt should go on the property. 14
15
Director Ericson said a notice of a public hearing was sent out to property owners within 350 16
feet. He said that while the Planning Commission is recommending denial, Staff feels the project 17
is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, but the City Council has discretion regarding 18
re-zoning. He advised that the Council has to be consistent with Comprehensive Plan, but it is 19
the Council’s discretion to determine what is or is not consistent. He said the ordinance could be 20
presented at the next meeting, but if the Council does not believe it is justified, a resolution for 21
denial will be presented at the July 10, 2006 Council meeting. 22
23
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:49 p.m. 24
25
Donna Meyer, 2812 Sherwood Road, said she does not want the re-zoning. She said traffic on 26
Groveland Road and Sherwood Road is horrible and she does not support the project. 27
28
Sandy Dewing, 2816 Sherwood Road, said a lot of traffic travels on Groveland Road and a lot of 29
police are on the road. She said it is a residential area and she is impressed with the quality of 30
the area. She said she is concerned that town homes will degrade the neighborhood and congest 31
the roads. She asked where the traffic will go and that there are a lot of people going into a small 32
area. She said she likes having some space, and said she is opposed to having town homes on the 33
particular spot. She said that she is not against town homes, she is against having a much denser 34
zoning area. She said her neighborhood will likely pick up some traffic from Medtronic and 35
asked then what her options would be. 36
37
Brian Bourassa, representing Intergra Homes, presented to the Council his vision of the town 38
home development and spoke of the traffic impact. He said that the Staff report is quite thorough 39
and that Integra reacted to public and Staff comments and have hopefully taken into account their 40
comments. He said the two-unit reduction was significant to re-position units, reduce the number 41
of people residing at the development, and add parking. He said compared to the last layout, 42
there are many more side-yards to side-yards. 43
44
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 7
Mr. Bourassa stated that there was early consideration about an access road onto Groveland 1
Road, but that plan has not gone forward. He said the only access points proposed are private 2
connections granted to allow future access into the properties on the east and west, which are 3
potentially commercial developments. He reiterated that no access points would be on 4
Groveland Road or Sherwood Road. 5
6
Mr. Bourassa explained there was some consideration about the PUD at the Planning 7
Commission meetings. He said they investigated numerous options after the first option was 8
turned own, and because of the positioning of these parcels, determined townhouses would be 9
better because there was not much demand for retail or commercial businesses expressed for the 10
site. He added that a mid-block right-in, right-out access would not lend itself well to 11
businesses. He said there were some meetings between Integra and property owners and the 12
PUD would not be viable. 13
14
Mr. Bourassa said the town homes would be owner-occupied, and the benefits of the Association 15
will add to the neighborhood. He said the Association would be the point of contact for any 16
issues. He explained town homes are the best market demand in this area, and described the 17
units as 1400 –1600 square feet with two car garages. He stated some would be split-entries, 18
along with a variety of housing options. He presented exhibits of the detached town homes to the 19
Council. 20
21
Councilmember Gunn asked about the price of the town homes, and Mr. Bourassa replied 22
between $225,000 and $275,000. 23
24
Ms. Meyer stated that Groveland Road and Red Oak Drive are major thoroughfares, and that she 25
believes people will cut across the street and across County Road J to the town homes, and that 26
there will be increased traffic because of the development. She said that without sidewalks in the 27
area, it is a potential hazard for children walking to the parks. 28
29
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 8:01 p.m. 30
31
Councilmember Flaherty stated at the last meeting a resident commented that less than desirable 32
people may move in to such a development. He stated he does not believe owner-occupied 33
homes would attract those types of people and that they will increase the market value of the area 34
substantially. 35
36
Councilmember Flaherty said in the Staff report, it was noted that this type housing is under-37
represented in the City and asked if the Harsted town homes were factored in. He asked if once 38
those are done, would there still be a lack of town home housing. Community Development 39
Director Ericson responded that he could not answer the question without further research. 40
41
Councilmember Flaherty said he wants to see the rendering of the town homes and said it may 42
help the residents. He said in terms of the traffic, particularly high-speed traffic, that the speed 43
limit is 30 mph on Groveland Road, Red Oak Drive, etc. 44
45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 8
Ms. Meyer replied that the traffic moves much faster, regardless of the low speed limit. 1
Councilmember Flaherty said it should be brought to police attention. Ms. Dewing said the 2
police are present, but they cannot patrol it all the time and traffic is very fast. Councilmember 3
Flaherty said he would like to see more elevations and is not convinced one way or another. 4
5
Councilmember Gunn stated she is leaning toward the approval of the rezoning because since she 6
has sat on boards in the past, she knows that it was the vision that further north on County Road 7
10 would be more residential with town homes and scattered small office buildings. She 8
explained that if the re-zoning is not approved, there is the potential that something else could be 9
built on the property generating far more traffic. She stated that no matter what goes in, they will 10
only have access off of County Road 10. She asked if the City would rather see residential or 11
business traffic on the streets. 12
13
Councilmember Stigney noted that according to the Planning Commission resolution, re-zoning 14
to R3 is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the area. He asked what is consistent 15
with Comprehensive Plan for the area and said he is not sure what else would go in there. He 16
asked what the redevelopment expectation for the area is and if commercial zoning is beneficial. 17
He said his concern is what type of development will go in the area if the town homes do not. He 18
also noted he does not want to see low-end housing and would also like to see renderings of the 19
proposed development. 20
21
Director Ericson stated that on a daily basis, town homes generate fewer trips daily than a single-22
family home would and significantly less traffic than an office building or business. He said 23
other uses of the property would generate more traffic than the town homes. 24
25
Councilmember Thomas stated she appreciates the Staff report and opportunity to discuss the 26
issue before any decisions are made. She said the problem she has is that when the Commission 27
makes a recommendation, the Council should have a compelling reason to overturn it. She said 28
this development may be the best shot the City has to plan for the area, and said she wants to get 29
more information and have a specific reason to re-zone. She said she looks forward to working 30
with Staff on this project. 31
32
Councilmember Gunn asked how long ago the areas in question were zoned. Community 33
Development Director Ericson replied that the zoning, as presented, has been that way for 34
decades. He said the last property to be re-zoned was the Johnson property when it was re-zoned 35
to R-O, and otherwise, the properties are reflective of historical zoning from a significant amount 36
of time ago. 37
38
Director Ericson said the designation with the Comprehensive Plan is relatively new, adopted in 39
2001 or 2002. He said the basis for the mixed-use designation in the area was the reflection of 40
the desire to have redevelopment occur, and the mixed-use provided the most flexibility for the 41
City since at the time there was no clear vision. 42
43
Councilmember Gunn asked about the B-3 property, and Director Ericson said it is a former 44
commercial property and retains the commercial designation. 45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 9
1
Mayor Marty noted that the Staff report was very thorough and referred to the surrounding area 2
as being single-family residential. He said while an enhanced market value is desirable, the 3
higher density would be detrimental to the surrounding area. He said during the Planning 4
Commission public hearings, only one individual spoke in favor of the development, a Spring 5
Lake Park resident. He pointed out that based on comments at the meetings, residents’ 6
underlying concern was that development was not what was originally intended when it was 7
designate a mixed-use area, and that approval would eliminate the ability for a comprehensive 8
block-wide project. 9
10
Mayor Marty explained that a year ago when Integra first approached the City, they were unable 11
to purchase the adjoining properties. He said it is the City’s hope to develop the entire area 12
rather than taking a chunk out of the middle. He noted that in their summary, the Planning 13
Commission recommended unanimously that the Council authorize a study of the area for a 14
better use for the land. He pointed out that the Planning Commission and residents believe there 15
is a better use than the town home development. 16
17
Mayor Marty said, as stated earlier in the EDA meeting, that a feasibility study is more proactive 18
to determine what the City wants and what would fit in to the area. He said instead of being 19
reactive to certain projects, the City needs to be proactive to determine the best use for land. 20
21
Mayor Marty added that at present, he is not convinced that reducing density from 21 to 19 units 22
is a big change, regardless of the re-alignment of the units. He stated he is not convinced the 23
town home project is the best use for the area and cannot approve re-zoning. Mayor Marty said 24
the Council can override Planning Commission recommendations, but there has to be a very 25
strong argument to do so and he has not seen such to date. 26
27
Councilmember Gunn questioned what the original intent was for the area, considering it was 28
continually mentioned. Community Development Director Ericson said there is a difference of 29
opinion regarding the original intent, and there is nothing in writing specifying the exact nature 30
of the original intent. He said that some people remember it being commercially intended, others 31
believe it was to be more residential. He said the Planning Commission has taken the opinion 32
that the town home development is not what was originally intended. 33
34
Councilmember Flaherty said he is not yet ready to disregard the development. He said he wants 35
to see the proposal first. He agreed that there must be extenuating circumstances to go against 36
the recommendation of the Planning Commission, but he is not ready to dismiss it. 37
38
Councilmember Gunn said she believes the Council needs more details, planning, and exact 39
renderings before they make a decision. 40
41
Councilmember Thomas stated it would help to have a discussion about “if not this, then what.” 42
She said there is only a certain amount of detail the property owners can provide at this point and 43
if town homes are not what are desired for the area, the Council needs to decide what the original 44
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 10
intent is. She said if the decision is made to go in a different direction, they need to determine 1
what direction to go. 2
3
Mayor Marty said he believes the EDC could look it over and discuss what the best use might be. 4
He said the Planning Commission denied the town home development, and should consider what 5
the best use of the property is. He said the EDC, Planning Commission, City Council, and Staff 6
should discuss what the best use for the area would be. 7
8
Mr. Brouassa addressed “if not this, then what,” question and replied it is his thought that 9
perhaps the Planning Commission was listening to the residents and reacting to comments 10
desiring a commercial building. He said residents would like something commercial and that he 11
tried to explain that they did try to meet with other property owners and a consolidation was not 12
possible. He said an effort was made to consolidate the parcels, but it could not happen, and a 13
commercial building in this area would be very difficult. 14
15
Mr. Brouassa said that in the Staff Report, the question is asked if the development follows the 16
Comprehensive Plan. He said he believes it does follow the Comprehensive Plan because it 17
allows for linkages for other developments. He said there was no intention to go for a PUD with 18
this submittal, and brought up the points that they were trying to work within the Comprehensive 19
Plan. 20
21
Councilmember Stigney said that large retail will not go in to such an area. He said another gas 22
station could go in, another drugstore, or something else that is more undesirable. He said he 23
does not believe office buildings will work and asked what other possible options existed. He 24
said if Integra could come up with a good plan, he would consider it. 25
26
Ms. Meyer said that traffic flow needs to be considered. Councilmember Stigney replied that 27
anything built in the area will affect traffic flow. 28
29
Ms. Dewing asked if the Council has to approve anything that will be built in the area. 30
Councilmember Gunn and Councilmember Thomas replied that if it meets the appropriate 31
zoning code, the Council has no say about what goes in. 32
33
Mayor Marty said the Council cannot deny a business or homeowner unless there is a very good 34
reason. He explained that if a business complies with all City rules and codes, the Council 35
cannot deny it. 36
37
Ms. Dewing said that the developers have not been talking to her or her neighbors, because she 38
has not been approached by the developers. She said if she were approached, she would be more 39
involved. 40
41
Councilmember Thomas replied that the discussions to which Mr. Brouassa was referring were 42
probably between people who owned property the developers hoped to purchase, not with 43
neighbors away from the development. 44
45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 11
Stan Meyer, 2812 Sherwood Road, asked which neighbors they have talked to and if there are 1
any conflicts of interest between the builders and the Council Members. He asked whom the 2
developers have approached. 3
4
Mayor Marty said he wanted to ask what property owners were approached, particularly since 5
one property owner said they were not approached. He said that currently, they are discussing 6
potentially rezoning, and that it is not moving forward at this point. 7
8
Councilmember Gunn asked if the Council could put it on to the work session and do some 9
homework, where it could be discussed in-depth, rather than during the Council meetings. 10
11
Mr. Meyer said he does not want to have to come back again, and that he has made it clear that 12
they do not want it to be rezoned. He said that there was already a house torn down, Bourassa 13
replied it was not part of their property. 14
15
Mayor Marty asked if the issue could be put on the August work session, but Community 16
Development Director Ericson urged the Council to not draw the discussion out longer than 17
necessary. He said the residents do not want to keep coming back. He said that if the Council 18
feels certain things need to come back to them, they could request it, but urged the Council to not 19
put it off further. He said the developer would like to have a decision one way or another. 20
21
Mayor Marty asked if the development will be 2-story units, Brouassa replied they will be 1.5 – 2 22
stories. 23
24
Mayor Marty asked the Council if they wanted to discuss it at the next work session, and 25
Councilmember Stigney replied he wants to see what the developers are proposing. 26
27
Mr. Meyer said that as long as a road is not built, he would be okay with the Development. 28
29
Director Ericson said that the developers would have to come back to the City with their plan for 30
roads and anything that deviated significantly from the original plan would probably not be 31
approved. He explained that this is a rezoning request, and that the developers would still have 32
to go through a couple steps before any development would be approved. He said that it is clear 33
that the residents do not want a street on that corner. He said that the Planning Commission 34
would like a more comprehensive development on the area and if the other property is included 35
in the plan, there could be a street. 36
37
Mr. Meyer asked the Council if they could make an immediate decision regarding the road and 38
the Council replied they would not be making any decisions. 39
40
Councilmember Thomas said that if the Council decides to rezone, there must be a specific 41
purpose and she would like to have a better idea about what they would see if it were to be 42
rezoned. She said she would like to know the best use for the area. 43
44
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 12
Mayor Marty said those issues will be addressed in the marketing plan. Councilmember Thomas 1
replied that she would like to see what the Council decides is their vision for the property and if 2
the town homes support the vision. Councilmember Thomas said she is not comfortable making 3
the call without knowing the overall vision. 4
5
Mayor Marty said the discussion is better for a work session. Councilmember Thomas added she 6
would prefer a memo from Staff and Mayor Marty agreed that the Council needs to discuss the 7
vision. 8
9
Councilmember Flaherty said one lot is zoned for commercial right now, and right now, the 10
developers may sell the land to the first commercial business they desire. Councilmember 11
Flaherty said the Council needs to figure out if it wants commercial or residential zoning in the 12
area. 13
14
Councilmember Thomas made the point that she does not want to deny or approve the zoning 15
presently, but would like to make the decision as soon as possible. Councilmember Gunn 16
suggested the issue be discussed at the July 17 Work Session so the decision can be made at the 17
following City Council meeting. 18
19
Community Development Director Ericson recommended that, because it will extend the 20
timeline, to ask the developer if it is acceptable to wait for a decision. He said it is better to ask if 21
the developer is okay with deferring the decision in case he is not okay waiting. Mr. Brouassa 22
said he would appreciate the consideration at the work session and is willing to wait. 23
24
Council consensus was reached to defer the issue to the next work session on July 17, 2006. 25
26
C. Public Hearing Resolution 6857, Consider a Conditional Use Permit and 27
Development Review for Midwest Motor Express located at 2169 Mustang 28
Drive 29
30
Planning Associate Heller stated that two requests are being presented and that Midwest Motor 31
Express enjoys being located in Mounds View and would like to stay. She said they are 32
requesting approval of a CUP to operate as a freight motor terminal. She said this is a 33
housekeeping issue and added that when the building was first built, a CUP was not required, but 34
now it is. 35
36
Planning Associate Heller explained the property is zoned industrial and motor freight terminals 37
are permitted conditional uses within the zoning. She said the use of the property will not 38
change, traffic will not change, and it will not depreciate surrounding properties. 39
40
Planning Associate Heller said Midwest Motor Express will add a 10,500 square foot addition, 41
with 24 additional dock doors, which will allow more efficient staging in the warehouse. She 42
said they do not anticipate any additional traffic. 43
44
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 13
Planning Associate Heller stated the majority of the parking is asphalt, and adding additional 1
square footage to equal 67 parking stalls is not an issue. 2
3
Planning Associate Heller explained that the setback would not change and that the parking area 4
would be increased by 75 feet to the north. She added that the north end of the property abuts a 5
mobile home park and there is a large grassy hill separating the properties. She added Staff says 6
it will continue to be an adequate buffer. She said notices were sent to individual homes within 7
350 feet, and Staff has not heard any feedback. She also added that Midwest Motor Express has 8
contacted Rice Creek Watershed District to inquire if a permit will be needed from them. 9
10
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 8:48 p.m. 11
12
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 8:48 p.m. 13
14
Councilmember Flaherty asked if the addition architecture will be consistent with the current 15
building. 16
17
Mr. Greenstein, of Midwest Motor Express, said the addition will be consistent. Mayor Marty 18
asked about the resolution itself, which states under section three that development plans must be 19
approved by Public Works for drainage. He asked about the Rice Creek Watershed District and 20
pointed out drainage was not stated in the resolution. He asked if any ponding would be 21
required. Planning Associate Heller said she does not know at this point or even if it will require 22
a permit. 23
24
Councilmember Gunn said her guess is the only impervious space increase would be with the 25
asphalt on the parking lot, and it would not have a large effect. 26
27
Mayor Marty said a similar situation came up with SYSCO and the Council understands the 28
situation. 29
30
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6857, a 31
Conditional Use Permit and Development Review for Midwest Motor Express located at 2169 32
Mustang Drive 33
34
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 35
36
D. Continued Public Hearing from June 12, 2006, to consider Resolution 6830 37
an Off Sale intoxicating Liquor License Renewal for ABC Liquor located at 38
2840 Highway 10. 39
40
City Administrator Ulrich said in reviewing the item, Staff found some items, which indicated 41
there were some issues with the business. He said that Staff found the violations indicated were 42
first-time offenses by owner Mr. Xing and ABC liquors and Staff recommends approval of 43
license. 44
45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 14
Mayor Marty re-opened public hearing at 8:53 p.m. 1
2
Hearing no public input, Mayor Marty closed public hearing at 8:53 p.m. 3
4
Councilmember Flaherty asked about the City code language stating that a license will not be 5
granted to anyone who has been convicted. City Attorney Riggs said a complaint has been filed 6
and is being prosecuted. Councilmember Flaherty asked what will happen if Mr. Xiong is 7
convicted. City Attorney Riggs said the license will then come back to Council for suspension or 8
revocation. 9
10
Councilmember Flaherty explained that he believes Mr. Xiong understands the severity of not 11
asking for identification. Councilmember Flaherty said he does not believe the Council should 12
take the man’s livelihood away after a first offense. He said he approves of the license and 13
monitoring Mr. Xiong. 14
15
Councilmember Thomas said she is willing to go ahead with the license at this point, but if the 16
conviction takes place, there needs to be a further discussion about consequences. She noted the 17
City prides itself on maintaining such rules, and this is not the only type of business they need to 18
monitor. She said the criminal case against Mr. Xiong needs to be watched very carefully, 19
particularly because a minor was involved. 20
21
Mayor Marty said that from reading the Staff report and police reports, what swayed him was a 22
statement from the officer that when he was talking to Mr. Xiong about the specific incident and 23
Mr. Xiong stated he sold alcohol to the suspect several times and was not too worried about the 24
age of the minor. 25
26
Mayor Marty said that the City has received many complaints that it is easy for minors to buy 27
alcohol from ABC Liquors. He said that according to documentation, the Police Department is 28
aware of problems in the store. 29
30
Mayor Marty said that for non-willful violation, it is appropriate to initiate a license revocation. 31
He said that at this point, he sees the violation as non-willful, Mr. Xiong has not been convicted, 32
and that the violation is the first documented incident. Mayor Marty said he would like a 6-33
month probationary period for the license and if there are no more incidents, then the 34
probationary period is over. 35
36
Councilmember Thomas said she is not sure how a probationary license would work and that the 37
Council has the right at any time to revoke a liquor license. She added she would not mind 38
stating the Council will be monitoring the situation closely. 39
40
City Administrator Ulrich said he agrees with Councilmember Thomas’ points, that if there is a 41
conviction or other violations, the City would consider revocation of the license. Mayor Marty 42
agreed with the suggestion and would like to make sure Mr. Xiong realizes the City takes the 43
issue very seriously. 44
45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 15
City Attorney Riggs said if there is a violation at any time, the Council can suspend or revoke the 1
license and putting Mr. Xiong on notice will not hurt. 2
3
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/STIGNEY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6830 4
an Off Sale intoxicating Liquor License Renewal for ABC Liquor located at 2840 Highway 10. 5
6
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 7
8
E. Continued Public Hearing from June 12, 2006, to consider Resolution 6833 9
an On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License Renewal for Robert’s Sports Bar and 10
Entertainment located at 2400 County Road H2 11
12
City Administrator Ulrich stated this item was postponed from the June 12th meetings, when 13
several residents voice specific complaints about the operation including noise and trash. He 14
said they attached police reports to the Staff report. He stated the owner of Robert’s Sports Bar 15
and Entertainment is here to address complaints. 16
17
Mayor Marty re-opened the public hearing at 9:04 p.m. 18
19
Mr. Hutchinson, the attorney for Mr. Waste, the owner of Robert’s, stated they reviewed the 20
Police Department record, and in the last 18 months, there have been 7 noise complaints, 3 of 21
which were anonymous. He said before the meeting last month, Mr. Waste was not aware of the 22
noise complaints. 23
24
Mr. Hutchinson stated it is the nature of the nightclub that there will be noise around the bar and 25
in the street. He said Mr. Waste will do everything he can to treat his neighbors well. He said 26
some of the complaints were that the doors were left open and Mr. Waste and the nightclub 27
managers have addressed the issue. 28
29
Mr. Hutchinson added that the traffic noise could be coming from many different places, not 30
necessarily Robert’s. He said that Robert’s does not condone the behavior, that the bar has a 31
good relationship with the Police Department. He said he does not believe anyone has been 32
tagged for excessive noise in or directly outside the lot. 33
34
Mr. Hutchinson stated the nightclub has been there for 20-30 years, and to some extent, there will 35
always be some noise associated. He said Mr. Waste will do his best to be courteous, and that 36
there have not been an inordinate number of police calls. Mr. Hutchinson said it is not a “biker 37
bar,” and that motorcyclists patronize several bars in the area. 38
39
Sarah Mears, 5292 Edgewood Drive, stated she does not care about the motorcycle noise. She 40
said her concern is the music and that even with the doors in the bar closed and in their house 41
shut, that they can hear the noise. 42
43
Ms. Mears also stated her concern that a man was drunk and crawling around in her front yard 44
and asked why he was not refused alcohol at the bar before he got to that point. She voiced her 45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 16
concern about trash in her back yard including a plastic bun rack that was thrown over her fence 1
last year. 2
3
Ms. Mears stated she and her husband were aware they moved in behind a bar and that she called 4
the police before moving in and was informed there were no noise complaints. She stated her 5
main concern was the trash and beer bottles in her yard where her children play 6
7
Ms. Amundsen asked about the noise issues, and said she has contacted Fridley, whose Police 8
Department has noise ordinances stating maximum decibel levels. She asked if Mounds View 9
has a decibel limit in an ordinance and asked if that is something that should be discussed. 10
11
Sean Mears, 5292 Edgewood Drive, said that he was not aware until tonight that there have been 12
police reports filed. He said he is disappointed that the Police Department did not provide the 13
adequate information about the police reports. He commended Robert’s that the bar noise has 14
gone down and that the doors have been closed in the past few weeks, and that he takes it as a 15
sign that some things are being done to address the neighbors’ complaints. 16
17
Mr. Mears stated that on a Sunday, a band was performing, and that they could hear everything 18
that was being said. He asked at what point is loud too loud. He said that he understands he 19
lives next to a bar, but that the noise is too much. He said all he is asking is the volume is turned 20
down and the doors remain closed. 21
22
Cindy Hilger, 5287 Edgewood Drive, agreed that over the last two weeks, the noise level has 23
come down significantly. She said that a band’s bass and the noise from the bar cannot be 24
compared to a dog barking in the middle of the afternoon. She stated she is voicing her concern 25
about the noise and liked the decibel level suggestion. She said the police have been called since 26
the meetings two weeks ago, and that one night was particularly bad. 27
28
Wayne Joelberg, 5287 Edgewood Drive, stated that a woman on the City Council used to live on 29
Edgewood Drive and had a meeting with Robert’s. He said that a wall was proposed to hold 30
down the noise and that he would like to see a real noise barrier put in. He said he is sure 31
Robert’s can afford it 32
33
Jeff Hilger, 5287 Edgewood Drive, stated that the noise is loud Thursday through Sunday. He 34
said he would like to reiterate that the noise is a huge problem and keeps him awake at night. He 35
said after the bar closes the noise from the motorcycles and yelling wakes him up. 36
37
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 9:18 p.m. 38
39
Councilmember Thomas stated the reason things like this come back for renewal is so residents 40
have these opportunities to speak. She said the bar can control the noise level of the music and 41
stated she would like to see a meeting between the City and the bar owner. She said it would be 42
appropriate to make sure the bar owner was following through with issues that are within his 43
power. She noted her expectation is that the bar owner will do what he can within his power. 44
45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 17
Councilmember Flaherty said the hearing was postponed to give Mr. Waste an opportunity to 1
address his neighbors’ concerns. He stated he agrees with Councilmember Thomas that the 2
liquor license should not be denied. He added he believes the public hearing is a good 3
opportunity for Mr. Waste to address his neighbors’ concerns. 4
5
Mr. Waste replied that he had not done much to reduce the noise level in the last two weeks, but 6
has made sure the doors are closed. Mr. Hutchinson added that closing the doors makes a big 7
difference in the noise level and that Robert’s management is attempting to react to the 8
complaints appropriately. 9
10
Mr. Joelberg said he has called the Police Department several times, but did not realize he could 11
call 911 to report problems. He stated he had gotten the “run-around” from the Police 12
Department. 13
14
Mr. Hilger stated at the last meeting they asked the Police Chief to research the complaints and 15
stated that he also did not know he was supposed to dial 911. 16
17
Mayor Marty stated all of the police complaints were available for review at the Council meeting. 18
He stated he met with Mr. Waste during a similar situation and said Mr. Waste made several 19
improvements, including planting bushes in front of the building. 20
21
Mayor Marty stated he does not recall any complaints at the Council level and noted that the 22
residents now know how to contact the police. He stated Mr. Waste has a history of stepping up 23
to make improvements to the establishment. He noted the liquor license renewal process is in 24
place so residents can speak to such issues. 25
26
Mayor Marty stated he likes Ms. Amundsen’s idea about the decibel meter. He said the noise 27
ordinance does specify a decibel level within a certain amount of feet. Councilmember Thomas 28
stated she believes it is an audible range limit, not a decibel limit, and that there are legal issues 29
surrounding decibel levels. 30
31
Mayor Marty suggested said the Council determine if something more needs to be done and that 32
it be discussed at a later date. He stated he does not believe in holding up the license. 33
34
Councilmember Flaherty added that a decibel reading may help Robert’s determine the 35
appropriate volume of music. 36
37
Mr. Joelberg stated they are not trying to stop the license, but they want the noise quieted and do 38
not believe there should be a problem doing so. 39
40
Ms. Amundsen clarified that her neighboring business’ decibel meter was used, and that Fridley 41
has a decibel that is allowed. She clarified that the business voluntarily tested their decibels and 42
reduced the noise. 43
44
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 18
Mayor Marty suggested that Mr. Waste work with the Police Department to correct such issues 1
and applauded Mr. Waste on his willingness to address the issues. 2
3
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/MARTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6833 an 4
On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License Renewal for Robert’s Sports Bar and Entertainment located 5
at 2400 County Road H2. 6
7
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 8
9
F. Resolution 6852 Approving Rotary Club Membership. 10
11
City Administrator Ulrich stated this item was discussed at the June 5th City Council work 12
session. He stated it was the consensus of the Council to invite the president of the New 13
Brighton/Mounds View Rotary Club, Mr. George Winiecki, to a Council meeting to introduce 14
himself, answer questions, and explain the benefits of the Rotary membership. 15
16
Mr. Winiecki presented the Council with information about the Rotary Club. He explained 17
Rotary is a worldwide organization of business and professional leaders and that members of 18
club are involved in all aspects of business and government. He said they have mayors, real-19
estate developers, Council members, school superintendents, principals, and many private and 20
public sector members. 21
22
Mr. Winiecki stated the Rotary Club provides community and humanitarian services, promotes 23
high ethical standards and promotes peace throughout the world. He explained that there are 24
many rotary clubs throughout the world. 25
26
Mr. Winiecki said that the Rotary Club has made several contributions throughout the area. He 27
stated for example, that the club in Mounds View returns the funds they raise back into the 28
community. He noted that $600 was contributed to a Mounds View Park, that they contributed 29
to a youth latch-key program through Community Partners to Youth latchkey program, and also 30
gave money to the Northwest Youth and Family Service. 31
32
Mr. Winiecki said the club gives to the local food shelf. He said they used to distribute food 33
directly to the citizens, but that working with the food shelf is more efficient. He said they have 34
a large Easter egg hunt which includes 700-800 children. 35
36
Mr. Winiecki explained that they contribute to CEAF, the Community Emergency Assistance 37
Fund, which assists people who have needs for emergency money. He stated they hold people 38
accountable. He explained that they also organize a carnival for children who have Spina bifida. 39
40
Mr. Winiecki stated that occasionally they send young women and men from Irondale to a 41
leadership camp and provide scholarships to high school students. He said they have contributed 42
to the Irondale choir and donated to the Mounds View library. He also noted they contributed to 43
the Mounds View Public School’s caravan that has a handicapped lift, which for a nominal fee, is 44
available for anyone in the 621 School District. 45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 19
1
Mr. Winiecki said there are also activities on the national level, but the bulk of the money raised 2
by their club goes back into the local community. He said that members vote on where the funds 3
go. He noted several prominent people who are Rotary members. 4
5
Mr. Winiecki noted that the Bill Gates Foundation donated $25 million dollars, which Rotary 6
matched for a total $50 million. He added that Rotary is the only organization worldwide that 7
has a chair on the United Nations. 8
9
Mr. Winiecki stated they are not just looking for business or governmental leaders, but also 10
citizens. He stated the club expects a member to be active in the community. 11
12
Mayor Marty stated he suggested City Administrator Ulrich join the Rotary Club. He said he 13
feels it would be beneficial to the City and City Administrator. Mr. Winiecki said it is good for 14
the community to have someone from the City involved in Rotary. 15
16
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6852 17
Approving Rotary Club Membership. 18
19
Councilmember Stigney commented that the Rotary is a wonderful organization, but questioned 20
whether the City should fund the membership for City Administrator Ulrich. He said he does not 21
support the City paying for the membership. 22
23
Councilmember Thomas stated that as long as the City benefits from the Rotary Club she 24
supports the membership. She said if the time comes that the Administrator is not an active 25
member, then the City should no longer fund the membership. 26
27
Mayor Marty pointed out to City Administrator Ulrich that there are volunteer opportunities after 28
hours. 29
30
Councilmember Flaherty asked if the membership, should it be approved, is for the City of 31
Mounds View not for City Administrator Ulrich personally. Mayor Marty stated that it is and 32
asked if there could be an alternate to attend. Mr. Winiecki replied that the international by-laws 33
are being re-written, and an alternate could be designated. 34
35
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1(Stigney) Motion carried. 36
37
Mr. Winiecki said the goal is that the dues and bulk of income is put back into the City. 38
39
M. Resolution 6895 Approving a Tobacco-Free Park Policy 40
41
Public Works Director Lee said this was reviewed at a work session and it was recommended it 42
come back to the Council. He mentioned the exception areas, such as designated smoking areas 43
at the Community Center, and individual cars in parking lots in City parking lots. 44
45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 20
Councilmember Stigney asked where the designated smoking areas at the Community Center are 1
located. Christina Ford, representative of the Youth Smoke Free Coalition, asked for one 2
designated area away from the children’s area and away from the front door. 3
Councilmember Stigney asked if the area would be inside or outside. Director Lee replied that 4
the current area is on the north side of the building, near the main entrance off of Bronson 5
Avenue. The Community Center Staff asked that it be moved away from the daycare. Director 6
Lee responded that two years ago they poured concrete slabs and added a picnic table to remove 7
smokers from the main entrance, but they could look for alternative areas. 8
9
Mayor Marty asked if there is another entrance that could be accommodating. Director Lee said 10
there are two available spots, and now they are asking for both to be eliminated. Councilmember 11
Gunn said the smoking is used mostly during evening events, when the daycare is not open. She 12
said the playground is a significant distance from the back door, and that the only alternative is 13
the front door, which is a poor choice. 14
15
Councilmember Stigney asked about the other exception regarding the definition “adjacent” to 16
the public park. Director Lee stated it would be vehicles parked on the street adjacent to the 17
public park since not all parks have parking areas. 18
19
Councilmember Gunn asked for changes to the language. 20
21
Councilmember Thomas said she cannot support a “tobacco-free” policy and she is 22
uncomfortable with the “smoke-free” policy. Mayor Marty said he can understand that youth 23
clubs and buildings are tobacco free, but that citizens believe the City is putting too many 24
restrictions on smoking. 25
26
Mayor Marty stated he said he agrees with Councilmember Thomas that “smoke-free” is okay. 27
He said he likes other Cities’ ordinances that discuss youth activities, and would like to stress 28
that there is no use around children. 29
30
Director Lee stated that a smoke-free rather than tobacco-free policy would require significant 31
signage policies. Mayor Marty added he has been looking for “tobacco free” signs in other cities, 32
but hasn’t seen any. 33
34
Councilmember Flaherty stated a tobacco-free policy will be a voluntary compliance and there 35
will be no enforcement or penalty for using tobacco. He said it is more a symbolic issue than 36
anything else. 37
38
Cindy Palm, 2266 Terrace View, reiterated that it is an empowering tool for residents, and that it 39
gives citizens power to make sure tobacco is not used. She said it will help citizens ask others to 40
not smoke. She said it is self-regulating and whether it is “smoke-free, or “tobacco-free,” doesn’t 41
matter. She said tobacco does not belong in City parks. 42
43
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/STIGNEY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6895 44
Approving a Tobacco-Free Park Policy. 45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 21
1
Councilmember Thomas said she does not believe the difference between “tobacco free,” and 2
“smoke free” is a matter of semantics and it does infringe on personal freedoms. She said that 3
the City’s responsibilities are not to deem what is appropriate for children. She believes a 4
smoke-free policy protects health and safety and that is the City responsibility, and she is even 5
okay with going with a smoke-free ordinance. 6
7
Councilmember Flaherty said he is okay with a smoke-free or tobacco-free sign, but would not 8
agree with an ordinance. 9
10
Commissioner Stigney said he believes it is an effort to bring an awareness to the makers of the 11
tobacco that it should be done. He said it is an awareness-oriented policy, not an enforcement 12
policy, and supports anything that encourages children not to smoke. 13
14
Mayor Marty stated he agrees that City buildings be smoke free, and understands the role model 15
aspect, and that he is against smoking around children or children’s activities. He stated that he 16
has a problem with over-regulation based on what he has heard from residents about restricting 17
outside settings. 18
19
Mayor Marty stated he understands the intent of the policy, but does not think people should be 20
restricted from smoking outside. He stated it is legal to smoke and it is not the City’s place to 21
make it illegal. 22
23
Ayes – 3 Nays – 2 (Thomas, Marty) Motion carried. 24
25
CONTINUATION OF MEETING 10:00 p.m. 26
27
MOTION/SECOND: MARTY/FLAHERTY to continue the City Council meeting until 10:45 28
p.m. 29
30
Aye – 5 Nay – 0 Motion carried. 31
32
G. Resolution 6860 Approving Change Orders No. 27 through 34 for the City 33
Hall Rehabilitation Project 34
35
Public Works Director Lee stated that the change orders refer to various items included in the 36
City Hall project. He pointed out that Staff has been working with the consultant, and the total 37
amount of change orders, except for one, will bring up total amount to $147,150, which will be 38
the maximum change orders for the project. 39
40
Director Lee said the change does include the addition of the handicapped power door. He 41
pointed out there may be issues the Council will discuss. He added that the consultant would 42
meet with the Council to go over any issues and questions. 43
44
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 22
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GUNN. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6860 1
Approving Change Orders No. 27 through 34 for the City Hall Rehabilitation Project 2
3
Councilmember Flaherty brought up Change Order #27 and asked if the contractor missed that 4
they had to tie the walls together. Director Lee stated they did miss some areas. Councilmember 5
Flaherty said he believes it should have been in original bid. He said that #34 should have been 6
foreseen as well. 7
8
Mayor Marty stated his is not happy with such change orders and asked if the engineers and 9
consultants could be held responsible. Councilmember Stigney agreed with Mayor Marty. He 10
asked if the handicap access will be an additional $6000. Public Works Director Lee stated the 11
old ones were demoed, and the new handicap access controls would be $6000. He stated that to 12
re-install the old doors would have cost more. 13
14
Mayor Marty stated he wants the handicap access controls back so that City Hall is accessible. 15
Director Lee responded that the final total may be less than $6000. 16
17
Councilmember Thomas stated that the issue wasn’t to go back to get the doors, but that it was 18
an unacceptable design from the beginning, that the handicapped doors should not have been 19
removed. 20
21
Mayor Marty commented that the “MV” is back in the Council Chambers, but asked if the “City 22
of Mounds View” will be added. Public Works Director Lee stated the “MV” is back on a 23
temporary basis, and different letters have been ordered. Mayor Marty stated he does not want to 24
buy new ones. City Administrator Ulrich stated it is the old logo that was used and that a new 25
logo will go in the back. Mayor Marty stated he does not know why it was changed. City 26
Administrator Ulrich stated it has already been ordered. 27
28
Councilmember Stigney asked if there would be a change order for the electrical box to be 29
corrected, and Public Works Director Lee responded that there would be no change order and 30
that the company would fix the box. Councilmember Stigney also asked about the electrical cord 31
on the floor. 32
33
Councilmember Stigney stated he believes this money is wasted and does not support it. 34
35
Aye – 4 Nay – 1(Stigney) Motion carried. 36
37
H. Resolution 6866 Including Various Items in the Feasibility Report for the 38
Street and Utility Improvement Program / Public Informational Meeting 39
Update 40
41
Public Works Director Lee stated that on May 22, the Council authorized a feasibility report for 42
street improvement program. He stated the City wanted to meet with residents to determine 43
issues and concerns. He said an informational meeting was held on June 13 and about 50 people 44
attended. He said one of the items had several mini-topics and a feedback form. 45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 23
1
Director Lee said street design and curbing was one of the main issues discussed. He said 10 of 2
14 feedback forms touched on street design and curbing, that 9 of 10 were in favor, and 7 3
indicated they would go along with the project. He added that only one person was against the 4
project. 5
6
Director Lee said 10 of the 11 were opposed to public walkways. He said the City does have a 7
trail way plan and trail way advocacy group that submitted a report in 1992. He stated Staff is 8
recommending that these are included in the feasibility report to identify issues surrounding 9
providing pedestrian corridors in the areas and the cost associated with them. 10
Director Lee stated another issue is mailbox grouping. He said the City has an ordinance that 11
when streets are re-done, the mailboxes be grouped. He said of the 14 feedback forms submitted, 12
four of them commented on the mailbox grouping and two were opposed, two were indifferent. 13
14
Director Lee said that one of the main issues is traffic volumes and speed in the area. He said it 15
was nearly unanimous that this was a concern. He said Staff will recommend a proposal for 16
traffic study of the northwest quadrant of the City. He stated this will collect data about this part 17
of the City, identify the issues as far as traffic volume and speed, and then provide a list of 18
possible solutions that could be implemented. 19
20
Director Lee said as to the issue of whether to include the segment of Sherwood Road, Staff 21
recommends sending a survey to property owners on the segment asking if they do or do not 22
want to be included with the project. 23
24
Director Lee addressed the elimination of the Hillview/Fairchild access to County Road 10 and 25
stated Staff recommends that they continue with the plan and incorporate this into the feasibility 26
report. 27
28
Director said Staff is recommending the approval of six items to be included in the feasibility 29
report: 30
1. Street Design Option that was implemented in 2004 which included concrete curbing 31
and gutter; 32
2. Trail ways as indicated by the City’s comprehensive trail way plan; 33
3. Mailbox grouping as required by City code; 34
4. Following the County Road 10 improvement plan as adopted in August 2002 indicating 35
the closing of the Hillview/Fairchild access; 36
5. Including Sherwood Road segments between Long Lake Road and Edgewood Drive 37
only if property owners indicate a desire to be included by a popular vote; 38
6. Any other items as directed by the City Council. 39
40
Councilmember Gunn asked about the rest of Red Oak Drive and stated that there were many 41
people who requested it be done. Director Lee said Red Oak Drive would be somewhat 42
problematic since there have been no surveys of people to the north. He said the projects need to 43
terminate at some point, and that not everything can be done at once. He said in terms of Red 44
Oak Drive, it could become disjointed and it will be determined by the study. 45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 24
1
Councilmember Gunn asked about the infrastructure that will be redone, and why the portion of 2
Sherwood Road will be excluded. Director Lee responded that a televising of the systems is 3
being done currently and if it is not included in the current project, it will be added to another 4
project 3-5 years down the road. 5
6
Director Lee said the segment along Sherwood Road will be a main haul road for the project and 7
it made sense to include it in the project. 8
9
Councilmember Thomas was under the impression that all seven areas of infrastructure have 10
been televised. Public Works Director Lee said it was done 7 years ago and it will be re-11
televised, along with the storm sewer. Mayor Marty stated he is okay with Red Oak Drive being 12
included in the project, and people will see the new road and become more excited about having 13
theirs redone. 14
15
Councilmember Thomas asked about the width of the street, and Director Lee said that will be 28 16
feet curb to curb. He said within the study area, streets are about 28 feet curb-to-curb, if not a bit 17
wider. Mayor Marty asked if they will be slightly narrower and Director Lee replied that yes they 18
would be slightly narrower and that in the 2004 project, there was a slight decrease in width. 19
20
Councilmember Stigney asked about curbing and the cost difference in the barrier curb if it was 21
made from bituminous rather than concrete. He asked Public Works Director Lee if he ever 22
presented the cost difference to the citizens. 23
24
Director Lee stated there is not a surmountable bituminous curb option, and the cost difference 25
would be about the same, if there were, he said the cost is negligible. Councilmember Stigney 26
asked about the cost of a bituminous-lipped curb versus the concrete barrier curb. Director Lee 27
stated the cost difference is negligible and there is no option for a bituminous lipped curb. 28
29
Mayor Marty asked about the difference in costs and Director Lee responded there is no 30
difference in costs between bituminous-lipped curbs or a bituminous barrier curb. He stated 31
building the “lip” is probably not an option because contractors will not build it. He added that 32
most cities are not going with bituminous curbs. 33
34
Councilmember Stigney asked if the cost difference between the bituminous “lip” curb and 35
concrete barrier curb is $186. Director Lee stated that most bituminous “lip” curbs are either 36
buried under soil or have been shaved off over the years by snowplows etc. Councilmember 37
Stigney stated he questions the difference in costs. Director Lee said the total project difference 38
in cost is $122,000. 39
40
Mr. Amundsen stated he did some research and the contractor indicated they can always raise the 41
edge of the “shoe” and roll it somewhat with their machinery, but will have to build the back of 42
the curb with an extra pass. He stated he cannot believe that two passes will cost the same as 43
one. 44
45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 25
Mr. Amundsen stated he had heard that citizens are frustrated with traffic patterns, and in South 1
Minneapolis, several options were used to divert traffic patterns from the neighborhoods. He 2
recommended that Mounds View look into such solutions. 3
4
Councilmember Thomas stated the difficulty of shifting the traffic pattern is that some cars will 5
go through other peoples’ roads. She stated that if Red Oak Drive is blocked, cars will go to 6
Groveland Road and that the number of cars will not be changed, they will just go somewhere 7
else. She added there is a major thoroughfare and the Council must be cognizant of the 8
problems. 9
10
Councilmember Thomas stated she believes a study is necessary to determine where to move the 11
traffic. She stated she agrees with Mr. Amundsen and does not believe there is such a small 12
difference in price between bituminous and concrete. 13
14
Mayor Marty questioned sidewalks and trail ways and asked what it will cost to include those in 15
the feasibility report. Director Lee responded it would probably cost several thousand dollars. 16
17
Mayor Marty said in the past, there was a comprehensive trail way map. He added that traffic is 18
not diminishing, it is increasing. He said having an avenue for people to walk and bike should be 19
considered in the feasibility report. 20
21
Councilmember Gunn said most neighborhoods do not want sidewalks, and that the Council 22
should not consider it. Director Lee said that it could be a matter of just striping the road as was 23
suggested in the 1992 report. Councilmember Thomas said her concern is that if they present 24
something the neighborhood does not want, that they will say “no” to the entire project. She said 25
she would prefer to give the citizens what they asked for. 26
27
Councilmember Flaherty said he agrees with Councilmember Thomas that sidewalks were off the 28
table. He said the only issue he remembers was the question of bituminous versus concrete 29
curbs. 30
31
Councilmember Stigney asked about closing the access from Fairchild Avenue to County Road 32
10, and about the survey results. Director Lee responded that there was not a survey taken, and 33
there were no comments regarding Fairchild Avenue to County Road 10 on the comment forms. 34
Councilmember Thomas said she recalled things written in on the feedback form regarding 35
closing Fairchild to County 10. Councilmember Stigney said he believes they should talk to 36
residents first. 37
38
Public Works Director Lee noted that in terms of elimination of the Hillview/Fairchild access 39
there were extensive meetings when it was decided upon and he is proposing staying with what 40
was agreed upon. 41
42
Mayor Marty stated they are striking # 2, which was the consensus of the Council. 43
44
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 26
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6866 1
Including Various Items in the Feasibility Report for the Street and Utility Improvement Program 2
/ Public Informational Meeting Update as amended. 3
4
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 5
6
I. Resolution 6853 Authorizing the Contract for Architectural Services for the 7
Preparation of Plans and Specifications for the Mounds View Community 8
Center 9
10
City Administrator Ulrich stated that on June 5, 2006, the City Council at a work session 11
reviewed the proposed improvements to the Mounds View Community Center, which included 12
concept and development level plans. 13
14
Administrator Ulrich stated that the Mounds View Community Center Task Force presented the 15
initial report to the City Council on March 6, 2006 and based on that report, the Council acted to 16
hire DSGW Architects, Inc., to conduct a study of the task force recommendations. 17
18
Administrator Ulrich explained that the architect worked with City to refine the concepts, to 19
make additional recommendations, and to develop a cost estimate for the proposed improvement, 20
estimated at $600,000. 21
22
Administrator Ulrich added that there are several funding sources; including Special Projects 23
Fund, Park Dedication Fund, Internal loans with general tax levy, Internal loans repaid with 24
increased room rentals and membership fees and Capital bonds. 25
26
Administrator Ulrich stated market feasibility was discussed briefly, and ultimately the first 27
source would be funding the proposed improvements with internal loans paid back through 28
rentals and fees generated by the facility. He said that it was the anticipation of the Community 29
Center Task Force that memberships revenues could be increase with several different 30
membership opportunities. 31
32
Financial Director Beer had included spreadsheets with different levels of memberships and what 33
revenues those would bring in. He said the break-even point is about 400 memberships of each 34
type for a total of 1200 memberships. He said that if no memberships were sold, the City would 35
run a deficit of $190,000. He stated with the status quo, the City contributes $47,000 annually to 36
the Community Center operation in addition to the budget for $142,000. 37
38
Administrator Ulrich said it is strongly recommended the City contract for the preparation of a 39
market feasibility study. He stated that the firm Maxfield Research, Inc. would charge $7,000 for 40
such service. He also suggested doing a survey of residents, which was not included in $7,000 41
quote. 42
43
Administrator Ulrich stated received a quote from Anderson Niebuhr and Associates, which has 44
done work for various locations who recommend the City survey sample of 400 residents, which 45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 27
would cost $28,000. City Administrator stated he asked about reducing the cost, and a 300-1
person sample would bring the total down to $23,900 and sampling 200 would reduce the cost to 2
$22,000. 3
4
Administrator Ulrich stated Staff recommends the market study, and based on the results, the 5
scope of the project may be changed. He said the costs to do plans and specs would cost around 6
$36,000, which is $27,000 for plans and $9,000 for project supervision. 7
8
Mayor Marty asked about the community survey and how much it cost the City to conduct it. 9
City Administrator Ulrich said it cost around $11,000. Councilmember Thomas said the Council 10
has discussed the issue extensively, and Councilmember Stigney has asked for market study. She 11
said it can’t hurt to have information however the cost of the survey is ridiculous. She said the 12
City can get feedback information itself for a much less significant cost. Councilmember 13
Thomas said the market study is necessary and that she thinks the Council should go ahead. 14
15
Councilmember Flaherty stated that the more he considers the project, $600,000 is a lot of 16
money. He said he is not even sure he is ready to go as far as a market study. He said he would 17
like it to go back to a work session one last time to determine if there are any other possibilities, 18
but said he would like to exhaust all avenues before the money is spent. 19
20
Councilmember Flaherty said the committee was not a trained market study committee, but that 21
before money is put into a study, it warrants further discussion. 22
23
Councilmember Thomas said the City is losing $50,000 a year on the space. She said she would 24
like to know what Councilmember Flaherty would like to accomplish that hasn’t been already 25
discussed. 26
27
Councilmember Flaherty responded he does not know what would come out of it. 28
Councilmember Thomas said it comes down to pulling the trigger and getting things done. 29
Councilmember Flaherty asked if there is consensus if a fitness center is the best option. 30
Councilmember Thomas replied that a market study will help determine if it is. 31
32
Councilmember Stigney commented that the task force has given this recommendation. He said 33
that selling 400 each of the memberships will only pay for the original construction costs and that 34
the Council is not paying attention to what is going on. Councilmember Stigney said a market 35
study needs to be done and said the survey could happen through the election in November. He 36
said he does not believe a fitness center is a fit and that will not make any money. 37
38
David Jahnke, said that he agrees that a fitness center is a die-hard option. He said he has not 39
talked to anyone who believes a fitness center is needed. He questions spending $600,000 on a 40
City-run fitness center. He said he is opposed to the City saying they can make money with the 41
fitness center. He said postponing it and asking residents for feedback is his preference. 42
43
CONTINUATION OF MEETING 10:45 p.m. 44
45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 28
MOTION/SECOND: MARTY/GUNN. To extend the City Council meeting until the agenda is 1
finished. 2
3
Councilmember Flaherty asked that the meeting be postponed after this item because at the end 4
of meetings, things are rushed. He said either more meetings need to happen or shorter agendas. 5
He feels that the things farther down on the agenda do not get due diligence. 6
7
Mayor ,Councilmember Thomas, Councilmember Gunn, and Councilmember Flaherty stated 8
their opinion that the meeting should continue until finished. 9
10
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 11
12
Mayor Marty said he spoke with City Administrator Ulrich about it and agreed about the 13
feasibility report. He stated the feedback he has gotten is that residents are questioning the 14
exercise center. He stated there are fitness centers in the area and questioned the City’s fitness 15
center’s necessity. He added his biggest concern is whether or not the City could get the 16
necessary memberships. 17
18
Mayor Marty said he asked about the City subsidizing the Community Center and does not want 19
to spend money for the study. He suggested it be put on the ballot as a referendum item to ask 20
the citizens exactly what they want. He said several years ago the Police Department was put on 21
a referendum question and passed. He suggested between now and the election, that the City put 22
out RFPs to find out what other ideas there are for the building. 23
24
Councilmember Gunn asked what the RFPs would be for. Mayor Marty said something could 25
come in that was never discussed before. Councilmember Gunn asked if RFPs have to be 26
something specific. Councilmember Thomas stated that a “general” RFP could not be put out. 27
Mayor Marty said he believes it should go on the ballot to let the citizens decide. 28
Councilmember Gunn asked about the rest of the project, Mayor Marty asked for it to be put on 29
hold. 30
31
Councilmember Thomas asked what would be put on the ballot and pointed out with the Police 32
Department the City already did the research. She said that the information must be there in 33
order to put it on the ballot. She said even if it was on the ballot, the research must be done first. 34
She added she likes the referendum on the ballot, but that the market analysis must be done first. 35
36
Mayor Marty stated he just came up with the idea after deciding $28,000 was too much to spend 37
on the research. Especially since it had taken at least 6 years of his requesting a community wide 38
survey at a cost of only $11,000. 39
40
Councilmember Stigney asked what should go on the ballot, and said he believes that citizens 41
should be asked if they want a fitness center that will cost “X” numbers of dollars. 42
43
Councilmember Flaherty asked that this come up for discussion again, and asked if the fitness 44
center really should be the issue the market analysis tackles. Councilmember Flaherty stated he 45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 29
agrees with Councilmember Thomas that the research should be done before a question is put on 1
the ballot. 2
3
Mayor Marty said they do not have to determine the question tonight. He reiterated that 4
numerous questions have been raised to him regarding the Community Center. He stated he 5
wants to make it citizen-friendly and wants to slow down and take another look at the project. 6
7
Councilmember Thomas asked if the City has enough information to make a decision and Mayor 8
Marty stated Staff could do the work. Councilmember Thomas asked if there is enough 9
information, and if not, how would the Council get the information. 10
11
City Administrator Ulrich stated the issue is right for a work session, including discussion about 12
a ballot resolution. He said there could be other quotes for market studies, consideration for 13
RFPs, as well as looking at interim alternatives before a decision is made. 14
15
Mayor Marty said there is not enough information to ask questions about any alternate uses, and 16
asked if there really is enough information to start the fitness center. He stated his concerns 17
about such questions. Councilmember Thomas said there is enough information to warrant a 18
market study. 19
20
Councilmember Stigney pointed out that the $636,000 is a capital cost and does not include 21
operational costs. He asked about the costs to the residents. 22
23
Mayor Marty stated he does not want to fault the Community Center Task Force and thanked 24
them for their work on the issue. He questioned, however, if the fitness center is the direction in 25
which the City wants to go. 26
27
Mr. Amundsen said that one of the exercise centers in town took over a year to get to 400 28
members. He said that he doubts the Community Center will have an easy time drawing people 29
away from the professional exercise center to the public center, and that if it does, it will put the 30
professional center out of business. He stated he believes it should be a banquet and meeting 31
center. 32
33
Councilmember Thomas responded that all of those things would be maintained; potluck rooms, 34
banquets, and that will be continued regardless of the fitness center. Councilmember Thomas 35
said that without a market study, the City would never know whether or not a fitness center is 36
feasible. She said any other opinion is just a guess. 37
38
Councilmember Flaherty said at the present time, he is not ready to authorize the contract and 39
resolution. 40
41
Councilmember Stigney said it will be an awful long work session and stated these types of 42
things should not be on the Council agenda to begin with. 43
44
45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 30
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/FLAHERTY. To postpone approval of Resolution 6853 1
Authorizing the Contract for Architectural Services for the Preparation of Plans and 2
Specifications for the Mounds View Community Center and discuss it further at the July 17th 3
work session. 4
5
Mayor Marty stated that until this meeting, he was ready to approve the expenditures. He said he 6
would rather err. on the side of caution to postpone. 7
8
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 9
10
J. First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 775, an Ordinance Vacating an 11
Excess Highway Easement Associated with the Hidden Hollow South 12
Residential Subdivision 13
14
Community Development Director Ericson explained that this request would vacate an easement 15
that was dedicated to the City in 1976. He stated the City had no problem with the easement, but 16
Ramsey County rejected the plat because of it. 17
18
Community Development Director Ericson explained the City Council approved the Hidden 19
Hollow South final plat on April 24, 2006. He stated the residential subdivision created six 20
single-family home sites from two deep lots on Wooddale Drive. He said that when the plat was 21
brought to Ramsey County for recording, the County Surveyor rejected it due to the presence of a 22
“Highway Easement” at the rear of the lots. He stated the County’s policy, as he has learned, is 23
that right of way easements may not persist as easements – they shall either be dedicated as right 24
of way or vacated. He said until one of the two actions is undertaken, the plat cannot be 25
recorded. The effect is to strike the word “highway” from the plat. He said the second reading 26
and public hearing would be at the next City Council meeting. 27
28
Mayor Marty asked if it would vacate the highway and keep the easements and Director Ericson 29
replied it would. 30
31
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/STIGNEY. To waive the reading and adopt Ordinance 775, an 32
Ordinance Vacating an Excess Highway Easement associated with the Hidden Hollow South 33
Residential Subdivision. 34
35
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 36
37
K. Resolution 6863 Approving the Communications Coordinator to attend the 38
NATOA Conference in Florida 39
40
City Administrator Ulrich stated this was discussed on June 12th but failed to achieve the three 41
required votes. He added the issue is being brought back and was revised to reflect a limit of 42
$1000 of City Funding is used. He said the tuition will be paid by the North Suburban Cable 43
Commission. 44
45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 31
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6863 1
Approving the Communications Coordinator to attend the NATOA Conference in Florida. 2
3
Councilmember Stigney stated he does not believe that the City should spend the money to send 4
the Staff member to Florida and that she should explore educational opportunities closer. 5
6
Mayor Marty said there was more information last time, and there were a number of different 7
sessions offered in Florida that are not offered locally. He said he feels it is a good opportunity 8
for the Staff member because she is the Communications Coordinator and has many additional 9
responsibilities. 10
11
Mayor Marty said the only change he would put in was the maximum dollar amount, which is 12
spelled out in the resolution 13
14
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1(Stigney) Motion carried. 15
16
L. Resolution 6894 Approving Compensation Amounts for Easement 17
Acquisition and Authorization to Execute Easements for the Silver Lake 18
Road Sidewalk Improvement Project 19
20
Public Works Director Lee stated that as part of the project, the City needs to obtain eight 21
temporary and eight permanent easements. He said the permanent easements are very small in 22
size, from 2-6 feet, and that is why Staff is proposing setting an amount of $2.27 per square foot. 23
He stated the costs are based the Associated guidelines for obtaining right-of-way. 24
25
2. Director Lee continued that after consulting with representatives from Kennedy and 26
Graven, they realized that the lending companies holding the properties may require a 27
land appraisal. He asked the Council to contract for land appraisals if needed and to 28
make offers for the easements based of the appraised value. 29
30
Director Lee stated Staff recommends authorization of the purchase. 31
32
Mayor Marty stated that at $2.27 per square foot, the property with most square footage would 33
cost $1000 and the smallest $350. He said that the appraiser will cost more than purchasing the 34
property outright. He asked if taxes would change since the house and property are appraised 35
together. Finance Director Beer replied that they would change. 36
37
City Attorney Riggs stated that if it is an easement, the amount will be negligible. He added that 38
some mortgage lenders require, that when any modifications are made to the property, a package 39
be submitted including an appraisal. 40
41
Councilmember Thomas stated an appraisal may not be needed for every property. 42
43
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 32
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GUNN. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6894 1
Approving Compensation Amounts for Easement Acquisition and Authorization to Execute 2
Easements for the Silver Lake Road Sidewalk Improvement Project as amended. 3
4
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 5
6
N. Resolution 6867 Approving the Hire of Ben Knitter as Police Officer 7
8
Police Chief Sommer explained that the new hire will replace an officer who retired. He stated 9
the number one candidate has passed all of his tests and background checks. He added that Mr. 10
Knitter was the valedictorian of his high school class and had an excellent grade point average 11
throughout college. 12
13
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6867 14
Approving the Hire of Ben Knitter as Police Officer. 15
16
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 17
18
8. CONSENT AGENDA 19
20
Mayor Marty requested to pull Item 8F for additional discussion. 21
22
A. Resolution 6854, Approving the 2006-2007 Mounds View Business Licenses 23
B. Licenses for Approval 24
C. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, July 10, 2006 at 7:05 pm to consider an 25
Interim Use Permit (IUP) for a Billboard at 2200 County Road 10 26
D. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, July 10, 2006 at 7:10 pm to consider an 27
Interim Use Permit (IUP) for a Billboard at 5201 Program Avenue 28
E. Resolution 6855 Approving Contract for Legal Services with Kennedy and 29
Graven 30
F. Resolution 6856 a Resolution Authorizing the Distribution of Service 31
Appreciation Certificates to Employees having Achieved a Five Year 32
Employment Milestone as of 2006. 33
G. Resolution 6861 Approving a Charitable Gambling One-Day Permit for the 34
Mounds View Community Theatre for the August 20, 2006 Mounds View 35
Festival in the Park. 36
H. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, July 10, 2006 at 7:15 pm to Consider the 37
Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance to Vacate an Excess Highway 38
Easement Associated with the Hidden Hollow South Major Subdivision. 39
I. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, July 10, 2006 at 7:20 pm to Consider an 40
Outdoor Liquor Consumption Endorsement for Moe’s located at 2400 41
Highway 10 in Mounds View. 42
J. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, July 10, 2006 at 7:25 pm to Consider an 43
Appeal of a Variance Denial for 2,468 Square Feet of Accessory Storage 44
Space at 8135 Long Lake Rd. 45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 33
K. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, July 10, 2006 at 7:30 pm to Consider a 1
PUD Amendment Request from LandCor Regarding the Property Located at 2
2442 County Road 10. 3
4
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/FLAHERTY. To Approve the Consent Agenda as amended. 5
6
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 7
8
F. Resolution 6856 a Resolution Authorizing the Distribution of Service 9
Appreciation Certificates to Employees having Achieved a Five Year 10
Employment Milestone as of 2006. 11
12
Mayor Marty asked to recognize these employees. He read the resolution in full including a list 13
of employee names. Mayor Marty thanked the individuals for their service to the City. 14
15
MOTION/SECOND: MARTY/GUNN. To approve Resolution 6856 a Resolution Authorizing 16
the Distribution of Service Appreciation Certificates to Employees having Achieved a Five Year 17
Employment Milestone as of 2006. 18
19
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 20
21
9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 22
23
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/FLAHERTY. To approve the Just and Correct Claims as 24
presented. 25
26
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 27
28
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 29
30
A. June 12, 2006 City Council Meeting Minutes 31
32
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/GUNN. To postpone corrections of the June 12, 2006 City 33
Council meeting minutes until the July 10, 2006 meeting. 34
35
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 36
37
11. REPORTS 38
39
A. Reports of Mayor and Council 40
41
Mayor Marty stated he received a letter he wanted to read but will read it at a later time. He 42
stated it is a letter of commendation to a Public Works staff for the good job they do. He said he 43
would like to thank the Warrens for writing the letter. 44
45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 34
B. Reports of Staff 1
2
City Administrator Ulrich stated there will be an appreciation lunch on June 28th at the 3
Community Center and compensation plans are due to be presented to the City on July 5th and 4
will be included in the July 10th meeting. 5
6
City Administrator Ulrich stated a report about walkable communities will be distributed and 7
some of the ideas will be incorporate into the planning. 8
9
1. Random Park Building Replacement Project Update 10
11
Public Works Director Lee stated that there is an option to use a residential-style sprinkler system 12
that will still comply with the code. There are some complications, that 1.5” water supply will 13
still be needed. He said a full report will be submitted on July 10th. 14
15
Mayor Marty asked if 3/4” or 1” was already going into the building and Public Works Director 16
Lee replied that 3/4” is currently being used. Director Lee continued that Staff was investigating 17
whether 1” would be able to do the job. He stated they are talking to a contractor who specializes 18
in residential sprinkler systems to determine if such a system would work. 19
20
Community Development Director Ericson discussed a memo he provided to Council regarding 21
ongoing code enforcement activity in the City. Mayor Marty asked about an “AO Issue,” and 22
Community Development Director Ericson stated it stood for an Administrative Offense. 23
24
Finance Director Beer stated that as part of year-end management report, the state auditor 25
requested information regarding the use of Administrative Offenses. He added that he is looking 26
for direction about how to respond. 27
28
City Attorney Riggs stated that it is best for Staff to bring back a memorandum. He said at that 29
point in time the Council can direct Staff how to respond. 30
31
C. Reports of City Attorney 32
33
There was none. 34
35
12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, July 17, 2006, at 7 p.m. 36
Next Council Meeting: Monday, July 10, 2006, at 7 p.m. 37
38
13. ADJOURNMENT 39
40
The meeting was adjourned at 11:41 p.m. 41
42
Transcribed by: 43
Lauren McKay 44
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 45
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL 1
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3
4
Regular Meeting 5
July 10, 2006 6
Mounds View City Hall 7
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 8
7:00 P.M. 9
10
11
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 12
13
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 14
15
3. ROLL CALL: Acting Mayor Stigney, Councilmember Gunn, Councilmember Flaherty, 16
and Councilmember Thomas. Mayor Marty arrived at 7:44 p.m. 17
18
NOT PRESENT: None. 19
20
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 21
22
A. Monday, July 10, 2006 City Council Agenda 23
24
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/FLAHERTY. To Approve the Monday, July 10, 2006 agenda as 25
presented. 26
27
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 28
29
5. PUBLIC INPUT 30
31
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, asked what has been done regarding the Community Center 32
and additional RFPs. Administrator Ulrich stated the item is scheduled for the July 17th Work 33
Session. 34
35
Mr. Jahnke asked if the Council has done anything to find out if there were any other potential 36
uses or if the City will go ahead and spend the money. Administrator Ulrich replied that Staff 37
has discussed other options. He added one party may be interested in renting space and there 38
may be another process, which will be discussed in more detail on the 17th. 39
40
Councilmember Thomas stated there was not enough discussion time to determine a direction at 41
the last Council meeting and no direction has been given to Staff. 42
43
Councilmember Flaherty added the Council decided to table the discussion until there was a full 44
Council at the work session to discuss whether there should be requests for more RFPs. 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 2
1
Mr. Jhanke thanked the Council and added he does not care how long someone talks as long it is 2
said in few words. 3
4
Acting Mayor Stigney noted he had asked Economic Development Coordinator Backman if he 5
has looked into any alternate options for the Community Center and he hopes Economic 6
Development Coordinator Backman brings something forth on the 17th. 7
8
Ken Glidden, 5240 Edgewood Drive, stated he objects to the time limit on public comments. 9
10
Acting Mayor Stigney stated that in acting practice, the Council appreciates comments and 11
listens to citizens’ full concerns. He explained why there is a 3-minute limit. 12
13
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUISNESS 14
15
There were none. 16
17
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS 18
19
A. 7:05 p.m. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6875 Approving 20
an Interim Use Permit (IUP) for a Billboard at 2200 County Road 10 21
22
Community Development Director Ericson stated that before the Council is a request from Clear 23
Channel Outdoor for a billboard at the Mermaid location. He stated the City of Mounds View 24
adopted an ordinance dictating where billboards could be located. He stated the Council 25
recommended the site at 2200 County Road 10 as a place where a billboard could be relocated. 26
He stated this is one of the sites where Clear Channel has a lease. 27
28
Director Ericson stated on June 21st and July 4th, the Planning Commission approved the CUP 29
but had issues with the questions regarding visibility. He stated that a neighboring property 30
owner did not have issues with the billboard as long as it was 45 feet high. Director Ericson 31
stated the Planning Commission did not approve the variance of 45 feet citing lack of hardship. 32
He added that Clear Channel has appealed the decision. 33
34
Director Ericson pointed out the table shown in the Staff Report regarding the requirements and 35
noted all are satisfied except for the height requirement. 36
37
Director Ericson stated the City is considering various criteria such as adverse effects and the 38
Planning Commission has done the first half of the work. 39
40
Director Ericson stated the Planning Commission has considered the following criteria: 41
1.Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan; 42
2.The geographical area involved; 43
3.Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed, 44
4.The character of the surrounding area; and 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 3
5.The demonstrated need for such use. 1
2
Director Ericson stated the billboard has been deemed inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, 3
which does not support billboards. The area is commercial/industrial and there is not any 4
residential zoning in close proximity. He stated Staff did not feel the billboard would depreciate 5
the value of the land on which it is located, but there is a concern about depreciation of the 6
adjoining property. 7
8
Director Ericson noted Clear Channel has a demonstrated need for the parcel because it is 9
required to relocate four billboards and the Council has authorized a billboard for the indicated 10
location. 11
12
Director Ericson stated the proposed use would not cause a burden on the City. He stated the 13
billboard would be separated from residential properties and, therefore, would not have an 14
adverse effect. Director Ericson stated it is a well-traveled road. He stated that the after the 15
interpretation of the need and values of the City, the billboard has been deemed consistent with 16
the zoning code. He stated literally speaking, it is not conflicting with the Comprehensive Plan 17
and it would not affect traffic, necessary roads, or utilities. 18
19
Director Ericson explained that the Planning Commission felt there are some visibility issues and 20
potential for obstruction that would be experienced by the adjoining property owner. He further 21
noted that the Planning Commission felt there are other locations on County Road 10 that are less 22
detrimental to the adjoining property. 23
24
Director Ericson stated property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified of the 25
public hearing. He explained that the City Council needs to consider the Planning Commission’s 26
recommendation and determine if the billboard is something that should be allowed. He stated 27
the variance will be discussed at the next meeting. 28
29
Director Ericson stated the draft resolution would deny the CUP based on the reasoning from the 30
Planning Commission. He stated the Council has so far determined the site is consistent where a 31
billboard could be located. He stated the site satisfies all issues except for the 45-foot variance, 32
which was denied by the Planning Commission. 33
34
Acting Mayor Stigney opened the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. 35
36
Dan Hall, 2200 Highway 10, asked Director Ericson if all requirements have been satisfied 37
except the question of a potential depreciation problem with the adjoining property. Director 38
Ericson responded that Mr. Hall provided a good summary for the basis of the Planning 39
Commission’s recommendation for denial. 40
41
Director Ericson stated the Planning Commission is worried about the obstructions with the 42
adjoining properties and the proposed location was not the best location on County Road 10. He 43
answered Mr. Hall’s question stating all code requirement are met but the potential depreciation 44
is the basis for the Planning Commission’s denial. 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 4
1
Mr. Hall asked if the depreciation was at 35 or 45 feet. Director Ericson responded the Planning 2
Commission felt there was an issue with obstruction at either height. He added that one member 3
of the Planning Commission voted against the variance recommending denial because they 4
believed the billboard may be better at 45 rather than 35 feet. 5
6
Mr. Hall asked when the Planning Commission discussed depreciation at 45 feet. He stated the 7
adjoining property owner is okay with the billboard at 45 feet. He appreciated the clarification 8
from Director Ericson. 9
10
Ken Glidden, 5240 Edgewood Drive, stated he was at the Planning Commission meeting and 11
there was not much confusion. He recalled that the Interim Use Permit (IUP) was denied and 12
there were two issues on the agenda, one dealing with the height limit. He stated IUP request 13
was denied and Acting Mayor Stigney concurred. 14
15
Mr. Glidden pointed out the Planning Commissioners are volunteer citizens and they made the 16
decision that the City has a limit of one billboard on County Road 10. He stated the discussion 17
centered around the issue and therefore, the decision was made to deny the proposed billboard 18
near the Mermaid. 19
20
Richard Sonterre, 3225 Spring Street NE, Minneapolis, thanked Mr. Glidden for his comments. 21
He stated Mr. Glidden’s comments are more accurate in terms of the Planning Commission’s 22
rationale for denial. He stated that there was considerable discussion regarding depreciation at 23
the June meeting. 24
25
Mr. Sonterre stated the Planning Commission’s concern arose because Mr. Kopas (an adjoining 26
property owner) expressed uncertainty. Mr. Sonterre stated that upon receipt of a letter from Mr. 27
Kopus in July, there was no further discussion at the Planning Commission regarding the 28
valuation of the property. 29
30
Mr. Sonterre noted the July Planning Commission discussion focused far more on personal 31
opinions about billboards. He stated there was hardly any discussion about the actual code. He 32
added that the location proposed for the billboard was chosen by the Council and the Planning 33
Commission discussed alternative locations. 34
35
Mr. Sonterre explained that the location the property owner determined for the billboard is 36
consistent with code. He added that at the July 5th Planning Commission meeting, no person 37
spoke at the podium regarding depreciation. He said that Director Ericson stated billboards on 38
County Road 10 will impact the residents of Mounds View. He noted that over 30,000 people 39
use the road and Ramsey County treats it as an arterial. He stated that a low percentage of the 40
vehicles passing the billboard will be Mounds View residents. 41
42
Acting Mayor Stigney closed the public hearing at 7:32 p.m. 43
44
Acting Mayor Stigney commented that Mr. Kopus currently owns the property, but the CUP is 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 5
granted for 30 years. He noted the perpetual Wallgreens billboard. He added that there is the 1
potential for a detrimental effect to the property owner next to the Mermaid regardless of who 2
owns it. 3
4
Councilmember Flaherty stated that he was under the impression that Mr. Kopus would be 5
brought in on the conversation much earlier. He stated his belief that the Council is trying to 6
meet Clear-Channel half-way if they approve the site. He explained that it was well-known that 7
the City would not allow the 45-foot billboard because the City has a precedent and stated that 8
was one of the factors he considered when he voted to approve the billboard on the Wallgreens 9
site. 10
11
Councilmember Flaherty asked what would happen if a vote was taken. Director Ericson stated 12
the Council could act tonight to deny the resolution or ask Staff to draft a new one. 13
14
Councilmember Flaherty stated as the resolution sits, he would support the denial based on the 15
height. Councilmember Thomas clarified that the Council is not discussing height. 16
17
Councilmember Flaherty stated as it sits, he would have to support the denial on the height. 18
Councilmember Thomas clarified that they are not discussing the height. Councilmember 19
Flaherty asked Mr. Sonterre if another site to the south could be considered. 20
21
Mr. Sonterre replied that he appreciates the concerns and that there have been extensive 22
conversations with Mr. Koups. He stated he does not make decisions regarding locations and the 23
proposed location has been deemed acceptable by Clear Channel. Regarding the height, Mr. 24
Sonterre stated at 35 feet, the billboard could be built without a variance. He stated the 25
application for the variance was made because it was determined at 45 feet, the billboard would 26
have less negative impact. 27
28
Mr. Hall stated that future use plans for the front corner of the property include a tall structure. 29
He apologized for not including Copus in the conversations earlier. He stated that Acting Mayor 30
Stigney made an excellent point about the property being old and suggested the billboard could 31
attract a new company. 32
33
Councilmember Thomas stated she watched the Planning Commission meeting and the problem 34
is how to separate the question facing the Council currently vs. future questions. She clarified 35
that the current question under consideration is whether or not the permit is up to code and 36
acceptable. She stated she believes it is a poor decision to deny the CUP based on other 37
discussion. She stated her belief that the Planning Commission’s recommendation for denial was 38
not based on answering the current question, but was based on other issues entirely. 39
40
Acting Mayor Stigney stated he agreed with the Planning Commission’s decision that the 41
billboard would affect the adjoining property in a detrimental way. He stated the property owner 42
is creating the hardship by not relocating the billboard. 43
44
Councilmember Gunn stated that, looking at the rendering of the billboard, it looks to her like at 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 6
either height, the billboard would not obstruct the adjoining building. She stated she does not see 1
the total obstruction or depreciation that would take place. 2
3
Councilmember Gunn stated she agrees with Councilmember Thomas that the issue is that the 4
billboards have to be moved somewhere and the spot in question is one that the Council 5
determined was acceptable. She stated the Council had to work in a “good faith” initiative to 6
move the billboards. She stated the Council was not happy about the billboard on Highway 10, 7
but agreed the spot in question would be the least intrusive. She stated she does not support the 8
denial of the IUP. 9
10
Mayor Marty arrived at 7:44 p.m. and chaired the remainder of the meeting. 11
12
Councilmember Thomas stated, regarding the depreciation, that if Mr. Hall decided to plant a 13
tree, not a single person at the table would claim the neighboring property would be depreciated 14
because visibility was blocked. She added that to claim depreciation is caused by one thing or 15
another is a make-believe reason to justify not approving the billboard. She stated she does not 16
see any way the IUP violates code. 17
18
MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/MARTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6875 19
denying an Interim Use Permit for a Billboard at 2200 County Road 10. 20
21
Ayes – 2 Nays – 3 (Thomas, Flaherty, Gunn) Motion failed. 22
23
Councilmember Thomas asked Staff to bring back a resolution for approval of the IUP and 24
addressing the height variance to the next meeting. 25
26
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/FLAHERTY. To direct staff to prepare a resolution approving 27
the Interim Use Permit for a Billboard at 2200 County Road 10 that addresses the height limit for 28
consideration at the next meeting. 29
30
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 31
32
B. 7:10 pm Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6876 Approving an 33
Interim Use Permit (IUP) for a Billboard at 5201 Program Avenue 34
35
Director Ericson stated this discussion is similar to the last one. He explained where the 36
billboard would be located and that it was one of the sites the City identified as a potential site 37
for a relocated billboard. 38
39
Director Ericson stated the Planning Commission considered potential for adverse effects at the 40
location and did not identify any. He stated the Planning Commission considered a reduced 41
setback variance and explained that there is a storm water management pond at the northeast 42
corner of the property forcing the billboard to be set back 5 feet from the property line, which is 43
30 feet from the roadway. He stated the City Engineer Technician and Public Works Director 44
Lee did not anticipate a problem. 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 7
1
Director Ericson stated Staff recommends approval of the resolution and variance. The property 2
owners within 350 feet were notified and adjoining property owners have no problems with the 3
billboard. 4
5
Director Ericson stated the billboard would require a permit from MNDot and there is an 6
additional approval process beyond Mounds View’s City Council. He stated the resolution has 7
been provided for the Council’s review and the City Attorney suggested additional language be 8
added to the resolution indicating there is an easement in the location and that the City 9
acknowledges the easement and consents to the billboard’s location. 10
11
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. 12
13
Hearing no public input, Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. 14
15
Councilmember Gunn requested that after sixth “whereas,” the words “requires that” be removed 16
and the additional language as under number 3 is added. Director Ericson suggested alternate 17
language “The City of Mounds View hereby consents to the sighting of the requested billboard 18
within the City’s utility and drainage easement for as long as the Interim Use Permit is in force 19
and so long as said billboard does not interfere with the City’s present or future use of the 20
easement area.” 21
22
Director Ericson stated there are a few additional concerns about trees and the heights. 23
24
Councilmember Flaherty asked for clarification regarding the impact of the Council approving 25
the letter about the removal of trees. Director Ericson stated there is a request to remove some 26
scrub trees in the MNDot right-of-way. He stated the City is being asked for a letter of consent 27
to the removal of the trees if MNDot approves the request. 28
29
Director Ericson stated the concern is that the trees will grow to a height that will interfere with 30
the billboard. He stated the City is recommending removal of the trees. 31
32
Mr. Sonterre stated the trees are mostly cottonwood and there are a few pine trees. He stated of 33
the trees, six are dead or dying and consistent with MNDot’s past practice, those will be 34
removed. He stated the trees were not planted by MNDot to serve as a screen. He stated there is 35
a very strong likelihood that the tree removal will be approved by MNDot and the request is 36
strengthened with support from the City. 37
38
Mayor Marty stated he supports a billboard in the area and removal of the trees. 39
40
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6876 41
Approving an Interim Use Permit (IUP) for a Billboard at 5201 Program Avenue as amended. 42
43
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 44
45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 8
Mayor Marty asked if a letter should be drafted and Director Ericson replied it would be. 1
2
The Council reached consensus that a letter supporting removal of the trees be drafted by staff. 3
4
C. 7:15 pm Public Hearing to Consider Second Reading and Adoption of 5
Ordinance 775 Vacating an Excess Highway Easement Associated with the 6
Hidden Hollow South Major Subdivision. 7
8
Director Ericson stated this is the second reading of the ordinance that would vacate the highway 9
easement dedicated to the City in the 1960s. He stated the County rejected the plat for the 10
Hidden Hollow because the easement was there and it requires vacation. 11
12
Director Ericson stated there is no desire for a street in the location and it is the City’s 13
recommendation to vacate the area. He stated notices were sent to residents within 350 feet and 14
they are requesting a letter be sent with a summary of the ordinance. 15
16
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. 17
18
Hearing no public input, Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. 19
20
Councilmember Thomas asked if it requires a roll call vote since it was a second reading. 21
Director Ericson stated it does require a roll call vote. 22
23
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/STIGNEY. To waive the reading and adopt Ordinance 775 24
Vacating an Excess Highway Easement Associated with the Hidden Hollow South Major 25
Subdivision. 26
27
ROLL CALL VOTE: 28
MARTY – Aye 29
STIGNEY – Aye 30
GUNN – Aye 31
FLAHERTY – Aye 32
THOMAS – Aye 33
34
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 35
36
D. 7:20 pm Public Hearing to Consider Resolution 6859 an Outdoor Liquor 37
Consumption Endorsement for Moe’s located at 2400 Highway 10 in Mounds 38
View. 39
40
Administrator Ulrich stated that this item is an application for new owners of the restaurant, 41
formerly known as Jakes, for an outdoor liquor sales and consumption permit after the change of 42
the ordinance effective June 4, 2006. Administrator Ulrich stated it is recommended this be 43
approved. 44
45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 9
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 8:02 p.m. 1
2
Hearing no public input, Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 8:03 p.m. 3
4
Mayor Marty stated he thinks it would be a nice addition in the area. 5
6
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6859 an 7
Outdoor Liquor Consumption Endorsement for Moe’s located at 2400 Highway 10 in Mounds 8
View. 9
10
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 11
12
E. 7:25 pm Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of a Variance Denial for 13
2,468 Square Feet of Accessory Storage Space at 8135 Long Lake Road, 14
Resolution 6878. 15
16
Director Ericson stated that this item is an application for an appeal of a variance that was denied 17
by the Planning Commission. He stated the applicants have an existing home with an attached 18
garage and they are proposing an accessory building of 1,620 square feet, which would bring the 19
total accessory feet to 2,416 square feet, which is 668 square feet over the amount of square feet 20
allowed. 21
22
Director Ericson stated the Planning Commission discussed the hardship criteria and whether or 23
not the code was causing hardship to the property owner of if the property owner himself was 24
causing the hardship. He stated the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the issues and 25
the building would be allowed if there were no other accessory buildings on the lot. He stated 26
that because there is an attached garage, the square footage is over the limit. He stated the 27
Planning Commission felt there was not sufficient information to grant the variance. He stated 28
Mr. Slabiak then submitted the denial appeal to the City Council. 29
30
Director Ericson stated the Council is bound by the same requirements as the Planning 31
Commission regarding the hardship. He stated the Council does have some ability to look 32
subjectively at the hardship criteria, but that both Staff and the Planning Commission agreed that 33
there was not sufficient hardship to grant the variance. He stated the City has not allowed a 34
variance over 1,800 square feet, which is a very generous amount. 35
36
Director Ericson stated the request is not typical and approval sets a precedent that is contrary to 37
the purposes of the code. He stated his recommendation is to deny the variance and noted that a 38
drafted resolution is available. He added that Staff notified residents within 350 feet of the 39
public hearing and the applicants are present to discuss their plans with the Council. 40
41
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 8:08 p.m. 42
43
David Slabiak, 8135 Long Lake Road, asked if he can request more time than the three minutes 44
allowed for public comments. Mayor Marty stated the Council would allow him time to speak to 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 10
the issue. 1
2
Mr. Slabiak gave the Council a history of himself and his wife and presented someone to speak 3
on his behalf. He stated he has been a resident of Mounds View for eight years. He explained 4
he has been collecting pinball machines for 20 years and is requesting the building be approved 5
so he has a place to display and share his collection. He noted it would not be open to the public 6
and it is a similar situation to someone who enjoys woodworking. 7
8
Mr. Slabiak stated when he began plans to construct the building, he spoke with staff at City Hall 9
who informed him such buildings have been allowed. He stated he purchased his home with the 10
idea of building an accessory building. He stated Staff at the front desk gave him the impression 11
that such a request would likely be granted through a CUP. 12
13
Mr. Slabiak added that when he turned in the CUP, he was informed his proposed building was 14
too big. He stated that when he turned in the variance he was confused, was told he had done 15
everything right, and was under such an impression. 16
17
Michael Calusniak suggested Mr. Slabiak’s neighbors speak in support of the CUP for the 18
garage. 19
20
Jim Bower, 8121 Long Lake Road, stated he is Mr. Slabiak’s next door neighbor and is not 21
opposed to the building. He stated he believes it is a reasonable request. He added Mr. Slabiak 22
is an excellent, respectful neighbor. 23
24
Patty Berglean, 8132 Long Lake Road, stated she is also a neighbor of Mr. Slabiak. She stated 25
that to her knowledge, no person can see the backyard of the property. She added she has no 26
problem with the large building and that she does not mind the large pole building in the property 27
adjacent to her backyard. She stated that Mr. Slabiak keeps up his yard and there are many trees 28
that will cover the building if the permit is granted. 29
30
Jim and Sarah Train, 8145 Long Lake Road, who are neighbors north of the parcel in question, 31
stated they do not object to the proposed building. Mr. Train questioned how the City can have 32
an ordinance related to accessory storage space that does not take into account the size of the 33
property. He stated he has nearly half an acre of property and asked if the same restrictions that 34
apply to a property 1/8 the size of his apply to his property. 35
36
Mr. Calusniak stated there were a few items to be clarified from the June 6th Planning 37
Commission meeting. He stated Mr. Slabiak feels he did not receive a fair review of the facts 38
when he was in front of the Planning Commission. He noted that the property is 2.7 times the 39
minimum lot size required by the City and it is largely undeveloped. He added that the proposed 40
building will not take up a large amount of the land. 41
42
Mr. Calusniak stated Mr. Slabiak’s existing collection will require 1,500 additional square feet 43
and several options were considered, such as knocking down part of the garage or building a 2-44
story structure. He stated in both cases, the negative impacts were far greater than that of the 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 11
proposed building. He stated there is not a single negative impact except for the integrity of the 1
current zoning codes. 2
3
Mr. Calusniak stated the proposal is very reasonable and identified seven hardship criteria, 4
including the property owner’s right to use the property as they see fit. He stated such a hardship 5
has been held up in the New Hampshire Supreme Court. He stated the practical difficulties of 6
constructing a building that meets the CUP creates an undue hardship for the property owner and 7
the collection itself warrants such a building. He mentioned the lack of opposition from 8
neighbors and cited several instances in the past where hardship has been granted to several 9
applicants based on similar criteria. 10
11
Mr. Calusniak went through the exceptional circumstances as defined in the zoning ordinance, 12
which state that “exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not 13
apply generally to other properties in the same zone.” 14
15
Mr. Calusniak stated that a lot 2.7 times the size of the minimum required is an exceptional 16
circumstance and the codes which are applicable to normal properties should be compromised for 17
such a large lot. He stated other compromises have been made for small lot sizes and he is 18
seeking uniform application of the codes. 19
20
Mr. Calusniak stated he has identified several other cases in which pre-existing conditions, such 21
as trees, have been considered. He brought up several cases the Planning Commission has 22
approved and that Mr. Slabiak is seeking a uniform application of the codes. He again stated he 23
fails to see direct negative impacts. 24
25
Mr. Calusniak stated he and Mr. Slabiak are not asking for revisions or changes to the 26
ordinances, but stated it is within the rights of the Council to grant variances. 27
28
Mr. Calusniak stated the proposal is not unreasonable, it is not inconsistent with the 29
neighborhood, and it does not create hardship for the neighbors. He stated Mr. Slabiak has 30
amassed a significant cultural asset, he is not collecting for profit, and the collection is an asset to 31
the City. He added that Mr. Slabiak is an excellent neighbor and resident. 32
33
Mr. Calusniak explained that the code is not compromised. He stated there are other issues 34
facing the area and it would be appropriate when considering this request to consider those other 35
issues. He also stated, regarding the hardship criteria, that he has a difficult time understanding a 36
clear precedent and applications approved by the Planning Commission in previous cases have 37
been approved under similar conditions. 38
39
Mr. Calusniak stated he does not believe Mr. Slabiak created the hardship. He reminded the 40
Council that Mr. Slabiak did not know he had to go through a variance process when he 41
purchased the property. 42
43
Councilmember Thomas asked the applicant how much square footage the collection currently 44
occupies. Mr. Slabiak presented the Council with a layout of his current collection. He stated 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 12
the collection currently resides in part of his garage, his lower level, a bedroom, and a storage 1
unit. He stated he does not currently have a display and it will not fit in his current square 2
footage. 3
4
Mr. Caulsniak and Mr. Slabiak explained the dimensions of the areas that are currently occupied 5
by his collection. 6
7
Councilmember Thomas stated she is looking for the difference in the space the collection 8
currently occupies versus the square footage for which Mr. Slabiak is asking. Mr. Slabiak 9
responded he would like to clear out some family areas for his expanding family. He added the 10
property owner behind him approves of the building. 11
12
Councilmember Thomas stated there have been many changes with the allowed accessory 13
building space and all have been to increase allowed accessory storage. She stated the square 14
footage number was put in place to address large lots. She stated there was a significant 15
limitation in the past and the current allowance is much broader and is the most generous amount 16
allowed ever in the City. 17
18
Councilmember Thomas stated she is in favor of more storage space, but the hardship is of the 19
applicant’s creation. 20
21
Councilmember Thomas explained that the issue is a matter of the design of the building and she 22
does believe a variance is detrimental to the code. She stated the Council should not make a 23
determination based on lot size. She added that the Council takes variances very seriously and 24
she believes the applicant could make the building smaller to satisfy the code. She stated that if 25
the applicant wanted to add on to his house, it would be an entirely different issue. 26
27
Mayor Marty stated that many discussions have revolved around accessory buildings in the past 28
and Staff developed a generous accessory building ordinance. He stated he felt at the time that 29
1,800 square feet was large, but the ordinance has since decreased the amount of time spent 30
discussing such variances. 31
32
Mr. Slabiak explained that he had considered an addition to his house, but was under the 33
impression that he would be allowed to build the accessory building when he purchased his 34
home. He stated the costs are continually rising for the proposed building and building a home 35
addition would be even more expensive. He stated his wife would like to remove the collection 36
from the home. He also pointed out the building could be used in many different ways if he were 37
to sell the property. Mr. Slabiak stated that within his constraints, the proposed accessory 38
building is his only option. 39
40
Mr. Calusniak commented that there have been cases in the past where applicants have had 41
similar circumstances that were not determined to have been created by the applicant. He stated 42
if the variance is not approved, he and Mr. Slabiak will have to consider other alternatives, 43
including a less-desirable two-story building. He also suggested the Council reexamine current 44
codes. 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 13
1
Councilmember Flaherty stated that Mr. Slabiak is, by all accounts, an excellent neighbor. He 2
stated the Council attempts to accommodate residents, but must also consider the codes. He 3
stated he would be okay with a smaller variance, but he is not okay with such a size request. He 4
added that the Planning Commission has never approved a variance over 1,800 feet. He stated it 5
puts the City in a difficult position because if such a large variance is granted, it could lead to 6
even larger variance requests. 7
8
Mr. Calusniak stated he understands the concerns of the Council and pointed out that other cities 9
have larger accessory building codes, which should also be considered. 10
11
Mr. Slabiak asked the Council to appreciate his situation and the difficulty he had obtaining the 12
correct information from City Hall when he first moved to his current property. He stated it 13
would be difficult to sell his home in this market and purchase another property where he could 14
have a large enough accessory square footage. 15
16
Councilmember Thomas stated that none of the parties at the table believes the property owner’s 17
knowledge of the situation before he purchased the home should be factored into the decision. 18
She stated the Council needs to limit the scope of the question before them and cannot address 19
the issue of making the accessory building square footage number larger, even if they wanted to. 20
21
Councilmember Thomas stated that the City should not consider other questions while answering 22
the one presented. She stated the City has a limit to accessory buildings and she believes the 23
applicant could come back with a 668 square foot smaller building that would work. 24
25
Mr. Calusniak noted that the pinball machines require a buffer zone and needs the extra 668 26
square feet. Councilmember Thomas stated she wants to see a demonstrated need for such a 27
large building, which she does not see with the proposed plan. 28
29
Councilmember Gunn stated she thought a good point was brought up regarding lot sizes when 30
variances are discussed. She explained that she has been following Planning Commission 31
discussions and part of the future of the City is to make its neighborhoods better looking. She 32
noted that there are pole buildings in back yards and that she finds such structures more 33
aesthetically unpleasing than the proposed building. She added there is no way the building will 34
be seen from the road and that the Council should take into consideration lot size when 35
approving or denying such requests. 36
37
Director Ericson stated one of the reasons the code was amended was to increase square footage 38
in recognition that there are larger lots, which can support larger accessory buildings. He stated 39
there has been some backlash from residents regarding accessory buildings. He explained he 40
does not believe increasing the square footage is necessarily the best option and the reason the 41
ratio for properties versus accessory storage was eliminated is because it was difficult for 42
residents to calculate. 43
44
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 8:52 p.m. 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 14
1
Councilmember Flaherty commended the presentation and stated he was not sure if it was 2
presented before the Planning Commission. He stated it is a tough call, but since it is such a 3
large overage, he cannot support the building. He asked the applicant to try and work out another 4
proposal that is more workable. 5
6
Councilmember Gunn asked if the 1,800 square feet is total storage space. She stated that the 7
existing garage is 868 square feet. Director Ericson stated with the current storage square 8
footage, the applicant could build about 900 additional feet without a variance. Councilmember 9
Gunn asked if the building size needs to be reduced to 950 square feet. Director Ericson replied 10
that it does. 11
12
Councilmember Thomas stated the only other option she sees is if the applicant can work with 13
someone regarding safety, which may be the way Mr. Slabiak can present the hardship to the 14
Council and Planning Commission. She stated there needs to be a more acute hardship in order 15
for the variance to be approved. She asked if the applicant could come back with plans for the 16
smallest safe structure. 17
18
Councilmember Stigney stated he agrees with the Planning Commission and the City must 19
follow code. He stated it is not an issue to change the code at this point and he believes the City 20
must follow the code and deny the appeal. 21
22
Councilmember Gunn asked if the applicant could build a two-story building. Director Ericson 23
responded that there is a height limitation of 15 feet which often restricts two-story buildings. He 24
explained how height is measured and that it is theoretically possible that the applicant could 25
build a two-story building. 26
27
Mayor Marty stated that the use of the building does not change the code ordinance. He 28
explained that the Council has significantly increased the maximum allowed storage area and he 29
believes the amount may be too generous. He stated in the future, it may be readdressed, but at 30
present, the Council must follow code. 31
32
Mayor Marty stated he is a stickler for precedence and this decision would set precedence and 33
could result in an influx of large CUP requests. He stated the code could be discussed at a future 34
work session but at the present time, the City must follow the code as written. 35
36
Mayor Marty suggested a smaller variance request may be allowed after closer scrutiny, but a 37
proposal that exceeds the maximum by 37% is too large. He added that he sees no demonstrated 38
hardship. 39
40
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/STIGNEY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 41
6878, Denying the Appeal of a Variance Denial for 2,468 Square Feet of Accessory Storage 42
Space at 8135 Long Lake Road. 43
44
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 15
1
F. 7:30 pm Public Hearing to Consider Resolution 6879 Pertaining to a PUD 2
Amendment at 2442 County Road 10 to Add “Print Production and 3
Fabrication Shop” as a Permitted Use and to Add “Attached Accessory 4
Building” as a Permitted Accessory Use. 5
6
Director Ericson explained that this item is for a change in the PUD for the proposed property. 7
He stated that Landcor has a prospective tenant interested in leasing the entire building and to 8
accommodate the tenant, Landcor would like an accessory building. 9
10
Mayor Marty left the meeting at 9:04 p.m. 11
12
Director Ericson stated after the Planning Commission reviewed the PUD, he toured the area and 13
said that there is almost an industrial feel to the location. He stated there are many printers and 14
large-scale industrial plotters that would not normally be housed in an office district. He stated 15
that it is a situation where the Planning Commission did not have the information regarding the 16
property and proposed tenant. 17
18
Director Ericson stated that in 2003, the PUD was allowed for the construction of the building. 19
He stated that when the Planning Commission reviewed the amendment for the addition of the 20
accessory building, it would be allowable considering it was made out of the same building 21
material. 22
23
Director Ericson stated it would take up some parking stalls, but the office building does have 24
enough stalls. He stated that the Planning Commission supports the accessory building, but it is 25
up to the Council to determine if a print production company is consistent with the 26
comprehensive plan. 27
28
Director Ericson stated that the Council specifically determined what they would like in the 29
location, a restaurant, but it did not go through. He added that the Council did grant the location 30
use as an office building, but must determine if a print production company is wanted in the 31
location. 32
33
Director Ericson stated Staff recommends approval. Staff has not received any feedback 34
regarding the property and at this point, it is up to the Council to determine what the City’s vision 35
is for the property. 36
37
Acting Mayor Stigney opened the public hearing at 9:09 p.m. 38
39
Robert Fields, LandCor Construction, gave a brief background of the location. He stated that a 40
change in the PUD allowed an office building. He stated that a company made a deal that fell 41
through and the owners have been seeking a tenant who would utilize the building as an office 42
and have failed. He explained how the building would be used for the print production company. 43
He added it is very technical equipment and that the company would like to maintain the 44
professional feel of the building. 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 16
1
Mr. Fields stated the fundamental difference between Lets Get Graphic is that there are many 2
professionals employed as graphic designers using on-site computers. He stated that the owners 3
of the company are very excited to be in the community, will be purchasing the building from 4
LandCor, and will be part owners of the retail center. He explained part of the second floor of 5
the building will be leased to professionals. 6
7
Mayor Marty returned at 9:12 p.m. 8
9
Mr. Fields stated that they do not have any other potential tenants for the building. 10
11
Councilmember Flaherty explained that Let’s Get Graphic is not a typical printing firm. He 12
questioned how the company disposes of hazardous waste. 13
14
The owner of Let’s Get Graphic stated his company contracts with another company that 15
removes the hazardous waste which is stored in a sealed drum. He stated it is disposed of twice a 16
year and not much hazardous waste is produced. Councilmember Flaherty asked if there is 17
documentation of such removal and the owner replied that there is. 18
19
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 9:14 p.m. 20
21
Councilmember Gunn stated she is glad to have a potential occupant for the building and to see a 22
viable business that plans to be in Mounds View for a while to maintain the building. 23
24
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6879 25
Pertaining to a PUD Amendment at 2442 County Road 10 to Add “Print Production and 26
Fabrication Shop” as a Permitted Use and to Add “Attached Accessory Building” as a Permitted 27
Accessory Use. 28
29
Councilmember Thomas asked about the requirement that this is approved by the Rice Creek 30
Watershed District, and stated that as long as that question is handled, she is willing to vote for 31
the resolution. 32
33
Councilmember Stigney stated his opposing view that he believes the building is in the wrong 34
location for the printing company. He stated that when the developer first proposed the building, 35
it would be a medical building, which fell through. He added that it is unfortunate the developer 36
cannot lease the building, but that it is not the City’s problem. He stated he does not support a 37
change in the PUD or the accessory building. 38
39
Mayor Marty pointed out that there were no interested parties in the site for either the restaurant 40
or office uses. He stated the space is being wasted and the modification does not seem to be an 41
overly significant change to the PUD of the area. He stated with a viable business in the area, 42
across from the Senior Center, there will be no major impact from the change in the use of the 43
building. He stated that if the building was going to attract renters, it would have by this time, 44
and he believes the printing company is the best option. 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 17
1
Councilmember Thomas stated one of the benefits of the PUD is to allow the Council the 2
flexibility to adapt the area to what types of businesses it will attract. 3
4
Councilmember Flaherty asked how many people the company employees and the owner replied 5
they employ 21. 6
7
Mayor Marty stated he is encouraged that Let’s Get Graphic will be using the entire building. 8
9
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 10
11
G. Resolution 6858, Accepting the Salary Compensation Study. 12
13
Administrator Ulrich stated this completes the portion of the contract for the classification and 14
compensation study report. He stated the City HR Committee has worked with Laumeyer and 15
Associates and the firm has several recommendations. He stated all job descriptions have been 16
revised, which the Council approved. He added that the Council selected several comparison 17
cities. He stated that with the study and results, and with the presentation of the report, he 18
recommends the Council send the report back to the HR Committee to discuss the report and 19
make recommendations. 20
21
Jim Laumeyer, from Laumeyer and Associates, thanked the Council for the opportunity to 22
conduct the study. He stated after the presentation, his firm will go back to the HR Committee to 23
discuss the report. He stated that there were a small number of recommendations they will made. 24
He stated that he appreciates the level of support and involvement of the Personnel Committee 25
and Staff. 26
27
Mr. Laumeyer commented that Mounds View employees are extremely dedicated and hard 28
working. He explained the four areas with which the report deals: 29
1. FLSA: He stated this item, according to federal law, addresses whether employees are 30
classified as exempt or non-exempt. He stated there was only one employee with a 31
questionable classification. 32
2. Point system: He stated that one employee had considerable additional duties and that 33
half of the employees had minor changes. 34
3. Classifications: He stated that the report recommends nearly 60% of changes of 35
classifications. He said not to worry because the vast majority of the changes are to 36
bring Mounds View classification language up-to-date. He stated that one position 37
could be reclassified. 38
4. External Market: He stated the employment positions from ten cities were compared. 39
The vast majority of the positions, 90%, are at or slightly above market rate. He stated 40
that Mounds View is very positive as far as the market is concerned and his 41
recommendations will have very few monetary effects. 42
43
Mr. Laumeyer stated the firm is asking for acceptance of the report. He stated after approval, the 44
firm would return to the Personnel Committee with specific recommendations and will then 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 18
suggest some pay equity. 1
2
Mayor Marty asked about the sources of external data and why Forest Lake was removed. Mr. 3
Lauymeyer stated that Forest Lake was included in error and the version handed out at the 4
meeting without Forest Lake is correct. 5
6
Councilmember Thomas asked about the assumption of whether or not the pay system is 7
appropriate. She stated she does not see it addressed in any of the material. Councilmember 8
Flaherty stated that pay was discussed and it was not included in the report. Councilmember 9
Thomas stated she would like the information. 10
11
Mr. Laumeyer noted that it was decided to defer such information to the Personnel Committee. 12
13
Councilmember Stigney asked about the title changes and the criteria on which they are based. 14
Mr. Laumeyer stated that one was because one employee needs a re-classification due to duties. 15
He stated that in the workforce, classifications are constantly updated. 16
17
Councilmember Stigney asked “who” is using such terms and where the new words come from. 18
Mr. Laumeyer said the words come from research and surveys done with other cities. He 19
suggested the titles changes would be more comparable to other positions with the same duties. 20
21
Councilmember Stigney asked about the Community Development Director and stated he did not 22
see any changes. Mr. Laumeyer replied that it was a typo. 23
24
Councilmember Stigney asked for documentation supporting the recommendations. Mr. 25
Laumeyer stated they would be available at the Personnel Committee meeting. 26
27
Councilmember Stigney stated he would like to make a motion indicating receipt, not 28
acceptance, of the report with referral to the HR Committee. Mayor Marty stated it would come 29
back to the Council for approval. 30
31
MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 32
6858, Indicating Receipt of the Salary Compensation Study and Referring it to the Human 33
Resource Committee. 34
35
Mayor Marty asked about Desaree Crane, and the language regarding the “Assistant To” title. He 36
stated he would like to keep the classification of “Assistant To the City Clerk/City 37
Administrator” title and that some of the duties should be taken on by Administrator Ulrich 38
rather than by the “Assistant To.” 39
40
Mr. Laumeyer stated that the current duties of the position were more “Assistant” rather than 41
“Assistant To” duties. He stated he is looking forward to discussion surrounding the issue with 42
the HR Committee. 43
44
Councilmember Thomas stated she does not agree with changing the title “demoting” the duty 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 19
level of a person who is performing the work at such an excellent level is the wrong move. 1
Administrator Ulrich stated he would like to survey other cities about the duties their “Assistant 2
Tos” and “Assistants” are performing. 3
4
Mayor Marty stated he brought it up because he believes it is possible that Assistant To the City 5
Administrator Crane’s plate is too full. 6
7
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 8
9
H. Resolution 6870 Approving Contract with Gov.Office to Provide Web 10
Hosting Services 11
12
Communications Coordinator Blackford stated that one of the goals of the Council is to improve 13
communications between the City and residents. 14
15
Coordinator Blackford outlined five reasons why the City should go with GovOffice: 16
1. Online completion of forms and applications 17
2. Online citizen polling: 18
3. Bulk e-mail feature which will allow citizens to choose which issues that interest them. 19
4. Search reports, which will allow reports to be run about what citizens are searching for on 20
the website 21
5. Automatic calendar: Coordinator Blackford gave an example about a job application that 22
would have to be removed when the closing date passed and explained that with the 23
GovOffice software, the posting would automatically be removed from the website. 24
25
Coordinator Blackford stated in March, 2005, Decision Resources conducted a poll that indicated 26
that 70% of Mounds View residents have access to the internet and over one-third of those 27
people have visited the City’s website. She stated that one-third of those people rate the website 28
as fair or poor. Coordinator Blackford explained that the interactive form will increase usability 29
of the website and that the instant results provided by the online poll will be valuable. 30
31
Coordinator Blackford stated that she received two bids, GovOffice and Civic Plus. She stated 32
her recommendation is GovOffice because it includes many features as standard that are not 33
included with Civic Plus. She also listed several people who have recommended GovOffice. 34
35
Coordinator Blackford provided information about the funds Mounds View gives to Roseville for 36
IT support. She stated it is a bulk fund that Mounds View pays each year and will have to be paid 37
whether or not the City purchases GovOffice. She stated there will be no additional charge for 38
web hosting with GovOffice. 39
40
Coordinator Blackford explained that for the remainder of 2006, GovOffice will cost $2,780, and 41
each additional year will cost $1,170. She stated she is requesting $400 extra, included in the 42
$2,780 request, for a custom webpage. She stated that she is also requesting an additional $300 43
for set-up and $32.50 each month to cover the cost of the forms. Coordinator Blackford added 44
that Staff recommends approval of the Resolution. 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 20
1
Councilmember Stigney asked who directed Coordinator Blackford to get the bids. 2
Administrator Ulrich stated he directed her to do so. 3
4
Councilmember Stigney stated that Roseville currently provides support and questioned the 5
necessity of a change without any discussion when it will cost more to have a new website and 6
the City will continue to have to pay for Roseville’s services. 7
8
Councilmember Stigney asked about the administrative costs surrounding the maintenance of the 9
website. Coordinator Blackford stated that part of the yearly cost is web hosting, security, etc. 10
Finance Director Beer stated that Roseville is recommending that all cities switch to GovOffice, 11
particularly because of the security software included in the package. 12
13
Finance Director Beer stated that there will be more upfront costs, but the security systems in 14
GovOffice office will help screen those out. He stated that at some point, Roseville will ask 15
other cities to switch to GovOffice. 16
17
Councilmember Stigney stated that he would like Roseville to give the City a discount if they do 18
discontinue web hosting. He added that he would like a department to come forward with a 19
proposal to save, rather than spend the City’s money. 20
21
Councilmember Flaherty thanked Coordinator Blackford for being proactive. He stated that she 22
took one of the bigger goals of the Council, communication, and came up with an excellent 23
proposal. He suggested that he does not believe the Council has to make an immediate decision, 24
and that it should come up during budget sessions. 25
26
Councilmember Thomas stated that discussions and decision surrounding the issue have been put 27
off because the City has waited to hire a Communications Director. She stated this is exactly one 28
of the items on the list and one of the reasons for Coordinator Blackford’s hire. She stated that 29
the sooner the sub-par website can be improved, the better. 30
31
Councilmember Flaherty stated he has a hard time approving non-budget items. Councilmember 32
Thomas replied that non-budget items are approved for good reasons and it would have been 33
included in the budget had the City had a person to recommend it. 34
35
Councilmember Stigney stated that the deficiencies of the website were not brought up and 36
Coordinator Blackford was hired to relieve Director Ericson of the website maintenance duties. 37
He stated he believes she should work within the system to change the current website. 38
39
Councilmember Thomas replied that the City has the handout with Roseville’s reply and it is a 40
separate issues. She stated that Roseville offers a web-hosting service and that Mounds View 41
still has the jurisdiction to make decisions regarding the layout and information on the website. 42
43
Councilmember Gunn read from the letter from Roseville. 44
45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 21
Administrator Ulrich stated that as long as Mounds View is using Roseville as the internet 1
provider, the City is facing a large increase for IT services because of additional items Roseville 2
has taken on. He stated GovOffice allows Coordinator Blackford to be more efficient in the 3
maintenance of the website. He stated there will be savings with the IT contract and in the 4
administration of the website. He stated it is consistent with the Council’s goal of improving 5
communication. 6
7
Mayor Marty asked if switching to GovOffice could eliminate some of the cost increases of 8
Roseville. Administrator Ulrich stated that if all cities on Roseville’s server move over to 9
GovOffice, it will eventually reduce the cost. Councilmember Stigney stated he would like to 10
hold off until there are proven savings. 11
12
Brian Amundsen, 3048 Wooddale Drive, stated he has a lot of background in the area. He 13
explained there is standardization with the interactive pdf forms and open-document text is 14
standard for governments, but questioned its necessity. 15
16
Mr. Amundsen stated his other comment is about the joint powers agreements. He stated that 17
regardless of the intent of the agreement, the other entity still has the obligation to adhere to the 18
agreement. He stated that Roseville should have had an outsourcing merging agreement. He 19
stated that fewer services should result in a lower price regardless of what is recommended. 20
21
Councilmember Thomas stated that she anticipates a joint powers agreement revision. She said 22
it is Mounds View’s responsibility to provide the best service to residents and she does not 23
believe Roseville’s server allows that. 24
25
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GUNN to waive reading and adopt Resolution 6870 Approving 26
Contract with Gov.Office to Provide Web Hosting Services. 27
28
Councilmember Stigney commented that staff time may cost extra to use pdf forms, and if that is 29
not the way most offices are going, the City should determine how much administrating the 30
forms would cost. 31
32
Councilmember Thomas stated the City is not bowing out of agreements with the City of 33
Roseville and if action is taken, Mounds View will have leverage to negotiate with Roseville. 34
Councilmember Stigney disagreed. 35
36
Mayor Marty stated he does see pros and cons, and commended Administrator Ulrich and 37
Coordinator Blackford for their research regarding the issue. He stated that this is exactly what 38
the City was looking for to improve citizen information and communication. 39
40
Mayor Marty stated he finds the online opinion polling very beneficial. He stated that online 41
completion of forms and applications is excellent, as well as easier navigation. He stated the 42
bulk e-mail feature is excellent and many departments are doing such things on their own. He 43
agreed that the automatic calendaring is an excellent idea. 44
45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 22
Mayor Marty stated, however, that the City is in the preliminary budget process and he would 1
like to see this incorporated into the process and continue with Roseville for the present time. He 2
stated he would like to renegotiate the joint powers contract. He added that Roseville would like 3
to get out of the agreement and using GovOffice could be an excellent bargaining tool. 4
5
Mayor Marty stated that he would like to delay the decision two to three months. He stated he 6
would have liked to have known about the recommendation before a resolution was presented, 7
and suggested it could have been brought up as a work session item. 8
9
Mayor Marty stated he agrees with Councilmember Stigney that GovOffice could be a bargaining 10
tool to renegotiate the contract with Roseville. He stated that the City could look into it closer 11
rather than “jumping the gun” and approving it right away. He stated for budgetary reasons, the 12
resolution is a bit premature. 13
14
Councilmember Thomas added that whatever process is used, dealings with Roseville can be 15
accomplished even with GovOffice implemented. Councilmember Thomas stated the delay is 16
unacceptable and it will take time to get it up and running. She stated that putting GovOffice in 17
place now will allow the City the time to know what will be needed as far as budgetary concerns. 18
19
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated he agrees with Councilmember Stigney, Mayor 20
Marty, and Mr. Amundsen. He stated he believes that the Council should not act upon the issue. 21
22
Mayor Marty stated he is not against the resolution, but thinks it is a bit premature to approve it 23
at the present time. 24
25
Ayes – 2 Nays – 3 (Marty, Stigney, Flaherty) Motion failed. 26
27
Mayor Marty asked that this item be brought back for further discussion at a work session. 28
29
CONTINUATION OF MEETING 10:00 p.m. 30
31
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/MARTY to continue the City Council meeting until 10:45 p.m. 32
33
Ayes – 5 Nays –0 Motion carried. 34
35
I. Resolution 6884 Adopting the Recommendations of the Charter Commission 36
for a Charter Language Amendment to Chapter 7 of the Mounds View 37
Charter and Authorizing a Ballot Referendum at the Next General Election 38
39
Administrator Ulrich stated that the Charter Commission is recommending that this item be 40
brought up as a ballot referendum. He stated this amendment deals with taxation limits on the 41
annual tax levy and certain fee increases. He stated the amendment also provides a process for 42
voter referendum approval if the City needs to go beyond the set limits. 43
44
Administrator Ulrich stated it clarifies, updates, and corrects language found in the section. He 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 23
stated City Attorney Riggs has requested time to review for state statutes and the 1
recommendation of Staff is to postpone action until July 24th to allow for further review. 2
3
Councilmember Stigney asked about the current resolution’s third “whereas” and said he does 4
not support Section 703. He stated he does not support the resolution and the Council should 5
discuss and vote on it. 6
7
Mayor Marty asked that Subdivision 2, Item C, about the four members of the Council, be 8
changed to indicate a majority is needed. He stated that the Council does the budget every year, 9
and asked what happens in a non-election year as far as a levy referendum going before the 10
voters. 11
12
Mayor Marty asked if there was any recourse without any special election. Mr. Amundsen, who 13
is a member of the Charter Commission, stated that is correct. Mayor Marty asked that the 14
language of “next regular municipal election” be changed. Mr. Amundsen stated that there is 15
language addressing elections in the Charter. 16
17
Mayor Marty suggested that language should be added about a special election in off years. 18
19
Councilmember Thomas asked about timing and where the Charter will be if it is not acted upon 20
until July 24th. Mr. Amundsen stated that the Council is not approving the language, but 21
approving the forwarding of the Charter to the County once language is approved. He stated that 22
Council approval on July 24th to move the Charter along would work. He stated he spoke with 23
Administrator Ulrich about the issues the attorneys have and learned they want to check a few 24
points of the statute related to procedures that outlined acceptance. He stated the discussion is if 25
it will go on the ballot. 26
27
Councilmember Thomas stated her concern is regarding the timing that could be handled by the 28
Charter Commission, but the difficulty the Council has is that if the language is not approved on 29
July 24th, there will not be another Charter Commission meeting. She stated there is a time-30
crunch and the Council will have to meet between now and the next City Council meeting. 31
32
Mr. Amundsen stated that the City’s task is to move language to the County, not to approve 33
specific language. 34
35
Mayor Marty asked if City Attorney Riggs could make a recommendation based on a cursory 36
evaluation of the Charter Commission recommendations on July 11. Administrator Ulrich stated 37
City Attorney Riggs has had the Charter for a while and might have something available for the 38
July 11th meeting. He mentioned September 15th as the last date to submit ballot questions and 39
suggested the Council move back from that date. 40
41
Councilmember Thomas stated that they can call a special session and that it needs to be moved 42
upon. 43
44
Councilmember Stigney stated he does not agree with Mayor Marty’s suggestion to change it to a 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 24
majority. He also stated that he believes Subdivision 1 is too loose. 1
2
Mr. Amundsen explained that Councilmember Stigney is referring to the limits on tax levy 3
increase, which will be limited to the formula of lesser of a maximum 6% or the Consumer Price 4
Index + 3%. Councilmember Stigney stated he believes the numbers should be smaller. 5
6
Mayor Marty questioned what could go wrong, and that he did read provisions that the Charter 7
could go to a ballot referendum issue. 8
9
Mr. Amundsen recommended the public come in and request a book from the Council or Charter 10
Commission if they are interested in the Charter. He suggested citizens attend the Charter 11
Commission meetings. 12
13
Mayor Marty added that the Charter is adding language that tax levies cannot be increased more 14
than the previous years’ amount by the lesser of maximum of 6% or Consumer Price Index + 3%. 15
16
Councilmember Flaherty stated that the Charter has been gone through several times. He stated 17
that the first step is approving the resolution for an amendment. 18
19
Councilmember Thomas stated that the discussion must include any amendment changes and 20
language does have to be approved at some point. She stated this cannot be a final action 21
without approval of the language. She pointed out that any language will have to be approved by 22
the Charter Commission. 23
24
Mr. Amundsen stated that the Council cannot make recommendations to change language, but 25
the Charter Commission does not have to accept language changes. The Council has to approve 26
moving the language to the ballot. 27
28
MOTION/: FLAHERTY. To put this on the ballot, but not specify language. 29
30
Mayor Marty stated that the Council will re-introduce the resolution at the next meeting. Mayor 31
Marty stated that he withdraws his suggestion of the majority of members voting instead of 4-1. 32
He said he would like it to remain 4-1. 33
34
Councilmember Gunn asked what happens if Councilmembers are missing. Mayor Marty and 35
Councilmember Thomas replied that there is precedent set for when Councilmembers are gone. 36
37
Councilmember Flaherty WITHDREW HIS MOTION and suggested it be brought back on July 38
24. 39
40
Councilmember Stigney asked that Mr. Amundsen relay his concerns about the “loose language” 41
to the Commission. 42
43
J. Resolution 6883 Setting an Interest Rate and Administrative Fee for Special 44
Assessments Certified during 2006 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 25
1
Finance Director Beer stated in the next few months they will be assessing for delinquent utility 2
and diseased tree removal. He stated that these must be designated. Finance Director Beer 3
explained that currently, the City is getting 5.5% interest and a fee of $25. He stated Staff 4
recommends raising the interest rates to 6% and raising the administrative fee to $30. 5
6
MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/MARTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6883 7
Setting an Interest Rate and Administrative Fee for Special Assessments Certified during 2006. 8
9
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 10
11
K. Resolution 6882 Consideration of Recommended Personnel Action with 12
respect to Thomas Baumgart 13
14
Police Chief Sommer stated that the resolution is for the termination of the employment of 15
Thomas Baumgart who has been a police officer of 12 years. He stated due to an on-duty injury, 16
he is unable to perform his duties. Police Chief Sommer stated the employee has been informed 17
and is aware of the action and this allows the Department to fill the position. 18
19
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6882 20
Consideration of Recommended Personnel Action with respect to Thomas Baumgart. 21
22
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 23
24
L. Approving Change Order No. 1 for the Random Park Building Replacement 25
Project 26
27
Administrator Ulrich stated that the final change order was brought to the Council previously 28
when it was discovered that a sprinkler system would have to be added to the building. He stated 29
Staff discussed requirements and that there were more quotes and designs discussed. The current 30
quote now saves the City a significant amount of money. 31
32
Administrator Ulrich stated that the quote will include a 1” service pipe to the building and a 33
valve that will allow for a smaller pipe. He stated the main blank in the contract was the cost of 34
the sprinkler, which has now been added with this change order. He stated the current contractor 35
will continue to work and the sprinkler company will be subcontracted through Jay Brothers. He 36
stated the 4” service would not be required. 37
38
Administrator Ulrich stated that Staff recommends going ahead with the project to allow the 39
project to continue. He stated that funding is consistent with the original funding proposal and 40
will come from park dedication and TIF funds. 41
42
Councilmember Flaherty stated he is very impressed with the savings proposed by Administrator 43
Ulrich. Mayor Marty stated he would like to thank the Fire Chief and Fire Inspector for being 44
open to allow the City to accommodate the revised system and still be up to code. He stated the 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 26
savings are significant. 1
2
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/FLAHERTY. To approve Change Order No. 1 for the Random 3
Park Building Replacement Project. 4
5
Councilmember Stigney commended the savings. 6
7
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 8
9
8. CONSENT AGENDA 10
11
Councilmember Thomas asked to remove Item F. Councilmember Gunn requested Item B be 12
pulled. Mayor Marty asked to remove item E for further discussion. 13
14
Director Ericson stated that Item I is incorrect, that it is Lot 5, Hidden Hollow. 15
16
A. Licenses for Approval 17
B. Resolution 6869, Authorization to Enter into a Grant Agreement with the 18
Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety Safe and 19
Sober project 20
C. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, July 24, 2006 at 7:05 pm for the First 21
Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 776 adopting the Five Year 22
Financial Plan. 23
D. Resolution 6872 Appointing Gerald Arel to the Parks and Recreation and 24
Forestry Commission 25
E. Resolution 6873 Awarding a Construction Contract for the Silver Lake Road 26
Sidewalk Improvement Project 27
F. Resolution 6874 Approving a Letter Agreement with the firm of Bonestroo, 28
Rosene, Anderlik, and Associates to Assist the City with a Traffic Study of 29
the Northwest Area of the City 30
G. Resolution 6880 Approving a Contract for Weather Services for 2006-09 31
Winter Seasons. 32
H. Resolution 6877 Authorizing Wetland Map Creation and GIS Overlay 33
Preparation 34
I. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, July 24, 2006 at 7:10 pm to Consider a 35
Partial Drainage and Utility Easement Vacation Associated with Lot 5, 36
Hidden Hollow 37
J. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, July 24, 2006 at 7:15 pm to Consider the 38
First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 774, an ordinance Amending 39
Chapters 701 and 1106 of the Mounds View Municipal Code Pertaining to 40
Dog Kennels 41
K. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, July 24, 2006 at 7:20 pm to Consider the 42
Appeal of a Variance Denial for a 45 Foot Tall Billboard at 2200 County 43
Road 10 44
L. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, July 24, 2006 at 7:25 p.m. to Consider a 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 27
Major Subdivision of 8360 Long Lake Road 1
2
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/FLAHERTY. To Approve the Consent Agenda as amended. 3
4
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 5
6
B. Resolution 6869, Authorization to Enter into a Grant Agreement with the 7
Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety Safe and 8
Sober project 9
10
Councilmember Gunn stated she would like to thank the Police Department for the Safe and 11
Sober Campaign. 12
13
Mayor Marty explained how the grant worked. 14
15
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 16
6869, Authorization to Enter into a Grant Agreement with the Minnesota Department of Public 17
Safety, Office of Traffic Safety Safe and Sober project. 18
19
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 20
21
E. Resolution 6873 Awarding a Construction Contract for the Silver Lake Road 22
Sidewalk Improvement Project 23
24
Mayor Marty pointed out that the low bid was $459,141 and that the engineers’ estimates were 25
$588,000. 26
27
Consulting Engineer Rhein stated that five came in lower, two came in higher. He stated there 28
was a very good price for concrete and the contractor specialized in concrete sidewalks. He 29
stated that they checked references for the company and received excellent references. 30
31
Mayor Marty stated that the project is scheduled to begin on July 24 and will be completed in 32
October. 33
34
MOTION/SECOND: MARTY/THOMAS. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6873 35
Awarding a Construction Contract for the Silver Lake Road Sidewalk Improvement Project . 36
37
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 38
39
F. Resolution 6874 Approving a Letter Agreement with the firm of Bonestroo, 40
Rosene, Anderlik, and Associates to Assist the City with a Traffic Study of 41
the Northwest Area of the City 42
43
Councilmember Thomas stated she pulled the item for notice and that it is an issue that should be 44
discussed. 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 28
1
Mayor Marty stated one of the reasons he wanted to pull the issue is because it is an estimated 2
cost of $43,000 and that he thinks the cost is high. He stated the traffic study does not require an 3
RFP, but he would like to put out an RFP. He stated he would like a study that comes in at 4
$20,000 or less and more money could be used for actual street repair. 5
6
Consulting Engineer Rhein responded that it was an expensive traffic study and the firm listened 7
to the State and concerns of citizens to review the goals of what the study will accomplish. 8
9
Consulting Engineer Rhein stated that Staff gained an understanding of what it will take to 10
determine what the City and citizens want. He stated that a lot of the cost is data collection that 11
involves complex calculations and counts at an integrated level. He stated the City does not have 12
the equipment to do the counts and they would have to be subcontracted. 13
14
Consulting Engineer Rhein stated the counts themselves would be about $12,000. He stated the 15
City’s scope of services to do other data collection is about $31,000. He stated Public Works 16
Director Lee indicated that the scope of the study would continue to grow and the department 17
would be overrun with hourly work. 18
19
Consulting Engineer Rhein stated that Staff put together a detailed list of tasks and identified ten 20
staff members who would be working on the report. He stated that he wanted to ensure the 21
implications on state aid are considered. They put together a detailed task list with dollar 22
amounts and put together the study that would meet the needs. He stated this is a cap to what the 23
study will cost and that no more could be spent without Council approval. 24
25
Consulting Engineer Rhein explained how costs could be trimmed back throughout the study. 26
He stated that in Section 4.5B, Council could reduce the scope of the study. 27
28
Consulting Engineer Rhein stated the Council is welcome to bid for an RFP but he believes 15% 29
lower would be the “bare bones” that could answer the questions requested by the Council. He 30
stated that Director Lee would like to combine this study with the feasibility study. He stated the 31
scheduling on page 5 indicates an immediate start date with a draft study done in eight weeks, 32
which is an aggressive schedule. He noted that the report for the street and utility project could 33
be done by November 1st. 34
35
Consulting Engineer Rhein stated if there is an RFP, it will throw off the schedule drastically. 36
He stated that he did not include extra costs. He stated they included the number that gives the 37
City the level of detail needed to answer the questions. 38
39
Consulting Engineer Rhein stated he understands the City’s concern for the RFP but is ready to 40
start the study immediately. 41
42
Mayor Marty stated he appreciated the report but questions if what was detailed in the report is 43
necessary. He asked that it be returned to Staff to look into 4B, reductions in scope, and if there 44
is any way it could be reduced to lower costs. He stated the traffic study is over $43,000, which 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 29
could be valuable in the long run, but he would rather put the money into the actual 1
improvement. 2
3
Mayor Marty stated he would like to send it back to Staff for discussion at a future meeting. 4
5
Councilmember Stigney stated he believes it is prohibitively expensive. He questioned why is 6
the study going up to County Road J when it is not part of the plan, and suggested it be held off 7
until MedTronic is finished. He stated that Mounds View owned traffic counters. Mayor Marty 8
stated they have not worked. Councilmember Stigney stated the City could buy new ones and 9
that the expenditure for the study should be reexamined. 10
11
Councilmember Gunn stated that the majority of the surveys indicated that this is the information 12
they wanted. She asked why the City is studying County Road J and Airport Road under number 13
3. 14
15
Consulting Engineer Rhein said the study area is larger than what is being considered for the 16
improvement project. He stated the proposal is to do 30 counts in the City streets and 17
intersection turning movement counts at northern and southern limits of the study area to 18
determine traffic coming into and out of the area. He stated they are specialized counts. 19
20
Consulting Engineer Rhein addressed Councilmember Gunn’s question about number 3, and 21
replied that the streets are included to determine what traffic is “cut-through” traffic versus traffic 22
that stays within the area. Councilmember Gunn said that is the information citizens have 23
requested. 24
25
Mayor Marty stated that there should be a follow-up in a few years to see if the road 26
improvement worked, as well as to determine the impact of increased traffic from the Medtronic 27
complex. 28
29
Councilmember Flaherty said that it is what citizens want, but they want it when Medtronic is up 30
and running. He stated the study is way more comprehensive than he imagined. 31
32
Consulting Engineer Rhein stated that there are tools to project how many trips will be generated 33
by MedTronic when the study is completed. He explained that citizens want to stop high speeds 34
and cut-through traffic before MedTronic is opened. He stated that analysis will help the City 35
anticipate problems and solve them before they are worse. 36
37
Councilmember Flaherty stated that cut-through traffic will not be stopped and speed is a law 38
enforcement issue. He stated he is not convinced about the benefits of the study. Consulting 39
Engineer Rhein stated that it will help the City determine what improvements can be made to 40
discourage traffic from local streets and intuitively find arteries such as Long Lake Road. 41
42
Consulting Engineer Rhein stated the goal is to determine four to six alternative improvements to 43
the street project. He stated that estimates could be included in the feasibility study. 44
45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 30
Councilmember Thomas suggested the issue be moved to the next Council meeting. Mayor 1
Marty suggested Staff reexamine the issue and discuss it at the next meeting. 2
3
Councilmember Stigney asked if the City will look into buying or renting traffic counters. 4
5
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/MARTY To postpone consideration of Resolution 6874 6
Approving a Letter Agreement with the firm of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik, and Associates to 7
Assist the City with a Traffic Study of the Northwest Area of the City until the July 24, 2006 City 8
Council meeting. 9
10
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 11
12
9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 13
14
Councilmember Flaherty asked about page 4, the Century Fence Company, and stated it seems 15
like a large amount. Finance Director Beer stated it is for repair work at one of the schools. 16
17
Councilmember Flaherty asked about the meter refund program. Finance Director Beer explained 18
that it is for people who move. 19
20
Councilmember Flaherty asked about the Crown Victoria on page 5 from Elk River Ford, and 21
one on page 10, from Superior Ford. He asked if one was a replacement and one was new. Police 22
Chief Sommer stated that was correct. 23
24
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/THOMAS. To approve the Just and Correct Claims as 25
Presented. 26
27
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 28
29
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 30
31
A. June 12, 2006 City Council Meeting Minutes 32
33
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/MARTY. To Approve the June 12, 2006 City Council 34
meeting minutes as corrected, including changes councilmembers had communicated previously 35
to staff. 36
37
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 38
39
B. June 26, 2006 City Council Meeting Minutes 40
41
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/MARTY. To Approve the June 26, 2006 City Council 42
meeting minutes as corrected, including changes councilmembers had communicated previously 43
to staff. 44
45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 31
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 1
2
11. REPORTS 3
4
A. Reports of Mayor and Council 5
6
Mayor Marty stated that residents on Quincy Street commented about the trails and how nice 7
they are. He stated the resident would like to commend Public Works Staff and others who have 8
worked on the trails. 9
10
Mayor Marty publicly commended the Staff and citizens who have contributed to the clean trails. 11
12
B. Reports of Staff 13
14
Administrator Ulrich reported that Representative Bernardy will not be running for re-election to 15
the House. 16
17
Administrator Ulrich announced that Director Lee is the proud father of a new baby girl. 18
19
1.) Report on 2345 County Road H2, Property Operated as Vino and Stogies 20
21
Director Ericson stated that the owners of Vino and Stogies are considering a major investment 22
in the property and are wondering if the City would be interested in purchasing the property. 23
24
The Council agreed that they are not interested in purchasing the property at this time. 25
26
Mayor Marty stated that realigning the intersection will require more than that property and the 27
Council will keep the information under consideration. 28
29
2.) Update on Premium Stop Property 30
31
Director Ericson stated that the City closed on the property on June 29th. He stated at the next 32
meeting there will be a resolution authorizing demolition and a market study of the project. 33
34
Finance Director Beer stated that he met with the City of Blaine regarding payment for fire bonds 35
and that Mounds View has been overpaying since 1991, which equals about $61,000. He stated 36
the City is currently working on a plan for Blaine to pay back Mounds View. 37
38
12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, July 17, 2006, at 7 p.m. 39
Next Council Meeting: Monday, July 24, 2006, at 7 p.m. 40
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 32
1
13. ADJOURNMENT 2
3
The meeting was recessed to a closed session at 11:18 p.m. 4
5
Transcribed by: 6
7
Lauren McKay 8
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 9
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Executive Session
Date: 07/10/06
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
Time: 6:00 pm
1. 6:07pm EXECUTIVE SESSION IS CALLED TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL:
Mayor Marty, Council Members Gunn, Flaherty, Stigney and Thomas. City
Administrator Kurt Ulrich, Police Chief Mike Sommer and City Attorney Robert
Alsop
3. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION OF ALLEGATIONS WITH
RESPECT TO TOM BAUMGART
The City Council and City Staff discussed allegations with respect to City
employee Tom Baumgart.
4. 6:30PM MEETING RECESSED UNTIL AFTER THE REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING
5. 11:23PM MEETING RECONVENED (absent Thomas, Sommer, and
Alsop)
6. DISCUSS UNION NEGOTIATIONS
City Administrator Ulrich reviewed and discussed the status of current union
contract negotiations with the Council.
7. 11:32PM MEETING ADJOURNED
Respectfully Submitted:
Kurt Ulrich
City Administrator
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Executive Session
Date: 08/07/06
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
Time: 6:00 pm
1. 6:05pm EXECUTIVE SESSION IS CALLED TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL:
Mayor Marty, Council Members Gunn, Flaherty, and Stigney. City Administrator
Kurt Ulrich, and Assistant to the City Administrator Desaree Crane.
3. DISCUSS UNION NEGOTIATIONS
City Administrator Ulrich reviewed and discussed the status of current union
contract negotiations with the Council.
4. 7:03PM MEETING ADJOURNED
Respectfully Submitted:
Kurt Ulrich
City Administrator
Item No: 7B
Meeting Date: August 14, 2006
Type of Business: CB
Administrator Review: ______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 773,
an Ordinance Amending Chapters 1102 and 1103 of
the Mounds View Zoning Code Relating to Fences,
Retaining Walls and Landscaping
Background:
The City Council asked the Planning Commission to examine the Zoning Code relative to
fences, retaining walls and terraces, and to provide a recommendation as to potential Code
amendments, if any are deemed appropriate. On April 19, 2006, Staff provided the Planning
Commission with detailed information and examples of how other communities define fences,
retaining walls and terraces and provided the Commission with a variety of Code excerpts,
handouts and requirements from our neighboring nearby communities for reference. Also
included for information purposes were photos depicting fences, retaining walls and terraces.
The Planning Commission reviewed the sections of Mounds View’s code relating to fences,
terraces and retaining walls. As a result of that discussion, staff was directed to prepare an
amendment to the Code to define retaining walls and to provide for language that would clarify
retaining wall setbacks. At this same meeting, the Commission chose to leave the language
pertaining to fences and terraces relatively unchanged. The Planning Commission adopted a
resolution on May 17, 2006 which recommended such an amendment for the City Council’s
consideration.
The City Council considered the first reading of the proposed ordinance on June 12, 2006
which was approved with little discussion. At the June 26 meeting to consider the second
reading and adoption of the ordinance, Brian and Valerie Amundsen asked the Council to
consider changes which they felt were necessary to address unresolved safety concerns
associated with the proposed ordinance. The Council took the Amundsen’s suggested
changes under advisement and tabled action on the second reading to allow staff an
opportunity to review the suggested changes with the City Attorney and the Planning
Commission. Staff met with the City Attorney who suggested the City’s ordinance could stand
on its own without incorporating any subsequent changes suggested by the Amundsens.
After meeting with the attorney, staff brought the Amundsens’ proposed changes to the
Planning Commission for consideration on August 2, 2006. At this meeting, the Planning
Commission reviewed each of the proposed changes one by one and determined that no
additional revisions were needed or worthy of inclusion.
Ord 773 Report
August 14, 2006
Page 2
The Amundsens’ Proposed Changes:
1) Setback requirement: Community Development Department "review" for safety and clearance of
retaining walls built or replaced next to existing structures. This is related to not making a neighbors
fence suddenly non-functional for privacy or safety, and the head room clearance of eaves, electrical
wiring or other structure to be compromised as a result of new retaining walls next to homes with
overhead electrical or CATV
Staff response: It is difficult to envision a situation in which a retaining wall would
somehow compromise safety relative to overhead utilities. We presently do not
conduct any such “pre-inspection” for fences or accessory buildings and do not see the
need to start doing so for proposed retaining walls. As for a retaining wall proposed
next to an existing privacy fence, staff remains in opposition to requiring a setback for a
retaining wall in these situations.
2) Safety requirement of railing (and or lighting) for retaining walls over two feet high when installed
at division of property or in the public easement. The thought here was to prevent the case of litigation
because a neighbor builds a wall in the easement and someone walks off it injuring themselves on the
neighbors property. We require steps for anything over 10" on a deck to ground, so is it too much to
require railing for retaining walls in the public easement? I know the issue Greg Lee has, but check
with Scott on City liability if the city builds the retaining wall and the home walks off, or falls off
while riding their mower because no railing or safety restraint was built.
Staff response: Although it may make sense in some situations, Staff does not support
an automatic requirement for railings to be installed with any retaining wall over two feet
dividing private property. If the retaining wall is used to support an elevated patio or
terrace, a railing would be required if it were elevated 30 inches or more above grade.
(Steps are not a requirement for any height deck. What IS required is a railing for
decks that are 30 inches or more off the ground.) Regarding retaining walls
constructed on public land, it may make sense in some situations to incorporate a
railing for safety purposes however staff would be opposed to making this an automatic
requirement as there may be situations where a railing would not be necessary or
desirable.
3) Max height limits for retaining walls not over four feet in height placed in easement areas, line of
sight and curbside relationships. This again related to fences can't be over a certain height in front of
the primary building (exception for tuck under garages)
Staff Response: The Code already protects against sight-line obstructions at a street
corner which would apply equally to a retaining wall. As for other front yard retaining
walls, while it is not often the case here in Mounds View, there may be lots which have
a steep front yard slope which could be improved by the installation of retaining wall.
Benefits of such a wall are erosion control, improved lawn maintenance as well as
aesthetics. If the proposed retaining wall does not alter the existing prevailing grade,
staff does not feel such a wall would be a problem. If grading were involved, staff
would review the plans beforehand to assess impacts. All such walls would need to be
on the owners property and not in the right of way, thus a wall would likely be 10 to 20
feet from the roadway.
Ord 773 Report
August 14, 2006
Page 3
4) Building permit requirement for any height retaining wall placed next to a primary structure *egress
or safety exit *(ex. basement windows (the ones qualified as egress not the ranch flip ups), tuck-under
garage next driveways, cellar/basement doors which are built down to provide egress, and any
retaining wall which is more than four feet high and intended to keep back the earth for the explicit
purpose of acting as a safety exit for the occupants of the building or home.
Staff Response: The Minnesota State Building Code regulates what does and does not
necessitate a building permit. The City cannot require a building permit for something
that is not already outlined as such in the Minnesota code. The Code already requires
that a building permit be obtained for retaining walls four feet or more in height,
regardless of their location or their purpose. The City goes a step further by requiring a
zoning permit for retaining walls two feet in height but not more than four feet. No
permit is required for a wall less than two feet in height.
5) Also, as a suggestion, we suggest changing "no setback" to a 6 inch setback be required, since that
eliminates the thought that a wall can be built directly on the line? I know the permit suggest not
building a fence on the line, but why not use the ordinance to clarify that issue now.
Staff Response: The Code as proposed already explicitly indicates that a fence or
retaining wall may not be constructed on the lot line. It reads as follows:
“A fence or retaining wall shall be installed on the applicant's property. The
fence or retaining wall shall not be installed directly over the property line
but shall not otherwise be subject to a setback requirement.”
Staff feels this language adequately conveys the message that a fence or retaining wall
may not be constructed or erected on a lot line.
6) The only other issue is has occurred over the last five years (first incident reviewed by Planning
Commission was in 2001) is some home owners have built retaining walls between property line and a
garage with the intent to park a vehicle on the space, I'm wondering if that specific situation should be
restricted by a notice that such retaining wall landing shall be planted with grass within month and is
prohibited from the parking of vehicles, recreational vehicles, trailers, accessory buildings and (other
appropriate language consistent with setback requirements) of the city code.
Staff Response: The construction of a retaining wall, in and of itself, would not trigger
issuance of notices relating to other codes or requirements which may or may not
apply. On the other hand, if it seems clear that the intent of the wall is to create a
surface upon which vehicles could or would be parked (ie, alongside a garage) the
applicant will be informed of the appropriate setback requirements. Likewise, if the
retaining wall were to be constructed in association with a deck or patio, staff would
inform the applicant about the setback, however it is not the retaining wall in either case
which subject to the setback; the setback applies to the parking pad, deck or patio.
Regarding the question of planting grass within a month, the City Code presently
requires that disturbed areas be revegetated within six months after project completion,
weather depending. One month, while desirable, may be too restrictive a time frame.
Ord 773 Report
August 14, 2006
Page 4
7) The following is excerpted from what Valerie Amundsen read Monday, June 26, 2006 at the City
Council meeting:
“Regarding section 1103.08 subd. 3, item b: The ordinance suggests that there be no setback
requirement for retaining walls. I would suggest however, that the following wording be added after
the words “but shall not otherwise be subject to a setback requirement"…UNLESS THE SAID
RETAINING WALL WILL BE DIRECTLY NEXT TO AN EXISTING FENCE SPECIFICALLY
INSTALLED TO MEET THE BUILDING CODE REQUIRING A MINIMUM 5 FOOT HIGH FENCE
AROUND A SWIMMING POOL”
Staff Response: Staff has discussed this point with both the Planning Commission and
City Council, and neither body supported such a requirement. While the intent of the
suggested change is understood, Staff, the City Attorney, the Planning Commission
and Council felt it was not appropriate to restrict what one property owner could do with
his or her lot because of what a neighbor has already done. In this case, because
Neighbor “A” has a swimming pool, it would not seem fair or appropriate to impose or
subject more restrictive setback requirements onto Neighbor “B”, who does not have a
swimming pool. The responsibility for maintaining the minimum fence height and
security requirements should always rest with the property owner with the pool.
Summary:
While we thank the Amundsens for their suggestions and appreciate their level of
involvement throughout this process, Staff, the City Attorney and the Planning Commission
do not feel any of the suggested changes are warranted or desired at this time.
Recommendation:
After review and consideration of the suggestions, if the City Council determines that no
changes are necessary, the ordinance can be given its second reading and be adopted by a
roll call vote. If the Council believes some modifications are in order, the changes can be
made at the meeting prior to the adoption, or, if the changes are more substantial, staff
would bring a revised ordinance back for final Council consideration on August 28th.
_____________________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
ORDINANCE SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. 773
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF MOUNDS VIEW
BY AMENDING CHAPTERS 1102 and 1103 RELATING TO FENCES,
RETAINING WALLS AND LANDSCAPING
On August 14, 2006, the Mounds View City Council adopted an ordinance which amends
Chapters 1102 and 1103 of the Zoning Code relating to fences, landscaping and retaining
walls. The amendment adds definitions to the Zoning Code pertaining to landscaping and
retaining walls, clarifies the locations which retaining walls and fences can be sited on a
property and adds a section that prohibits certain types of fencing materials such as barbed
wire, razor wire, electric fences or other fence materials that could pose a public safety
hazard.
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/773.pdf.
Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk-Administrator
ORDINANCE NO. 773
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 1102 AND 1103 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW
ZONING CODE RELATING TO FENCES, RETAINING WALLS AND LANDSCAPING
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Section 1102.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to
“Definitions” is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined:
1102.02: DEFINITIONS: The following words and terms, wherever they occur in
this Code, shall be defined as follows:
Subd. 58.5. LANDSCAPING: The aesthetic and physical improvement of land by the
addition of berms, trees, shrubs, ground cover, crushed rock, wood chips,
retaining walls and other functional, ornamental or decorative features.
Subd. 100.5. RETANING WALL: A wall or structure constructed of stone, concrete, wood,
or other materials, used to retain soil, as a slope transition, or edge of a planting area.
SECTION 2. Section 1103.08 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to “Fencing
Screening and Landscaping” is hereby amended with the proposed additions
underlined:
1103.08: FENCING, RETAINING WALLS, SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING:
Subd. 1. Height: No fence shall exceed eight feet (8') in height, and in the case of grade
separation, such as the division of properties by a retaining wall, the height shall be
determined on the basis of measurement from the average point between the highest and
lowest grade.
Subd. 2. Intersections: No fences, structures or planting of trees or shrubs shall be permitted
within thirty feet (30') of any corner formed by the intersection of street property lines or the
right of way of a railway intersecting a street, except properly constructed chain link fences.
Such chain link fences shall not exceed forty eight inches (48") in height from the grade level
at the lot line and shall have openings in the wire mesh of not less than one and five-eighths
inches (1-5/8") nor more than two and one-fourth inches (2-1/4"). Such fences may follow
the lot line to the lot corner. The thirty feet (30') restriction noted above shall consist of the
triangle formed by connecting the two (2) points on intersecting lot lines that are each thirty
feet (30') from the lot corner.
Ordinance 773
Page 2
Subd. 3. Location:
a. Except as provided in subdivision 2 above, fences not to exceed forty eight inches (48") in
height may be located on any part of a lot. Fences not to exceed ninety six inches (96") in
height may be erected on any part of a lot behind the front line of the principal building. The
City Council may require or approve fencing up to ninety six inches (96") in height in a front
yard to satisfy a buffer or screening condition of a development review or conditional use
permit. (Ord. 658, 8-14-00)
b. A fence or retaining wall shall be installed on the applicant's property. The fence or
retaining wall shall not be installed directly over the property line but shall not otherwise
be subject to a setback requirement.
Subd. 4. Landscaping Required: In all zoning districts, the lot area remaining after providing for off-
street parking, off-street loading, sidewalks, driveway, building site and/or other requirements
shall be planted and maintained in grass, sodding, shrubs or other acceptable vegetation or
treatment generally used in landscaping.
Subd. 5. Surface of Fences: Any fence shall be so constructed that the surface facing adjoining
properties or public rights of way shall be of finished construction.
Subd. 6. Required Screening: The fencing and screening required by this Title shall be subject to
subdivisions 1 through 5 hereof and shall consist of either a fence or a green belt planting
strip the height of which shall be sufficient to adequately shield the activity from the abutting
properties.
a. A green belt planting strip shall consist of evergreen ground cover and shall be of
sufficient width and density to provide an effective screen. This planting strip shall contain no
structures or other use. Such planting strips shall not be less than eight feet (8') in height.
Earth mounding or berms may be used but shall be limited to an average of five feet (5') of
the height of the required screen. The planting plan and type of shrub shall require the
approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission based upon a recommendation of the
Director of Public Works/City Engineer and Building Inspector.
b. A required screening fence shall be constructed of masonry, brick, wood or steel. Such
fence shall provide a solid screening effect and not exceed eight feet (8') in height or be less
than six feet (6') in height. The design and materials used in constructing a required
screening fence shall be subject to the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission
based upon a recommendation by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer and Building
Inspector.
c. Ground cover shall be established within one (1) year following issuance of the building
permit. Ground cover material shall be of such type as to control erosion. (1988 Code
§40.04)
Subd. 7. Prohibited Materials:
a. Barbed wire, razor wire or other materials which could cause bodily harm shall be
prohibited, and no fence or property shall be wired and designed to conduct and emit
an electrical charge, except as allowed for below.
Ordinance 773
Page 3
b. Exceptions: Facilities providing essential services or municipal and
governmental services may erect barbed wire, or other materials having a similar
deterrence, upon notice to properties within 350 feet and upon approval of the City
Council.
SECTION 3. This ordinance is effective 30 days after its publication.
First Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 12th day of June, 2006.
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 14th day of August,
2006.
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Item No: 7D
Meeting Date: Aug 14, 2006
Type of Business: PH & CB
Administrator Review: ______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing, Second Reading and Adoption of
Ordinance 777, an Ordinance Approving a Partial
Vacation of a Drainage and Utility Easement Associated
with the Hidden Hollow Major Subdivision
Introduction:
The City Council approved the Hidden Hollow final plat on June 28, 2004. The plat created
seventeen new executive home sites south of County Road H2. Most of the lots have been
sold and developed and the project is nearing completion. One of the last lots to be
developed is Lot 5, located directly south from County Road H2 and situated on the bend of
Hidden Hollow Court.
Dave Regal Construction (DRC) has submitted a request for a new home to be constructed
on Lot 5 and have a buyer for which they intend to construct a handicapped accessible
home. While preparing the floor plan for the home, it was discovered that the easement
dedicated for drainage and utility purposes encroached too far into the lot to allow for the
preferred design alternative to be constructed. As a result, DRC is requesting that 1,563
square feet of the easement be vacated.
Discussion:
The applicant has enlisted the assistance of Plowe Engineering, Inc. to assess the accuracy
of the dedicated easement. Plowe’s report indicates that the easement, as drafted by Sunde
Engineering for developer ProCraft Homes, was intended to protect the 100 year high water
level of the stormwater management pond that was dedicated over the southern lots in
Hidden Hollow. The easement in question, as it relates to Lot 5, covers area in excess of the
100 year elevation. Plowe recommends vacating that part of the easement area beyond the
100 year elevation.
After receipt of the request from DRC, staff forwarded Plowe’s report and the certificate of
survey to Sunde Engineering to get their opinion given that they drafted the easement for
dedication. Staff discussed this with the engineer from Sunde who confirmed that the
easement area appeared to cover land beyond the 100 year pond HWL and saw no reason
to not approve the requested vacation. Staff forwarded the applicant’s submittal and Sunde’s
response to Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates (BRAA) who reviewed this ProCraft
Homes stormwater management component for the City.
To vacate an easement or other public interest in a parcel, the City must determine that the
easement no longer serves a public purpose. In this case, our consulting engineer BRAA
confirms that the requested vacation of the 1,563 square feet would not be detrimental to the
overall function of the easement area in that this section of the easement was dedicated in
excess of the intended area and in excess of what was needed to cover the stormwater
management pond.
DRC Vacation Report
Aug 14, 2006
Page 2
Recommendation:
Open the public hearing and consider testimony regarding this request from staff, the
applicant and any affected residents and property owners. Based upon the recommendation
of the three engineering firms, staff feels confident in recommending approval of the
requested vacation subject to the approval of the Rice Creek Watershed District. Attached
for the Council’s consideration is Ordinance 777, an ordinance which approves the partial
vacation of a drainage and utility easement on Lot 5, Hidden Hollow, subject to RCWD
approval.
James Ericson
Community Development Director
Attachments
1. Application
2. Location Map
3. Certificate of Survey
4. Letter from Applicant
5. Letter from Plowe Engineering, dated June 29, 2006
6. Letter from Sunde Engineering, dated July 17, 2006
7. Ordinance 777
Kirsten Pauly, PE/PG, Principal
Brian H. Mundstock, PE, Principal
Mike Kettler, PE, Principal
Consulting Civil Engineers
17 July 2006
Mr. Jim Ericson
City of Mounds View
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, MN 55112
Re: Hidden Hollow, Block 1, Lot 5
Mr. Ericson,
After reviewing the plans for Lot 5 of the Hidden Hollow development it appears there should be no
problem vacating and redescribing the drainage and utility easement associated with this lot to better align
with the 100-yr HWL contour of 891.23. The current easement overcompensates for the 100-yr HWL
and therefore can be revised to better accommodate this boundary.
Contact me if you have any questions or need more information.
Sincerely,
Joe Galluzzi
SUNDE ENGINEERING, PLLC
CC: Becky Baune (Dave Regel Construction)
SUNDE ENGINEERING, PLLC
10830 Nesbitt Avenue South • Bloomington, Minnesota 55437-3100
Phone: (952) 881-3344 • Fax: (952) 881-1913 • E-Mail: info@sundecivil.com
Location Map
COUNTY ROAD H2
HIDDEN HOLLOW COURT
Lot 5
ORDINANCE NO. 777
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A PARTIAL VACATION OF A DRAINAGE AND
UTILITY EASEMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THE HIDDEN HOLLOW MAJOR
SUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View was granted a drainage and utility easement
for stormwater management purposes in 2004 within and associated with the HIDDEN
HOLLOW plat; and,
WHEREAS, Dave Regal Construction (DRC) has submitted an application to vacate
part of the drainage and utility easement on the following legally described parcel:
Lot 5, HIDDEN HOLLOW
Ramsey County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, the easement area to be vacated from Lot 5, HIDDEN HOLLOW is
legally described as follows:
That part of Lot 5, Block 1, HIDDEN HOLLOW, Ramsey County, Minnesota,
according to the recorded plat thereof, dedicated as drainage and utility
easement on said plat, described as follows:
Commencing at the southwest corner of said Lot 5; thence North 01
degrees 40 minutes 10 seconds West (assumed bearing) 70.23 feet along the
west line of said Lot 5 to the drainage and utility easement reference line as
shown on said plat; thence South 71 degrees 47 minutes 20 seconds East
along said reference line 30.49 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be
described; thence North 80 degrees 34 minutes 32 seconds East along said
reference line 69.21 feet; thence North 57 degrees 51 minutes 23 seconds
East along said reference line 14.90 feet; thence South 04 degrees 42
minutes 19 seconds West 10.44 feet; thence South 48 degrees 18 minutes 38
seconds West 30.56 feet; thence South 59 degrees 09 minutes 00 seconds
West 15.53 feet; thence South 82 degrees 02 minutes 15 seconds West 26.33
feet; thence North 37 degrees 38 minutes 26 seconds West 29.15 feet to the
point of beginning.
Ordinance 777
Page 2
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. 777.
Subd. 1. The City has made a determination that the drainage and utility easement
area as described herein and illustrated on Exhibit A does not serve a public purpose, and
as such, it is in the public interest to vacate said easement area.
Subd. 2. The City Council of the City of Mounds View finds that there is no public
interest or purpose served in retaining the easement area described and proposed to be
vacated.
Subd. 3. That described part of the drainage and utility easement as shown on
Exhibit A is hereby vacated.
SECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect thirty (30) days after its publication and upon
approval by the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD).
First reading and introduction by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 24th
day of July, 2006.
Public hearing, second reading and adoption by the City Council of the City of Mounds View
this 14th day of August, 2006.
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk-Administrator
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
City Attorney
(SEAL)
Exhibit A. Lot 5, HIDDEN HOLLOW
Item No: 7E
Meeting Date: Aug 14, 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: Public Hearing and Consideration of an Ordinance
Amending the Procedures and Regulations Pertaining
to Dog Kennels
Introduction:
Upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, staff has drafted an ordinance to
amend Chapters 701 and 1106 of the Mounds View Municipal Code that would eliminate
residential dog / cat Kennels as a permitted conditional use in residential districts.
Discussion:
The basis for this proposed amendment is that presently any resident with three or four dogs
has to go through a conditional use permit (CUP) process with the planning commission and
city council subject to redundant public hearing and notification requirement. The problem
with the process is that a CUP runs with the land, not the property owner, which means if the
resident gets a CUP then moves, the CUP stays at the former property, which is not the
intent. The other rationale behind the amendment is that having three or four dogs is not
really a land-use issue. The licensing requirement remains essentially the same; the primary
change is to simply drop the CUP requirement from the process. Other changes include
adding language to define persons ineligible for a kennel license and establishing criteria and
a mechanism through which a license may be revoked for just cause.
By adopting these changes, residents would still need to present a petition bearing the
signatures of at least 50% of their neighbors within 500 feet if they would like to have three or
four dogs, however they would no longer be required to wait six weeks to go through the
Conditional Use Permit and public hearing process.
Planning Commission Action:
At their meeting on July 5, 2006, the Planning Commission approved Resolution 842-06
which recommends approval of the attached Ordinance 774. The Planning Commission
recommended that the “persons ineligible” section be strengthened so that people cited or
charged with animal cruelty offenses would not be granted a license. The prosecuting
attorney reviewed the ordinance and drafted the “persons ineligible” language.
Ord 774 Report
Aug 14, 2006
Page 2
Recommendation:
Review the proposed amendments and approve the second reading and adoption of
Ordinance 774, an ordinance amending Chapters 701 and 1106 of the Mounds View
Municipal Code relating to dog kennels.
_____________________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 842-06
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO
CHAPTERS 701 AND 1106 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO DOG KENNELS
WHEREAS, City Staff has identified sections of Code relating to Dog Kennels which
is in need of amendment; and,
WHEREAS, presently the Mounds View Municipal Code requires that a resident
apply for a kennel license AND conditional use permit (CUP) to own three or four dogs in
the City; and,
WHEREAS, the approval process and requirements for a residential dog kennel are
redundant, excessive, time consuming and costly for residents and in need of modification;
and,
WHEREAS, owning three or four dogs is not a land-use issue nor a planning issue
that would warrant approval of a Conditional Use Permit but rather a matter of licensure;
and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission concurs that an amendment to the City Code is warranted and justified.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission recommends approval of amendments to Chapters 701 and 1106 of the
Mounds View Municipal Code as represented in the attached Exhibit A.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs
staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 5th day of July, 2006.
_____________________________________
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
James Ericson, Community Development Director
(SEAL)
ORDINANCE SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. 774
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 701 AND 1106 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
OF MOUNDS VIEW RELATING TO DOG KENNELS
On August 14, 2006, the Mounds View City Council adopted an ordinance which amends
Chapters 701 and 1106 of the Mounds View Municipal Code relating to Dog Kennels. The
amendment eliminates the need to obtain a Conditional Use Permit to have three or four
dogs. The petition and license requirements remain the same. Additional language is added
relating to revocation of a kennel license and a section concerning persons ineligible for a
kennel license has been created.
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/774.pdf.
Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk-Administrator
ORDINANCE NO. 774
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MOUNDS VIEW CITY CODE CHAPTERS
701 AND 1106 RELATING TO “DOG KENNELS”
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW DOES HEREBY ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Section 701.04, Subd. 8 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
Kennels is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions struck out
to read as follows:
Subd. 8. Kennels:
a. Licensing requirements: All dog kennels must first obtain a special use permit as
required in Title 1100 of this Code. The zoning classifications as required under
Chapter 1103 and Section 1104.02 of this Code must be conformed with. Regardless
of any provision in Title 1100 of this Code, the The owner of a proposed dog kennel
shall submit a license application and present a petition to the Clerk / Administrator
Council signed by more than fifty percent (50%) of all registered landowners or those
occupying land within five hundred feet (500’) of the proposed kennel who agree to the
establishment of the kennel. The petition shall contain, among other items of
information, the number and species of dogs intended to be kept on the
premises, whether the yard or kennel area is or will be fenced and whether the
dogs would be raised for breeding purposes. Upon the receipt of the petition and
license application, the Clerk / Administrator shall present the petition and
application to the City Council for their consideration. Council will then set a
hearing for a special use permit, as provided for in Title 1100 of this Code. The petition
shall contain, among other items of information, how many dogs the petitioner intends
to keep on the premises. (Ord. 696, 4-22-02)
b. License fee: The annual license fee for dog kennels shall be established by
resolution of the City Council. The license fees are due September 1 of each year.
(Ord. 696, 4-22-02)
c. Cleanliness and order; nuisance declared: Kennels and the premises around the
kennel shall be kept in a clean, quiet, orderly and sanitary condition so as not to
constitute a nuisance as defined in Chapter 607 of this Code and in Minnesota
Statutes, Section 561.01. In determining whether a nuisance exists, consideration shall
be given to the kennel’s location, location of other residences, and general character of
the neighborhood.
Ordinance 774
Page 2
d. Revocation: A kennel license may be revoked by action of the Council for just
cause after providing the license holder with an opportunity to be heard. Just
cause shall include any violations of this Code reasonably related to the
operation of the dog kennel and/or treatment of animals.
e. Persons Ineligible. No license shall be granted to an applicant who has
mistreated animals or has been convicted for animal cruelty offenses.
SECTION 2. Section 1106.04, Subd. 4 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
conditional uses within the R-1, Single Family Residential zoning district is hereby amended
with the proposed additions underlined and deletions struck out to read as follows:
Subd. 4. Residential Dog/Cat Kennels. (Reserved.)
SECTION 3. This ordinance takes effect 30 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 July, 2006.
PUBLIC HEARING, SECOND READING AND ADOPTION by the City Council of the City of
Mounds View this 14th day of August, 2006.
_______________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________
Scott Riggs, City Attorney
Item No: 7F
Meeting Date: 08/14/06
Type of Business: CB
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Nyle Zikmund, Fire Chief
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6902 Amending contract for Fire Protection Services;
Amended Exhibit A (Lease of Real Property)
Background:
As a component of the Fire Department Capital Improvement Plan funded by the sale
of Capital Improvement Bonds sold on November 17th, 2005, a new fire station located
at 11920 Ulysses Street was approved. The new station will consolidate and replace
existing stations three and five. A budget of $7,082,621 has been established for this
portion of the capital plan.
The Blaine Council approved the letting of bids for the construction portion of the
project in October and December of 2005. Construction of the station is underway with
and estimated completion date of August 18, 2006.
The Fire Department will be relocating and consolidating their operations from the
current station three and station five and will be vacating those two buildings no later
than October 1. The Fire Department has issued a letter to all three cities of their intent
to vacate the buildings and turn them back over to the cities effective October 1, 2006.
Discussion:
Process to Dispose
City of Blaine Attorney Patrick Sweeney has prepared and reviewed the contract for fire
protection, joint powers agreement, and laws governing sales and transfer of city owned
property.
He has advised that the first step in disposing of these two properties, either by sale or
transfer to one of the three cities, is to amend the lease, thus placing legal control of the
property back into the City of Blaine’s jurisdiction. While the City of Blaine holds title to
all Fire Department assets, the Joint Powers Agreement gives pro rata share and
control to the other two cities.
Kingswood Church, adjacent to the current station three continues to express strong
interest in purchasing the property, primarily to ensure control of the land. The City of
Blaine has indicated strong interest in retaining station five for current and future uses.
Properties would be disposed of at an appraised fair market value and the proceeds will
be distributed among the member cities based upon the pro rata share.
Recommendation:
By resolution, adopt Amended Exhibit A
RESOLUTION NO. 6902
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AMENDING CONTRACT FOR FIRE PROTECTOIN SERVICES; AMENDED EXHIBIT
A (LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY)
WHEREAS, City Council Resolution and the Capital Improvement Plan for the Spring
Lake Park Fire Department, Inc. have included construction of a new fire station and;
WHEREAS, the contract for fire protection includes as one component, Exhibit A, which
details real property owned by the City of Blaine subject to control of the Joint Powers
Agreement signed by the cities of Spring Lake Park, Mounds View and Blaine and;
WHEREAS, upon completion of the new fire station the Fire Department has notified
the three cities of Spring Lake Park, Blaine, and Mounds View that they will be vacating
the current Station Three located at 1314 109th Avenue and Station Five located at
1200 Paul Parkway effective October 1, 2006 and;
WHEREAS, the Fire Department Board of Directors at their July 17th, 2006 adopted a
resolution to amend the contract with Amended Exhibit A, Description of the Premises.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds
View, which authorizes and directs the Mayor and City Administrator of the City of
Mounds View to execute any and all documents to the Contract for Fire Protection with
the Spring Lake Park Fire Department, Inc. specific to Amended Exhibit A and effective
October 1, 2006
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 14th Day of August, 2006.
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator/Clerk
(SEAL)
Item No: 7I
Meeting Date: August 14, 2006
Type of Business: CB
Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Chief of Police, Mike Sommer
Item Title/Subject: Approval to Hire Nicholas Erickson as
Police Officer
Date of Report: 8-14-06
Background:
The City Council has approved the hiring of a Police Officer for a current vacancy in the
Police Department. The Police Civil Service has certified an active eligibility list for the
position based on previously conducted testing components, which included written
testing, and interviews. The top three candidates on the list are as follows:
1. Nicholas Erickson (Total score= 73.6)
2. Eric Kammerer (Total score=68.9)
3. Marcus Smith (Total score= 68,6)
The #1 candidate, Nicholas Erickson, has successfully completed testing procedures
including a background examination, and the physical agility testing. The medical
examination, and psychological examinations have been scheduled and his appointment
as Police Officer shall be contingent on successfully passing these examinations.
Staff have personally met and interviewed Mr. Ericson and recommends he be hired to
the position.
Recommendation:
Staff seeks council approval to proceed with appointing Nicholas Ericson to the position of
Police Officer at the step one rate of pay for the position in accordance with the Law
Enforcement Labor Services Contract, which governs the compensation for this position.
This hire is to be effective on August 28th, 2006, contingent on him passing the required
medical and psychological examinations.
Respectfully submitted,
Mike Sommer
Chief of Police
RESOLUTION NO. 6917
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPOINTING NICHOLAS ERICSON TO THE
POSITION OF POLICE OFFICER
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved the hiring of a Police Officer for a
current vacancy in the Police Department, and the Police Civil Service Commission has
approved the procedures for establishing an eligibility register to fill this vacancy, and;
WHEREAS, the approved hiring procedures consist of a competitive written
examination, resume scoring, oral interviews, background investigations, physical
examination, psychological examination, and physical agility testing, and;
WHEREAS, the Civil Service Commission has certified the eligibility list for the
opening, and Nicholas Ericson is the top candidate standing on the eligibility register,
and his background investigation, and physical agility testing have all been successfully
completed, and he is scheduled for the psychological and medical examination, and;
WHEREAS, staff of the Police Department have met with Mr. Ericson, and the
Chief of Police recommends he be appointed to the position of Police Officer.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council
does hereby appoint Nicholas Ericson to the position of Police Officer effective August
28, 2006 at the step one rate of pay as stipulated in the Law Enforcement Labor
Services contract for the position. This appointment shall be contingent on Mr. Ericson
successfully passing the required medical and psychological examinations.
Adopted this 14th day of August 2006.
______________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
(ATTEST)
_______________________________
Kurt Ulrich
City Clerk/Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No. 07J
Type of Business: CB
Meeting Date: August 14, 2006
City Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Desaree Crane, Assistant to the City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6903 Authorizing Severance Payment for Thomas
Baumgart, Mounds View Police Officer
Background
Thomas Baumgart was terminated from his position due to his inability to perform the essential
functions of a police officer as concluded by Mr. Baumgart’s health care provider. This
termination was effective July 10, 2006. Attached is Resolution 6903, which authorizes a
severance payment to Mr. Baumgart for his accrued compensatory and vacation time. This
payment is in accordance with the Mounds View Personnel Manual and the current LELS Police
Officers Labor Agreement.
Resolution 6903 provides a payout of Mr. Baumgart’s vacation hours. In accordance with the
current LELS Labor Agreement, Mr. Baumgart is eligible for a vacation payout of $5,458.20.
This is calculated as 181.94 hours times his hourly salary of $30.00.
Resolution 6903 also provides a payout of Mr. Baumgart’s compensatory time. In accordance
with the current LELS Labor Agreement, Mr. Baumgart is eligible for a compensatory time payout
of $337.50. This is calculated as 11.25 hours times his hourly rate of $30.00.
It has also come to Staff’s attention that the City is responsible for the continued contribution
payment of Mr. Baumgart’s health insurance. In accordance with Minnesota State Statute
299A.465, subd 1:
299A.465 Continued health insurance coverage.
Subdivision 1. Officer or firefighter disabled in line of duty.
(a) This subdivision applies when a peace officer or firefighter
suffers a disabling injury that:
(1) results in the officer's or firefighter's retirement or
separation from service;
(2) occurs while the officer or firefighter is acting in
the course and scope of duties as a peace officer or
firefighter; and
(3) the officer or firefighter has been approved to receive
the officer's or firefighter's duty-related disability pension.
(b) The officer's or firefighter's employer shall continue to provide
health coverage for:
(1) the officer or firefighter; and
(2) the officer's or firefighter's dependents if the officer or
firefighter was receiving dependent coverage at the
time of the injury under the employer's group health plan.
(c) The employer is responsible for the continued payment
of the employer's contribution for coverage of the officer or
firefighter and, if applicable, the officer's or firefighter's
dependents. Coverage must continue for the officer or
firefighter and, if applicable, the officer's or firefighter's
dependents until the officer or firefighter reaches the age of
65. However, coverage for dependents does not have to be
continued after the person is no longer a dependent.
Mr. Baumgart is currently collecting single health care coverage, which costs approximately
$342.00 a month. The State of Minnesota has a grant application (copy of application attached)
that the City will be submitting to hopefully defer some of this cost. Staff will notify the Council
when this grant application is submitted, and the status of approval or disapproval.
Recommendation
Staff recommends severance payment to Thomas Baumgart in accordance with the current LELS
Police Officers Labor Contract in the amount of $5,795.70.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree Crane
RESOLUTION NO. 6903
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING SEVERANCE FOR THOMAS BAUMGART
WHEREAS, Thomas Baumgart was terminated from his position due to his inability to
perform the essential functions of a police officer as concluded by Mr. Baumgart’s health care
provider; and
WHEREAS, Thomas Baumgart’s termination was effective July 10, 2006; and
WHEREAS, Thomas Baumgart’s current rate of pay as of July 10, 2006 was $30.00 per
hour; and
WHEREAS, the balance of accrued and unused vacation time is 181.94 hours as of July
10, 2006; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Baumgart is eligible for a vacation payout of $5,458.20, which is
calculated as 181.94 hours times his hourly salary of $30.00; and
WHEREAS, the balance of accrued compensatory time is 11.25 hours as of July 10,
2006; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Baumgart is eligible for a compensatory time payout of $337.50, which
is calculated as 11.25 hours times his hourly rate of $30.00; and
WHEREAS, the one-time payout of accrued and unused vacation and compensatory
one-time payout is $5,795.70.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council approve a
one-time payout of accrued and unused vacation and compensatory time not to exceed
$5,795.70 to Thomas Baumgart effective August 14, 2006.
Adopted this 14th day of August, 2006.
________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No. 07K
Type of Business: CB
Meeting Date: August 14, 2006
City Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Desaree Crane, Assistant to the City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6904 Authorizing Severance Package for Jodi
Salmonson, Mounds View Receptionist
Background
Jodi Salmonson has resigned from her position as the Mounds View Receptionist, effective
August 7, 2006. Attached is Resolution 6904, which authorizes a severance payment to Jodi
Salmonson. This payment is in accordance with the Mounds View Personnel manual and the
current AFSCME Labor Agreement.
Resolution 6904 provides a payout of Ms. Salmonson’s vacation hours. In accordance with the
current AFSCME Labor Agreement, Ms. Salmonson is eligible for a vacation payout of $14.78.
This is calculated as 1.02 hours times his hourly salary of $14.49, which equates to a $14.78
severance payment.
Recommendation
Staff recommends severance payment Jodi Salmonson in accordance with the City’s Personnel
Manual and current AFSCME Labor Contract in the amount of $14.78.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree Crane
RESOLUTION NO. 6904
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING SEVERANCE FOR JODI SALMONSON
WHEREAS, Jodi Salmonson has retired from the Mounds View Administration
Department effective August 7, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the balance of accrued and unused vacation time is 1.02 hours as of
August 8, 2006; and
WHEREAS, Jodi Salmonson’s current rate of pay of $14.49 per hour.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council approve a
one-time payout of accrued and unused vacation not to exceed $14.78 to Jodi Salmonson
effective August 7, 2006.
Adopted this 14th day of August, 2006.
________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No: 07L
Meeting Date: August 14, 2006
Type of Business: CB
City Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Desaree Crane, Assistant to the City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6912 Step Increase for Mark Beer, Mounds View
Finance Director
Background:
Mark Beer is a current employee with the City of Mounds View. His supervisor has
recently reviewed his performance as it relates to his job description.
Discussion:
It was determined Mark Beer has more than satisfactorily performed in the capacity of
his position, and therefore, a step increase wage adjustment is consistent with the
Mounds View Personnel Manual.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approving Mark Beer’s step increase in accordance with the Mounds
View Personnel Manual.
Respectfully Submitted,
Desaree Crane
RESOLUTION 6912
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING STEP/LONGEVITY ADJUSTMENTS
WHEREAS, the following below is a regular full-time employees who is currently
working for the City of Mounds View; and
WHEREAS, his supervisor reviewed their performance as it relates to the
responsibilities outlined in the job description; and
WHEREAS, his supervisor determined that the following employee below has
more than satisfactorily performed in the capacity of his position documented in his
performance review on file.
WHEREAS, a step increase wage adjustment is consistent with the Mounds
View Personnel Manual.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does
hereby approve a wage adjustment to the following indicated in the chart below.
NAME CURRENT
POSITION
DATE OF
EMPLOYMENT/CURRENT
POSITION
CURRENT STEP &
WAGE
STEP & WAGE
ADJUSTMENT
EFFECTIVE
DATE OF
ADJUSTMENT
Mark Beer Finance Director Date of Employment:
August 15, 2005
Step 3: $35.26/hr Step 4: $37.22 August 15,
2006
Adopted this 14th day of August, 2006.
__________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No: 07M
Meeting Date: August 14, 2006
Type of Business: Council Business
City Administrator Review: _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Desaree M. Crane, Assistant to the City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6915 Authorization to Hire a Receptionist in the
Administration Department
Jodi Salmonson has resigned from her position as the Mounds View Receptionist, effective
August 7, 2006. This position is currently vacant and due to this vacancy it is becoming
difficult to maintain customer service levels. The Receptionist position is responsible for
receiving and referring all inquiries to appropriate City personnel, performing routine clerical
duties including: mail processing, cash receipting, work processing and data entry, maintains
office supplies, processing dog licenses, providing information to the public, provides support
to the Assistant to the City Administrator in Mounds View Elections, and assisting other
departments as needed. The position is Hay Pointed at 169. This position is currently an
AFSCME union position and the City is currently in labor negotiations for a new 2006-2007
contract.
Staff was given permission at the August 7, 2006, Work Session, to advertise for this position.
This position is currently advertised on the City’s website and on the League of Minnesota
Cities’ website. In addition, this position will also be advertised in the Sunday edition of the
Pioneer Press and in next week’s edition of the Mounds View/New Brighton Bulletin.
Here is the hiring schedule:
Internal Posting of Job: August 8 to August 11
Advertising: Star Tribune or Pioneer Press: Aug 13th edition (Sunday)
Bulletin: August 16th edition
Post on LMC and City Website: August 8, 2006
Deadline for Applications: August 28 at 430pm
Processing Applications: August 29
Start Interviews: August 31, Sept 1, and Sept 5
Top Candidate: September 7
Auth to Hire Top Candidate: September 11th City Council Meeting
The top candidate would start at Step One, progress to Step Two in six months, to Step 3 after
twelve months, Step 4 after twenty-four months and finally Step 5 after thirty-six months of
employment in accordance with the Mounds View Personnel Manual and current AFSCME
Labor Agreement. As stated previously, AFSCME is in negotiations with the City for a new
2006-2007 contract, and the starting salary for this position will be in accordance with the most
current AFSCME Labor Agreement.
Due to the present personnel levels at the City, Staff did request at the Work Session
permission to start looking at temp agencies to help fill the void in the position until a
candidate is hired. Marge Norquist, Part-Time Account Clerk for the Finance Department, has
volunteered to work full time on a temporary basis (not to exceed 60 days), until a receptionist
is hired. This will eliminate the need to hire a temporary employee, however, Ms. Norquist
would be assigned to many of the duties of the Receptionist, except the duties of the
Recycling Coordinator. Staff will be submitting a Memorandum of Understanding to the
AFSCME Labor Union on Monday, August 14th, to state that Marge Norquist will be full time
on a temporary basis not to exceed 60 days. Ms. Norquist would not be collecting any
additional benefits due to this temporary change to a full time status. Staff anticipates on
having a top candidate presented to the City Council at the September 11th meeting.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution authorizing staff to start the hiring
process of a replacement Receptionist in the Administration Department.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree M. Crane
RESOLUTION NO. 6915
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE HIRING OF A RECEPTIONIST FOR THE
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT TO REPLACE THE OUTGOING RECEPTIONIST
WHEREAS, the current Receptionist for the Administration Department has submitted
notice of resignation effective August 7, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the Receptionist position is a full-time, AFSCME Union position; and
WHEREAS, Marge Norquist, Finance Account Clerk, will be working full-time in the
interim until a Receptionist is hired; and
WHEREAS, Marge Norquist, interim full-time status shall not exceed 60 days
effective Monday, August 14, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the selected candidate will be offered a position starting at Step 1 for that
position as provided for in the current AFSCME Labor Contract and Mounds View Personnel
Manual.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds
View, that the Administration Department is authorized to take the necessary steps to fill the
Receptionist position, according to the conditions and provisions listed above.
Adopted this 14th day of August, 2006.
____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST: ____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No. 7N
Meeting Date: August 14, 2006
Type of Business: CB
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
City Administrator Review _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Mike Schnur, Lead Utility Worker
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6895 Approving a Contract for the SCADA
(Supervisory, Control, and Data Acquisition) System
Upgrade No. 2
Background:
SCADA (Supervisory, Control, and Data Acquisition) system upgrade.
This computer system is the control panel for operating the City's utility systems. It was
originally installed in 1989, and upgraded in 1998. This system consists of a computer
hardware, software, and communication devices to control the functions of the City’s
water and sanitary sewer infrastructure systems. The SCADA System monitors and
controls the City’s water storage capacity, treatment plant operations, all wells and
boosters pumps, and sanitary sewer lift stations.
There are a total of ten sites where communication is needed to operate the system.
Five sites are external sites, located away from the City Hall and Public Works building
facilities area, and five are internal sites located within this area. The current way for the
SCADA system to communicate back and forth from the five external, and five internal
sites, is by dedicated communication (telephone) lines. The five internal sites use City
owned and maintained communication lines, while Qwest provides the five external
communication lines. These dedicated Quest communication lines currently cost the
City $839.86 per month to operate, or $10,078.32 annually.
Discussion:
The current problem the City is experiencing with this communication system is a
random total loss of communication to Treatment plant no. 1, which is a 2.8 million
gallon capacity plant, loss of communication to the booster station, the City’s two million
gallon in ground storage tank, and communication loss to Well 1. It should be noted
that staff cannot start and stop these wells through the SCADA computer without
communication. Staff can however start and stop these wells manually, but that would
require someone to be onsite 24 hours a day, and that would cost the City between
$513.36 – $581.86 a day in overtime per person, during the summer months. If the
staff did not work the overtime, and stuck to the peak control energy saving plan, the
City’s maximum daily pumping would be 3,060,000 gallons, with no ground reservoir
back-up.
In the summer months, the City has had several days where it has pumped over 3
million gallons of water in one day. It happened 6 times in 2005, all of which were in
July. In 2004, the City again pumped over 3 million gallons of water in one day six
times, again all in July. But in 2003 the City pumped over 3 million gallons of water in
one day 22 times from June through August. On these days the City would have to
take corrective measures, work overtime, or break the Xcel peak control rules. Peak
control for Well No. 1, is only being allowed to run from 10:00pm to 6:00am, 7 days a
week, Well No. 6, is only allowed to run from 9:00 pm to 9:00 am Monday through
Friday. While these were the only days we pumped more than 3 million gallons of
water in one day, there were 20 – 30 days a year where the City pumped between 2.5
and 3 millions gallons of water in a day. If by chance one of these days coincides with
one of the days that Xcel Energy requires the City to go to zero draw (peak control
program), the City would most likely run very low, or out of water. The City was put on
peak control once in 2005, but the City was put on a high probability to be shut off for
two weeks straight, Monday through Friday only. The City generally will be put on
notice once the temperature reaches 90 degrees. In 2001, the City was put on peak
control 13 times in June and July. If the City runs the wells any other time, than these
permitted times, there is a penalty.
Peak control is a cost savings program that Xcel Energy offers to high volume electric
users. It allows for Xcel to restrict the hours during the day that the City can draw
electricity to pump, and treat water. It also allows Xcel to put the City on zero draw,
which means that staff goes around to all the wells and shut off all the breakers where
power comes into the buildings. If staff ran any well during the zero draw peak control
time set by Xcel, the penalty would be so great that it would be more than what the City
saves for that well over the entire year. The City saves on average $20,000 a year, on
electric rates, on all the wells and booster station combined using peak control.
Further Discussion:
Staff has received a bid from US Filter, the proprietary vendor of our current SCADA
system to install radio communication to all of the existing sites. That bid came in at
$30,860.00 plus tax. This bid does not include installation of the radio antenna’s, the
poles they would need to be installed on, or the wiring from the antenna’s to the radio
units; the bid for that is $23,649.00. Staff has $28,740 currently budgeted for this off an
old bid, but the price has gone up since the original bid back in December of 2004. The
budgeted amount also didn’t include the installation of the antenna poles or wiring.
These phone lines have out-lived their practical life. With new technology, the City of
Mounds View can eliminate that cost and repair by switching to radio technology.
Radio technology will enable the City to have the same communication capability,
without the cost of dedicated phone lines. These phone lines are also starting to fail.
These failures could cause the City to run drastically short, or even out of water during
the hot summer months. The phone lines that are currently failing are City owned and
maintained lines thus we can’t call Qwest to fix the problem. The new radio technology
would be completely compatible with our current SCADA system, so there shouldn’t be
any additional cost associated with updating our new computer system. Staff is
recommending that the City of Mounds View switch from dedicated phone lines to radio
controlled communication. It will pay for itself in less than six years, and it will ensure
constant communication, which will provide adequate water levels for domestic use and
fire protection throughout the City.
Delivery and installation of these devices will take from six to ten weeks, depending
upon weather and delivery of materials.
Staff recommends the purchase of the SCADA System Upgrade No. 2 in the amount of
$54,509.00 plus tax.
The adopted 2006 budget has $28,740.00 allotted in the Enterprise Fund, under the
water infrastructure and equipment department, capital equipment account (account
700-4823-7030). Any additional funds are recommended to be derived from the
Enterprise Fund, water infrastructure and equipment department contingency account.
Recommendation:
It is recommended the Council adopt a resolution to award a contract to Quality Flow
Systems Inc. for the SCADA System Upgrade No. 2 in the amount of $54,509.00
excluding tax.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Michael Schnur, Lead Utility Worker
RESOLUTION 6895
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR THE SCADA SYSTEM UPGRADE NO. 2
WHEREAS, The current problem we are having, is a random total loss of
communication to Treatment Plant No. 1; and
WHEREAS, Summer pumping totals increase drastically; and
WHEREAS, Peak control is a cost savings program to the City of Mounds View;
and
WHEREAS, with new technology, the City of Mounds View can eliminate the
cost and repair of dedicated phone lines by switching to radio technology; and
WHEREAS, The savings would be approximately $840.00 per month; and
WHEREAS, Staff has received a bid from US Filter, the proprietary owner of our
current SCADA system to install radio communication to all of the existing sites; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
1. That a contract with Quality Flow Systems Incorporated to purchase and
install the SCADA System Upgrade No. 2 in the amount of $54,509.00, plus
tax, is hereby awarded.
2. That the Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to
enter into a contract with Quality Flow Systems Incorporated.
3. That the funds to finance this project will be derived from the Enterprise
Fund, under the water infrastructure and equipment department, capitol
equipment account (account 700-4823-7030), and that any additional funds
that may be required are to be derived from the Enterprise Fund, water
infrastructure and equipment department contingency account.
Adopted this 14th day of August 2006
(ATTEST) ___________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
(SEAL) ___________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item No. 7O
Meeting Date: August 14, 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 6905 Approving Change Order No. 1 for
the Groveland Park Building Replacement Project
Background:
On May 22, 2006, Staff presented a proposal to the City Council to add a
sprinkler system to the Random Park Building. An information sheet that was
distributed. This information sheet indicated that a fire suppression system is
required for the Random Park Building but also indicated that a sprinkler system
would be required for all future construction and upgrade to park building.
“The International Building Code has a classification system for buildings. “Group
A” buildings are for assembly type buildings… Code requires all “Group A”
occupancy buildings to have a fire suppression system”
On June 26, 2006, Staff provided an update report on adding a fire sprinkler
system to the building. The report indicated that the Fire Department had
reconsidered the details of the sprinkler requirements for Random and Groveland
Park Buildings and has determined that a lesser standard would be acceptable
and would still meet the intent of the code. This acceptable standard was an
NFPA 13-D, which is a residential style fire sprinkler system.
On July 10, 2006, the City Council approved Resolution 6862, which approved
Change Order No. 1 for the Random Park Building Replacement Project. This
change order was for installation of a one-inch service line to the building and
installation of a 13-D sprinkler system. The cost of this change order was
$20,559.00.
Discussion
A change order to add a sprinkler system to the Groveland Park Building has
been submitted by TKDA; the City’s architectural consultant on this project.
Change Order No. 1 includes the installation of a 13-D sprinkler system,
changing the water service corporation and fittings to a 2-inch service, and
installation of a fire control panel and associated wiring. The total cost of this
change order is $13,287.00
Funding
It is recommended that funds to finance change order No. 1 be derived based on
Resolution 6558 which reads; sixty-five percent (65%) of the total project cost
shall be financed utilizing Park Dedication Funds (Account No. 285-4470-3030),
and the remaining 35% shall be derived from the Special Project Funds (Account
No. 280-4180-7050).
Recommendation:
It is recommended the Council adopt the attached resolution approving Change
Order No. 1 for the Groveland Park Building Replacement Project.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
RESOLUTION 6905
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR THE GROVELAND PARK
BUILDING REPLACEMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, the International Building Code has a classification
system for buildings whereby “Group A” buildings are for assembly type buildings
and this Code requires all “Group A” occupancy buildings to have a fire
suppression system; and
WHEREAS, the Fire Department has reconsidered the details of
the sprinkler requirements for Random and Groveland Park Buildings and has
determined that a lesser standard would be acceptable and would still meet the
intent of the code; and
WHEREAS, a change order to add a sprinkler system to the
Groveland Park Building has been submitted by TKDA; the City’s architectural
consultant on this project; and
WHEREAS, Change Order No. 1 includes the installation of a 13-D
sprinkler system, changing the water service corporation and fittings to a 2-inch
service, and installation of a fire control panel and associated wiring; and
WHEREAS, the total cost of Change Order No. 1 is $13,287.00;
and
WHEREAS, it is recommended that funds to finance change order
No. 1 be derived based on Resolution 6558 which reads; sixty-five percent (65%)
of the total project cost shall be financed utilizing Park Dedication Funds
(Account No. 285-4470-3030), and the remaining 35% shall be derived from the
Special Project Funds (Account No. 280-4180-7050).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
1. That Change Order No. 1 for the Groveland Park Building
Replacement Project is hereby approved.
2. Execution of said documents is hereby authorized.
3. That said Change Order shall be financed based on Resolution 6558.
Adopted this 14th day of August 2006.
(ATTEST)
____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
(SEAL)
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item No: 07R
Meeting Date: August 14, 2006
Type of Business: CB
City Administrator Review: ____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Desaree M. Crane, Assistant to the City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6918 Approval of the LELS Local 232 (Police
Sergeants) 2006-2007 Labor Agreement
This item will be discussed at the 6pm Executive Session.
Background:
Pursuant to the discussion at the August 14, 2006 Council Executive session, the
following contract terms have been negotiated:
1. The duration of the contract shall be two years, January 1, 2006 to December 31,
2007.
2. A general 3% wage for January 1, 2006.
A general 3% wage for January 1, 2007.
3. ARTICLE 14 - OVERTIME
City agrees to change the following language in the contract:
14.7 Employees may take compensatory time in lieu of overtime pay.
Compensatory time may be accumulated up to fifty-two and one half
(52.5) hours.
4. ARTICLE 17 - INSURANCE
The City agrees to the following insurance contributions:
2006: $685.20
2007: $732.20
5. ARTICLE 19 - UNIFORMS
The City agrees to increase the uniform allowance by $20.00 in 2006 and $20.00 in
2007. The uniform allowance will be the following:
2006: $690.00
2007: $710.00
6. ARTICLE 20 - VACATION
City agrees to add an additional accrual of 25 days after 20 years of service. There
will be no accumulation of one day per year after 15 years.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached Resolution approving
the Police Sergeants contract for 2006-2007.
RESOLUTION NO 6918
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVAL OF THE L.E.L.S., LOCAL 232 (POLICE SERGEANTS)
2006-2007 LABOR AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby ratify the
L.E.L.S. Local 232 (Police Sergeants) Contract for the year 2006-2007, with the
following amendments:
1. The duration of the contract shall be two years, January 1, 2006 to December 31,
2007.
2. A general 3% wage for January 1, 2006.
A general 3% wage for January 1, 2007.
3. ARTICLE 14 - OVERTIME
City agrees to change the following language in the contract:
14.7 Employees may take compensatory time in lieu of overtime pay.
Compensatory time may be accumulated up to fifty-two and one half
(52.5) hours.
4. ARTICLE 17 - INSURANCE
The City agrees to the following insurance contributions:
2006: $685.20
2007: $732.20
5. ARTICLE 19 - UNIFORMS
The City agrees to increase the uniform allowance by $20.00 in 2006 and $20.00 in
2007. The uniform allowance will be the following:
2006: $690.00
2007: $710.00
6. ARTICLE 20 - VACATION
City agrees to add an additional accrual of 25 days after 20 years of service. There
will be no accumulation of one day per year after 15 years.
Resolution 6918
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Mounds View, does hereby ratify the L.E.L.S. Local 232 (Police Sergeants) Contract for
the year 2006-2007, with the aforementioned amendments.
Adopted this 14th day of August, 2006.
________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No: 08A
Meeting Date August 14, 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.
A & J Excavating, Inc. Excavating New
Contractor Concepts, Inc. General (Commercial) New
Kramer Mechanical, Inc. HVAC New
LeVahn Bros., Inc. HVAC New
Optimum Mechanical Systems, Inc. HVAC New
Sabre Heating & Air Conditioning HVAC New
Tarraft Construction General (Commercial) New
TDJ Consruction, Inc. General (Commercial) New
Timberland Tree & Landscaping Tree Trimming/Removal New
Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested.
Item No: 08B
Meeting Date: August 18, 2006
Type of Business: CA
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 6908 Ratifying the Mounds View Election Judges
for the 2006 Primary and General Election
State Law requires that election judges for the Primary and General Elections be
appointed for the municipal governing body. Resolution 6908 contains a finalized
list of election judges for the 2006 Primary Election (September 12, 2006), and the
General Election (November 7, 2006).
Recommendation:
Approve the appointment of election judges for the 2006 Primary and General
Election.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree M. Crane
RESOLUTION 6908
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RATIFYING THE APPOINTMENT OF ELECTION JUDGES FOR
THE 2006 PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTION
WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View is required by law to hold a Primary
and General Election; and
WHEREAS, all proposed election judges listed on the attached sheet
have met all of the State qualifications for the position of election judge.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City
of Mounds View does hereby ratify the appointments of the individuals listed in the
attachment.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mounds
View authorizes the City Clerk-Administrator to appoint additional election judges
should there be a need.
Adopted this 14th day of August, 2006.
________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
2006 ELECTION JUDGES
2006 PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTION
NAME
Dawn Groberg
Jane Ahlstrom
Sue Mitchell
Mark Pearson
Payne Hjulberg
Jeanine Stage
Glenn Partridge
Alice Schlichtmann
Bill Siems
Arlene Werdien
Gladys Johnson
Marlene Beck
Barb Skribch
Sharon Croon
Sherril Carlson
Marcia Rosenberg
Gladys Biltonen
Dianne J. Cline
James W. Cline
Pat Wick
Marilyn Johnson
Roger Johnson
Victor Robertson
Donald Sholberg
Dannea Bermel
Irene Foss
Janet Strauss
Lenny Sandell
Rita Erickson
Anne Kudebek
Barbara Haake
Patti Vasilakes
Carol York
Anita Thompson
Don Hodges
William Urbanski
Joan Urbanski
Boy Toy
Betty Toy
Matt Eenigenburg
Arlene Norton
Lillian Christ
Susan Martin
F. Annette Steiner
Ilene Syverson
Shirley Burg
Kathleen MacRunnels
Marjorie Hanley
Patricia Robinson
Janet Schuldt
Item No. 8I
Meeting Date: August 14, 2006
Type of Business: CA
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
City Administrator Review _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Michael Schnur, Lead Utility Worker
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6897Approving SEH for Architectural
Services for 2006 Building Upgrades for Wells and
Treatment Plants
Background:
In 2005, staff in coordination with SEH, conducted an analysis of water division building
infrastructure. Some of the items that were identified that need to be addressed are:
1. Water Treatment Plant No. 1 was constructed in 1991. The doors
that were installed are currently in very poor condition, and are in
need of replacement. The doors are constructed out of steel for
security reasons. This steel is reacting negatively with the chemicals
needed to successfully treat the water going through the plant. As a
result, they are rusting, and are very hard to secure.
2. Well House No. 2 was constructed in 1962 and the windows are in
need of replacement. The windows are past their expected life, and
are very inefficient in the winter. There are vents over the windows to
cool the pump house down in the summer while the well is running
but these vents need to be boarded up in the winter.
3. Well No. 2 the overhang on the door is currently leaking, and in the
wintertime, it allows for water to get in behind the overhang. This
moisture can cause structural damage to the pump house during the
winter due to the freezing and thawing of the water. It is already
breaking some of the bricks on the front of the building.
Discussion:
Staff has received a proposal for architectural, engineering, and project management
services in the amount of $5,668.00. The project will consist of
1. Remove and replace two door units, paint said doors and four other door units,
and two access covers, at Water Treatment Plant No. 1.
2. Remove and replace three windows at Well House No. 2. This will also include
replacing the existing vents with a thermostatically controlled power vent system.
3. Refurbish or replace the entry door canopy, depending of the severity of damage
once it is taken apart.
Staff recommends the approval of SEH for architectural services for the building repairs
in the amount not to exceed $5,668.00 except for reimbursable expenses, i.e., mileage,
printing costs etc.
The 2006 adopted budget has $25,000.00 allotted in the Enterprise Fund, under the
water infrastructure and equipment department, system maintenance (700-4823-5160).
Recommendation:
It is recommended the council adopt Resolution 6897 to accept the proposal from SEH
for architectural services for door and window removal and replacement, in the amount
of $5,668.00 plus tax.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Michael Schnur, Lead Utility Worker
RESOLUTION 6897
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR ARCETECHTURAL SERVICES
WHEREAS, in 2005 a building infrastructure analysis was performed; and
WHEREAS, the doors and windows are no longer in acceptable working order;
and
WHEREAS, SEH has submitted a proposal for architectural services; and
WHEREAS, the adopted 2006 Budget has $25,000.00 allotted in the enterprise
Fund, under the water infrastructure and equipment department, system maintenance
(700-4823-5160).
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
1. That the proposal for architectural services in the amount of
$5,668.00 be accepted from SEH.
2. That the Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized and
directed to enter into a contract with SEH.
3. That the funds to finance this project will be derived from the
Enterprise Fund, under the water infrastructure and equipment
department, system maintenance (700-4823-5160)
Adopted this 14th day of August 2006
_____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No. 8J
Meeting Date: August 14, 2006
Type of Business: CA
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
City Administrator Review _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6915 Setting a Public Improvement
Hearing Date for the County Road 10 Trailway
Project: Segments 9&10
Background:
On January 9, 2006 the City Council approved Resolution 6716 authorizing the
preparation of a preliminary feasibility report and consultant selection for the
County Road 10 Trailway, Lighting, and Landscape Project. At that time, the City
Council gave direction that the City should proceed with two segments of trailway
along the County Road 10 corridor: 1.) The segments on the north side between
County Road H and Silver Lake Road (Segments 1-6) and; 2.) the segments on
the south side between Long Lake Road and Silver Lake Road (Segments 9 &
10).
On August 7, 2006, a draft Preliminary Feasibility Report for the County Road 10
Trailway Project: Segments 9&10 was submitted for the City Council’s review.
Discussion:
Set Public Improvement Hearing – As per State Statute 429.031: “Before the
municipality awards a contract for an improvement or orders it made by day
labor, or before the municipality may assess any portion of the cost of an
improvement to be made under a cooperative agreement with the state or
another political subdivision for sharing the cost of making the improvement, the
council shall hold a public hearing on the proposed improvement following two
publications in the newspaper of a notice stating the time and place of the
hearing, the general nature of the improvement, the estimated cost, and the area
proposed to be assessed.”
Staff is recommending that a public hearing be conducted to be in compliance
with this state statute and to allow the public to learn about the proposed project
and to provide comments.
A hearing date of August 28, 2006 will afford the necessary time to publish legal
notices.
Following the hearing, should the City Council wish to proceed with this project, a
Staff report and resolution approving the report, ordering the project, and
authorizing the creation of detailed plans and specifications will be presented for
City Council consideration.
Recommendation:
It is recommended the City Council approve a resolution setting a Public
Improvement Hearing date for the County Road 10 Trailway Project: Segments
9&10.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
RESOLUTION 6915
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
SETTING A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT HEARING DATE FOR THE COUNTY
ROAD 10 TRAILWAY PROJECT: SEGMENTS 9&10
WHEREAS, on January 9, 2006 the City Council approved Resolution
6716 authorizing the preparation of a preliminary feasibility report and consultant
selection for the County Road 10 Trailway, Lighting, and Landscape Project; and
WHEREAS, on August 7, 2006, a draft Preliminary Feasibility Report for
the County Road 10 Trailway Project: Segments 9&10 was submitted for the City
Council’s review; and
WHEREAS, a Public Improvement Hearing is required by State Statute for
this project; and
WHEREAS, a Public Improvement Hearing would allow the public to learn
about the proposed project and to provide comments; and
WHEREAS, a Public Improvement Hearing date of August 28, 2006, will
afford the necessary time to publish legal notices.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
1. Sets a public improvement hearing for said improvement for 7:15 pm
on August 28, 2006 at Mounds View City Hall.
2. Authorizes legal notices for said public improvement hearing to be
published.
Adopted this 14th day of August 2006.
(ATTEST) ____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
(SEAL)
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item No: 8K
Meeting Date: 08/14/06
Type of Business: CA
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6916 Adopting Attorney’s Recommendation in Regard
to Taxability of Employee Severance Benefits
Background:
Former Mounds View Police Chief Timothy Ramacher has indicated to the City that the
health insurance premiums paid by the City on his behalf have been wrongfully reported to
the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) as gross income. At the City Council’s direction, the
City Attorney has reviewed the facts and law applicable to Mr. Ramacher’s request and
made recommendations as outlined in the attached memo dated July 20, 2006.
Discussion:
The City Attorney has concluded as a result of his investigation, that Mr. Ramacher did not
have the option of receiving his accrued sick leave in a lump sum cash payment at the time
of severance in 1999 and therefore the health insurance premiums paid by the City on his
behalf should not be reported to the IRS as income.
The City Attorney found that there were a number of “options” considered by the City
Council with respect to the approval of Mr. Ramacher’s severance package in 1999, but
that there is no direct evidence that Mr. Ramacher was expressly provided the option of a
cash payment for his accrued sick leave at the time of his retirement in March of 1999.
In exercising its discretion to determine the severance package of Mr. Ramacher, a non-
union employee, the City Council did not formally provide the Mr. Ramacher with the option
to receive a cash payment. Having such a cash payment option would have made the
benefit taxable.
The City Council ultimately approved Resolution No. 5313, which granted Mr. Ramacher
severance benefits equal to 100% of his accumulated vacation time in a lump sum
payment and 1,393 hours of accumulated and banked sick leave to be used for his health
insurance premium payments for as long as the funds were available. The amount of sick
leave granted to Mr. Ramacher in the form of future health insurance payments represents
a combination of sick leave time that Mr. Ramacher accrued while he was a patrol officer
as well as sick leave that he accrued while he was the Chief of Police.
Recommendation:
Based on the recommendation of the City Attorney, it is recommended that the City
Council adopt the attached resolution 6916 in regard to tax treatment of Mr. Ramacher’s
severance benefit.
RESOLUTION 6916
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ADOPTING ATTORNEY’S RECOMMENDATION IN REGARD TO TAXABILITY OF
EMPLOYEE SEVERANCE BENEFITS
WHEREAS, The City Council approved Resolution No. 5313, which granted Mr.
Ramacher severance benefits equal to 100% of his accumulated vacation time in a
lump sum payment and 1,393 hours of accumulated and banked sick leave to be used
for his health insurance premium payments for as long as the funds were available, and
WHEREAS, Mr. Ramacher contends that the City did not offer him the option to receive
any of his accrued sick leave in the form of a lump sum cash payment at the time of his
retirement, and
WHEREAS, various options were discussed by the Council, but an investigation by the City
Attorney has indicated that there is nothing in the record to suggest that Mr. Ramacher had
an option to receive an immediate cash payment, and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney, in a memo date July 20, 2006, has recommended that the
City Council approve Mr. Ramacher’s request and direct City staff to refrain from reporting
future payments of Mr. Ramacher’s health insurance premiums to the IRS as part of his
gross income, and
WHEREAS, in addition, the City Attorney has recommended that prior submissions to the
IRS should be amended to accurately reflect Mr. Ramacher’s income paid by the City, and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney has also recommended that Mr. Ramacher be advised of the
Council’s decision and be reminded that such Council action does not constitute a legal
determination as to the taxability of such payments and that he could ultimately be liable
for taxes on such payments if the IRS were to determine otherwise.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mounds View City Council of the City
of, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
City staff is hereby directed to:
1. Refrain from reporting future payments of Mr.
Ramacher’s health insurance premiums to the IRS as
part of his gross income;
2. Amend W -2 forms previously filed with the IRS, as able,
to eliminate the health insurance payments made by the
City on Mr. Ramacher’s behalf; and
3. Advise Mr. Ramacher of the Council’s decision and
remind him that such Council action does not constitute
a legal determination as to the taxability of such
payments and that he could ultimately be liable for
taxes on such payments if the IRS were to determine
otherwise.
Adopted this 14th day of August 2006.
____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No: 08L 1&2
Meeting Date: August 14, 2006
Type of Business: Worksession
City Administrator Review: _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Desaree M. Crane, Assistant to the City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6913 Authorizing to Hire for a Part-Time Cable TV Assistant Vacancy in the
Cable Department
Resolution 6914 Authorizing to Hire Dave Olsen as a Part-Time Cable TV Assistant in
the Cable Department
As discussed at the last Work Session, the City had retained the services of at least two part-time Cable TV
Assistant/Technicians in addition to the Cable Coordinator. Due to the recent vacancy in this position, staff
reviewed the hiring process and wage schedule and found that there was no documentation for this job in terms
of a position description, wage schedule, or Council authorization to hire. Currently this position does not have a
5-step progression, and the top rate of pay is $13.53.
It was agreed at the last Work Session that two Cable TV Assistant be retained on staff. Dave Olsen would
occupy one of these positions and the other vacancy would be advertised. The Cable TV Assistant/Tech
Assistant would be a part time position that would not exceed 20 hours a week, and would not be eligible to
receive City benefits. In consideration of the market for this type of job, the proposed step progression is as
follows:
Step One: $12.00/hour
Step Two: $12.75/hour
Step Three: $13.51/hour
Step Four: $14.25/hour
Step Five: $15.00/hour
As discussed at the last Work Session, the existing employee, Dave Olsen, would start at Step 4, and progress
annually. The new employee would start at step one and progress to step two six months from date of hire. The
candidates would progress through the steps in accordance with the Mounds View Personnel Manual. This will
be a non-union, non-exempt position.
If the City Council is in agreement with hiring two Part time Cable TV Assistant/Technicians, then Staff will start
the process of hiring. Here is the proposed hiring schedule:
Advertising: Star Tribune or Pioneer Press: Aug 20th edition (Sunday)
Bulletin: August 23rd edition
Post on LMC and City Website: August 15th
Deadline for Applications: September 5th at 430pm
Processing Applications: September 6th
Start Interviews: Sept 8th, Sept 11th and Sept 12th
Top Candidates: September 15th
Discuss Top Candidates: Mounds View Cable Committee September 18th
Auth to Hire Top Candidate: September 25th City Council Meeting
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approving Resolution 6913 to authorize Staff to hire a top-candidate for one of the two Cable
Assistant Positions. In addition, staff is also recommending authorization to hire Dave Olsen, to fill the other
position as Cable Assistant as indicated in Resolution 6914.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree Crane
RESOLUTION NO. 6913
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE HIRING OF A CABLE TV ASSISTANT/TECHNICIAN
FOR THE CABLE DEPARTMENT
WHEREAS, in the past, the City had retained the services of at least two part-time
Cable TV Assistant/Technicians in addition to the Cable Coordinator; and
WHEREAS, due to the recent vacancy in this position, staff reviewed the hiring
process and wage schedule and found that there was no documentation for this job in terms
of a position description, wage schedule, or Council authorization to hire; and
WHEREAS, Cable TV Assistant/Technician would be a part time position that would
not exceed 20 hours a week, and would not be eligible to receive City benefits; and
WHEREAS, In consideration of the market for this type of job, the proposed
step progression is as follows:
Step One: $12.00/hour
Step Two: $12.75/hour
Step Three: $13.51/hour
Step Four: $14.25/hour
Step Five: $15.00/hour; and
WHEREAS, the selected candidate will be offered a position starting at Step 1 for that
position as provided for in the current Mounds View Personnel Manual.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds
View, that Staff is authorized to take the necessary steps to fill the Cable TV
Assistant/Technician position, according to the conditions and provisions listed above.
Adopted this 14th day of August, 2006.
____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST: ____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
RESOLUTION NO. 6914
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
HIRING DAVE OLSEN AS A PART-TIME CABLE TV ASSISTANT/TECHNICIAN
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has given direction to hire for the
Cable Assistant/Technician position; and
WHEREAS, due to the recent vacancy in this position, staff reviewed the hiring
process and wage schedule and found that there was no documentation for this job in terms
of a position description, wage schedule, or Council authorization to hire; and
WHEREAS , Cable TV Assistant/Technician would be a part time position that
would not exceed 20 hours a week, and would not be eligible to receive City benefits; and
WHEREAS, Dave Olsen has been employed by the City as a Part-Time Cable
Technician since July 30, 1999; and
WHEREAS, it is recommended that Dave Olsen be officially hired to fill the
position and would start with the City at Step 4 ($14.25/hr) of the pay range.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council
does hereby approve Resolution 6914, hiring Dave Olsen as the Cable TV
Assistant/Technician.
Adopted this 14th day of August, 2006.
______________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No: 10B2
Meeting Date: 08/14/08
Type of Business: Reports
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Report on Progress Toward Goals
On February 6th and 7th, 2006, the city council and department heads held a “leadership – planning – team building” retreat.
This strategic planning session resulted in the subsequent adoption of a City Vision and Mission Statement, Goals
Program, Values Statement, Rules of Conduct, and Action Plan.
An important part of the plan was to provide a periodic update of the City’s progress towards its goals, along with a year-
end review and evaluation.
Attached is a copy of the 2006 – 2007 Action Plan with a review of the current status of the various action steps.
CITY COUNCIL AND CITY STAFF
2006 – 2007 ACTION PLAN
ADOPTED FEBRUARY 13, 2006
Goal 1: Follow through on City goals with better execution and implementation
Staff Leader: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
ACTION STEPS TARGET
DATE(S)
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE
ACTION STATUS
Identify goals February 2006 City Council/staff Completed – February 2006
Justify goals February – May
2006 w/ Constant
monitoring
City Council/staff Ongoing
Action Plan February 2006 w/
Constant
monitoring
Staff – K. Ulrich Completed – February 2006
Develop Timelines February 2006 w/
Constant
monitoring
Staff – K. Ulrich Completed – February 2006
Take Action/Implement February 2006 w/
Constant
monitoring
City Council – Vote Completed – February 2006
and ongoing
Goal 2: Improve the City’s street and utilities infrastructure and develop a
financing plan for these improvements
2A. Construction Program
Staff Leader: Greg Lee, Public Works Director
ACTION STEPS TARGET DATE(S) PERSON
RESPONSIBLE
ACTION STATUS
Hold neighborhood meetings March 15 – 31, 2006 Greg Lee Completed – April 13th
Narrow and define project April 10, 2006 City Council Action Completed – 6 areas reviewed, 3
areas to be selected on May 22nd
Order feasibility report April 24, 2006 City Council Action Completed - May 22nd
Hold neighborhood meetings: citizen input
and information
May 22 – 31, 2006 Greg Lee Completed - Meeting held on June
15th
Feasibility report due November 1, 2006 Greg Lee
Neighborhood meetings: present report to
residents
November 1 – 10, 2006 Greg Lee
Council approves report, holds public hearing,
orders project and authorizes plans and specs
December 11, 2006 City Council
Approve plans and specs/ set bid date April 9, 2007 City Council
Receive bids May 14, 2007 City Council
Hold assessment hearing and award contract June 11, 2007 City Council
Start construction of Phase 1 June 18, 2007 Greg Lee
Hold neighborhood meetings for 2009 – 2010
construction projects
October 1 – 19, 2007 Greg Lee
2B. Financing Plan
Staff Leader: Mark Beer, Finance Director
ACTION STEPS TARGET
DATE(S)
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE
ACTION STATUS
Analyze financing options (e.g., tax levy, TIF, Bonding,
assessment, Levy Reduction Fund, Street Improvement Fund,
utility funds)
March 6, 2006 Mark Beer Completed
Narrow and define financing options April 3, 2006 City Council Completed April 3rd
Seek public input at town meeting April 29, 2006 Mark Beer Completed
Finalize financing plan May 8, 2006 City Council action Completed - May 22nd
Implement into current street project June 2007 Mark Beer Completed (CIP & 5 Yr Financial
Plan), ongoing with projects
Goal 3: Finalize and implement the redevelopment and revitalization plan for
County Highway 10
Staff Leader: Greg Lee, Public Works Director
ACTION STEPS TARGET
DATE(S)
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE
ACTION STATUS
Define project and prioritize segments February 27,
2006
City Council Completed
Reintroduce plans to public at neighborhood meeting March 9, 2006 Greg Lee Completed
Update report to Council regarding neighborhood meeting March 27, 2006 Greg Lee Completed
Approve feasibility report and order plans and specs April 10, 2006 Greg Lee Ordered April 24th – To be
completed and approved June 12th
Presentation at town hall meeting April 29, 2006 Greg Lee Completed
Active Living Ramsey County walkability workshop May 11, 2006 Heidi Heller Completed - Held on May 11th
Approve plans and specs August 14, 2006 City Council action Schedule for Phase 1 – Trail
between Long Lake Rd and Silver
Lake Road:
October 23, 2006
Accept bids August 28, 2006 City Council action November 16, 2006
Award contract August 28, 2006 City Council Action November 27, 2006
Begin Construction September 11,
2006
Contractor December 11, 2006
Goal 4: Develop an economic development philosophy, including alternatives to
TIF to stimulate economic development, address TIF issues and develop a revised
TIF policy
A. Economic Development Policy
Staff Leader: Jim Ericson, Community Development Director
ACTION STEPS TARGET
DATE(S)
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE
ACTION STATUS
Review current economic development policies (e.g.,
TIF, business subsidy, tax abatement).
March 6, 2006 Jim Ericson Completed
Review and discuss recommended changes to current
policies.
April 3, 2006 Jim Ericson Completed
Develop an economic development philosophy. May 1, 2006 City Council/EDA Completed
Introduce draft ED policy for feedback/review May 12, 2006 Jim Ericson Completed
Adoption of City ED policy June 12, 2006 City Council Action Final Draft reviewed by Council
July 10th – Referred to EDC for
additional comments
Revise City comprehensive plan. April 2007 Jim Ericson
B. TIF Policy
Staff Leader: Jim Ericson, Community Development Director
ACTION STEPS TARGET
DATE(S)
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE
ACTION STATUS
Review TIF Numbers - financing discussion with
regard to other projects.
March 6, 2006 Jim Ericson Completed
Define questions: decide what City should include in
TIF policy.
March 13, 2006 City Council action Completed
Integrate into other City policies (e.g., economic April 3, 2006 Jim Ericson Ongoing
development policy, street financing, housing stock
rehabilitation).
Review recommendations from staff (review other
city’s policies).
May 8, 2006 City Council Ongoing
Finalize TIF policy. May 22, 2006 City Council action Final Draft reviewed by Council
July 10th – Referred to EDC for
additional comments
Goal 5: Improve communications with the public
Staff Leader: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
ACTION STEPS TARGET
DATE(S)
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE
ACTION STATUS
Hire Communications Coordinator. March 27, 2006 City Council Action Completed
Develop clear expectations for Communications
Coordinator
May 1, 2006 City Council Completed
Monitor performance of communications Quarterly City Council Ongoing
Review responsibilities and define communications
action plan (web site, news letter, newspaper, web-
streaming, cable TV productions)
June 5, 2006 Communications
Coordinator
Completed
Monitor Council meeting performance: listen with
open mind, be polite, and consider additional town
hall meetings.
On-going City Council Ongoing
Goal 6: Continue to provide quality service with limited resources
Staff Leader: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
ACTION STEPS TARGET
DATE(S)
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE
ACTION STATUS
Continue to upgrade technology. Continuous Kurt Ulrich Ongoing – e.g., financial software,
cable TV
Continue to hire good, qualified people. Continuous City Council Ongoing – e.g., Cable Coordinator,
Police Officers, Building Insp.
Provide positive work environment. Continuous Kurt Ulrich Ongoing – e.g., City Hall
Continue to innovate in providing service delivery. Continuous Kurt Ulrich Ongoing – e.g., webstreaming,
automatic utility bill payment
Investigate performance measurement options. 3rd Quarter, 2006 Kurt Ulrich
Goal 7: Keep property taxes as low as possible and enhance the City’s financial
resources
A. Property Tax
Staff Leader: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
ACTION STEPS TARGET
DATE(S)
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE
ACTION STATUS
Continue to review budgets on a regular basis. Ongoing Kurt Ulrich Ongoing
Develop list of City service priorities e.g., wants vs.
needs).
June 5, 2006 Completed – June 5, 2006
Establish budget targets. July 3, 2006 City Council Completed – June 5, 2006
Establish preliminary property tax levy. September 11,
2006
City Council
Establish final tax levy after public hearing. December 11,
2006
City Council
B. Financial Resources
Staff Leader: Mark Beer, Finance Director
ACTION STEPS TARGET
DATE(S)
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE
ACTION STATUS
Seek additional grant applications. Ongoing Mark Beer Ongoing
Redevelop and upgrade property within the City. Ongoing Jim Ericson Ongoing
Evaluate and enhance fees and charges. Ongoing Mark Beer Ongoing
Utilize technology. Ongoing Department heads Ongoing
Contract for service. Ongoing Department heads Ongoing
Develop partnerships with other governments and/or
private sector.
Ongoing Kurt Ulrich Ongoing
Goal 8: Develop a five-year capital improvement plan and to plan for parks and
recreation.
Staff Leader: Greg Lee, Public Works Director
ACTION STEPS TARGET
DATE(S)
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE
ACTION STATUS
Implement current CIP into annual budget/work plans. January 2006 Greg Lee Completed
Conduct parks needs analysis. May 2006 Greg Lee Completed - May 2006
Work session: review updated CIP plan. June 5, 2006 City Council Completed
Conduct public hearings and approve 5-yr CIP June 26, 2006 City Council action Completed – August 14, 2006
Review and approve long-term plan. July 24, 2006 City Council action Completed – August 14, 2006
Integrate CIP into annual budget. August 2006 and
annually
Mark Beer Ongoing
Goal 9: Improve the City’s effectiveness in the delivery of services.
Staff Leader: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
ACTION STEPS TARGET
DATE(S)
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE
ACTION STATUS
Adopt new technologies. Ongoing Kurt Ulrich Ongoing – e.g., financial software,
cable TV
On-line bill pay. 3rd quarter 2006 Mark Beer Currently under review
Alternate forms of payment (e.g., e-commerce). 4th quarter 2006 Mark Beer
Goal 10: Make the Community Center self-sufficient
Staff Leader: Kurt Ulrich
ACTION STEPS TARGET
DATE(S)
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE
ACTION STATUS
Form task force to review options. January 2006 Kurt Ulrich Completed
Task force submits report to Council. March 6, 2006 Task Force Completed
Solicit public input. April 29, 2006
and other dates
City Council Completed