HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2006/04/04
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA
NEW BRIGHTON CITY HALL
Monday, April 3, 2006
7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, Thomas
PUBLIC COMMENT
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.
Agenda Items Discussed by Consensus
_______ 1. Charter Commission
A. Discuss Recommended Changes from the Charter Commission in regard
to Chapter 7 of the City Charter (Jonathan Thomas)
_______ 2. Community Development
A. Environmental Processing Center Presentation and Discussion
B. Review Draft of Ordinance 771, an Ordinance Amending Chapters 502 and
503 Regarding Liquor Licenses
C. Review Draft of Ordinance 769, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1008 of
the Municipal Code Relating to Signs and Billboards
D. Consider Request of Mr. Brian Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, Regarding
Enforcement of Building Code Provisions
_______ 3. Public Works
A. County Road 10 Corridor Improvement Program – Review Draft Capital
Improvement Program
B. Infrastructure Improvement Program – General plan and schedule
_________ 4. Administration
A. Compensation Study/Pay Equity RFP Results
B. Discuss Closing City Hall on May 5, 2006 to move from the Mounds View
Community Center to Mounds View City Hall.
C. Discuss Ways of Thanking the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Department,
YMCA, New Brighton City Hall, Spring Lake Park City Hall, Roseville City IT
Department for facility support.
D. Discuss Draft of the 2nd Annual Town Hall Meeting Agenda
E. Revised Fee Schedule and Leases for the Community Center
F. Executive Session following this meeting to discuss LELS Police Officers
Union Contract.
Next Work Session: Monday, May 1, 2006 @7pm
Next City Council Meeting: Monday, April 10, 2006 @7pm
Charter Commission
Chair
Jonathan J Thomas
763-784-5205
Vice Chair
2nd Vice Chair
Jean Miller
763-786-3959
Secretary
Brian Amundsen
763-786-5699
Bill Doty
763-786-3421
Matthew Eenigenburg
763-783-7216
William Mori
763-784-3645
Barbara Thomas
763-780-6226
William Werner Sr
763-784-3603
Resolution No. 2005-02
Mounds View Charter Commission
Dated Feb 10,2005
Whereas, the Mounds View Charter Commission is reviewing the lists of past requests
for housekeeping and clarification updates to sections of the Mounds View Charter that
have caused confusion or seem to be semantically incorrect.
The Mounds View Charter Commission acting under Minnesota Statute 410.12
Subdivision 7, recommends the following amendments by the addition of the bold and
double underlined language and by the deletion of the bold and stricken language. The
Mounds View Charter Commission requests the City Council adopt by ordinance those
items it is in unanimous agreement with. We also request a response within 60 days with
recommendations for modifications to any item that the City Council deems not
acceptable as presented.
Objectives:
1) In 7.04 update language to reference Minnesota Statutes requirements and incorporate
recommendations of League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) "Model Charter". Section
should additionally address inputs from Charlie Hansen, Finance Director, City of
Mounds View and provide calendar or time line for the City's tax and budget process
which can be understood by the public.
2) In 7.05 update publication methods to include City's web site.
3) In 7.06. subd. 01 Change September requirement for public hearing to be a simple
reference requiring compliance with the Minnesota Statutes pertaining to Truth in
Taxation for timing but retain the requirement to hold a public meeting even if
Minnesota Statutes would not require it. Also remove the word "monthly" as it is not
consistent with other references to "regular council meetings." Address ambiguity of
"object level" etc. per Charlie Hansen's Memo of November 13, 2002
4) In 7.06. subd. 02 Change to "two week" time line to be something more easily
complied with and in compliance with Minnesota Statutes. Add usage of City's web
site for publishing purposes.
5) In 7.06. subd. 03 incorporate recommendation from LMC to have a fall back
budget in cases of delay in approval of budget by new fiscal year starting.
6) In 7.07 incorporate the management method and procedures of the Mounds View
Purchasing Manual for accountability of managing department budget expenditures
7) In 7.08 clarify that Section 7.12 does not conflict with budget alterations and who may
approve alterations at which budget levels.
8) In 7.10 incorporate the Minnesota Statutes reference as originally prescribed by charter
and update for City web site notification.
9) In 7.12. incorporate LMC recommendation for emergency debt limits and Delete
redundant Subdivision 2.
The nine sections recommended for consideration with this resolution are attached by
section and recommended for adoption individually or as a group at the discretion of the
Mounds City Council. Intended final language attached for ease of readability.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________________________
Jonathan J Thomas, Chair Brian Amundsen, Secretary
Resolution 2005-02 Page2
Section 7.04. Submission of Budget.
Subdivision 1. Annually, on or before the 15th calendar day of September of each year or as
specified by MN Statute 275.065, as amended, the Clerk-Administrator shall submit to the Council the
budget estimates for funds levying property taxes for the ensuing fiscal year and an accompanying
summary message in accordance with a budget calendar to be established by resolution.
The final budget shall provide a complete financial plan for all City funds and activities for the
ensuing fiscal year and except as required by state law or this Charter, shall be in such form as the Council
may require. It shall include a summary and show in detail all estimated income and all proposed
expenditures, including debt service and comparative figures for the current fiscal year, actual and
estimated, and the preceding year. In addition to showing proposed expenditures for current operations, it
shall show proposed capital expenditures to be made during the year and the proposed method of financing
each such capital expenditure. The total proposed operating budget to be provided from the property tax
shall not exceed the amounts authorized by state law and this Charter. Consistent with these provisions, the
budget shall contain such information and be in the form prescribed by ordinance and by state law. the
City Council.
Subdivision 2. For each utility enterprise operated by the City, its proposed and final budgets shall
show income, expenditure, and anticipated net surplus or deficit and with the proposed disposition method.
of its disposition.; and subsidiary budgets for each such utility giving income and expenditure information
shall be included or attached as appendices.
Subdivision 3. The Clerk-Administrator's message shall explain the budget, both in fiscal terms
and in terms of the work programs, linking programs to goals of the City and community priorities. It
shall outline the proposed financial policies and programs of the City for the ensuing fiscal year and the
impact of those policies and programs compared to the City's current five-year plan, as adopted by the
City Council. It shall describe the important features of the budget, indicate any major changes in
financial policies, expenditures, and revenues together with the reasons for such changes. It shall
summarize the City's debt position for each fund, including factors affecting the ability to raise resources
through debt issues, and include such other material as the Clerk-Administrator deems desirable or as
requested by the City Council
Resolution 2005-02 Page3
Subdivision 04. Budget Planning Guideline The purpose of this section is to provide the public
with general time table for the annual budget process. The dates are guidelines and subject to change by
the City Council and MN Statute 275.065, as amended.
Activity Estimated Time Period
Five-Year Plan: Development Jan. 1 to May 1
Five-Year Plan: Public Review May 1 to May 20
Five-Year Plan: Council Approval May 20 to June 1
Annual Budget Calendar: Adopted by Council June 1
Five-Year Plan: Published to Public June 1 to Aug. 1
Annual Budget: Public Input to Department June 1 to Sept 1
Annual Budget: Clerk-Administrator Develops
Summary and Estimate Proposal for Council Aug. 1 to Sept. 15
Annual Budget: Estimates Submitted to Council Sept. 15
Annual Budget: Proposal and Tax Levy Estimates
Council Adoption Sept. 15
Annual Budget: Council Review and Amend Sept. 15 to Nov 23
Annual Budget and Tax Levy: Proposal
Published to Public Sept. 15 to Dec. 1
Annual Budget and Tax Levy: Public Review Sept..15 to Dec. 20
Annual Budget: Public Hearing Advertised Nov.
Annual Budget and Tax Levy: Initial Public Hearing Nov. 29 to Dec. 20
Annual Budget and Tax Levy: Council Adoption Dec. 5 to Dec. 20
Annual Budget and Tax Levy: Final Council
Budget Summary Published to Public Dec. 20 to Feb. 1
Resolution 2005-02 Page4
Section 7.05 Long Term Five-Year Financial Plan.
Subdivision 1. The City Council shall have prepared a long-termfive-year financial plan
commencing in thewith the ensuing calendar year. 1980. The City Council shall hold a public hearing on
the long-termfive-year financial plan and adopt it by ordinance, with or without amendment, by June 1st of
each year. The financial plan shall consist of at least the following four elements as specified in
subdivisions 2-5 which follow:
Subdivision 2. The Public Service Element Program. Therogram shall be contain a continuing
five-year plan for all public services, estimating future needs for the public health, safety and welfare of the
City. It shall measure the objectives and needs for each City department, the standard of services desired,
and the impact of each such service on the annual operating budget.
Subdivision 3. The Capital Improvement Element . This program shall consist of projects and
facilities that are or will be needed by the City in carrying out the anticipated program of public services. It
shall includecontain a list of all capital improvements proposed to be undertaken during the next five fiscal
years, with appropriate supporting information as to the necessity for such improvements; cost estimate,
method of financing and recommended time schedule for each such improvement; and the estimated annual
cost of operating and maintaining the facilities to be constructed or acquired. This information shall be
revised and extended each year for capital improvements still pending or in process.
Subdivision 4. A -Long-TermFive-Year Revenue Element. This program shall contain consist of a
tentative revenue policy that which that describes five-year long-term plans for financing public services
and capital improvements.
Subdivision 5. The Capital Budget Element . This program shall be a summary on the basis of a
five-year period of the capital or money requirements for the above-described programs. It shall list a
priority for each anticipated investment in community facilities and balance this with a consideration of the
availability of necessary revenues.
Subdivision 6. A summary of the long-termfive year financial plan shall be published in the City
newsletter annually. before August 1st each year in the official City newspaper, the City newsletter, and, if
available, the City web site .
Resolution 2005-02 Page5
Section 7.06. Council Action on Budget.
Subdivision 1. The Council shall annually adopt a budget calendar by June 1st. The calendar
will establish the time line for development and submission of the budget and allow for public review
and comment in accordance with this Charter, the City Council, and MN Statute 275.065, as amended.
The budget shall be considered at the first regular monthly meeting of the Council in September and at
subsequent meetings until a budget is adopted for the ensuing year. The budget calendar will provide a
30-day period for public review and input to the annual budget prior to final approval by the City
Council. The meetings shall be so conducted as to give interested citizens a reasonable opportunity to be
heard. The Council may revise the proposed budget but no amendment to the budget shall increase the
authorized expenditures to an amount greater than the sum of estimated income. and reserves. The Council
shall adopt the budget by a resolution that shall set forth the total for each budgeted fund and each
department. with such segregation as to as to objects and purposes of expenditures as the Council deems
necessary for puposes of budget control. The budget shall indicate the sums to be raised and from what
sources and the sums to be spent and for what pupose as the Council deems necessary for establishing the
budget. The Council shall also adopt a resolution levying the amount of taxes provided in the budget, and
the Clerk-Administrator shall certify the tax resolution to the County Auditor in accordance with state law.
Adoption of the budget resolution shall constitute appropriations at the beginning of the fiscal year of the
sums fixed in the resolution of the several purposes named.
Subdivision 2. At least two weeks bAs specified by MN Statute 275.065, as amended, before the
budget is adopted for the ensuing fiscal year a summary shall be given, in the City Nesletter, in draft form,
of the budget a public hearing notice and summary of the proposed budget will be published in the official
City newspaper, the City Newsletter and, if available, the City web site. Such summary shall be set forth
in language designed to should be readily understoodunderstandable by the layperson, and shallshould
provide appropriate supporting information as to the necessity for any increase in the budget over the total
for the current fiscal year. , but failure Failure to provide the specified summary will not invalidate the
budget.
The final budget will be published in accordance with Minnesota Statutes on Truth in Taxation
or no later than 60 days after adoption by the Council in the official City newspaper, the City newsletter
and, if available, the City web site.
Subdivision 3. If the Council fails to adopt the budget by the beginning of the next fiscal year,
the preceding months fiscal year budget shall go into effect for up to thirty-one (31) days or until the
Council adopts a budget.
Resolution 2005-02 Page6
Section 7.07. Enforcement of the Budget.
The Clerk-Administrator may designate department heads or other staff who may assist with each
fund or department in the annual budget. It shall be the duty of the Clerk-Administrator to strictly enforce
the detail provisions of the budget. The City Council shall strictly enforce strictly the provisions of the
budget. ItThe City Council shall not authorize any payment or the incurring of any obligation by the City,
unless an appropriation has been made in the budget resolution, and there is a sufficient unexpended
balance after deducting the total past expenditures and encumbrances against the appropriation. No officer
or employee of the City shall place any order or make any purchase except for a purpose and to unless the
amount is authorized in the budget resolution. and in compliance with; the purchasing policies of the City
as established by the City Council, the City Charter, the City Code, and Minnesota Statutes. Any
obligation incurred by any person in the employ of the City for any purpose not authorized in the budget
resolution, or for any amount in excess of the amount authorized, shall be a personal obligation upon the
person incurring the obligation. No check shall be issued or transfer made to any account other than one
owned by the City until the claim to which it relates has been supported by an itemized bill, payroll, or time
sheet or other document approved and signed by the responsible City officer who vouches for its
correctness and reasonableness.
Section 7.08. Alterations in the Budget.
After the budget resolution has been adopted, the Council may amend the budget by resolution, but
shall not increase the amounts fixed in the resolution beyond the sum of estimated receipts and reserves,
except to the extent that actual receipts exceed the estimate or to implement Section 7.12 herein. At
anytime the Council may, by resolution approved by a majority of its members, reduce the sums
appropriated for any purpose by the budget resolution, to increase reserves or authorize the transfer of
sums from unencumbered balances of appropriations in the budget. resolution to other purposes
Section 7.09. Funds. (no changes)
Section 7.10. City Indebtedness.
Subdivision 1. Except as provided in Sections 7.11 and 7.12, no obligation shall be issued to pay
current expenses, but the Council may issue and sell obligations for any other municipal purpose in
accordance with state law and within the limitations prescribed by law. Except in the case of obligations
for which an election is not required by this Chapter or by state law, no such obligations shall be issued and
sold without the approval of the majority of the voters voting on the question at a general or special
election.
Subdivision 2. A description of each such proposed issue shall be published in the official City
newspaper, the City Newsletter, and , if available, the City web site, but failure to give such description, or
any defect in the description, shall not invalidate the issue.
Resolution 2005-02 Page7
Section 7.11. 1. Anticipation Certificates.
At anytime after January 1, in accordance with MN Statute 412.261, as amended, with the following
restrictions; the Council may issue certificates of indebtedness in anticipation of state and federal aids and
the collection of taxes levied the previous year for any fund and not yet collected. The total amount of
certificates issued against any fund for any year together with interest thereon until maturity shall not
exceed 90% of the total state and federal aids and current taxes due to the fund and uncollected at the time
of issuance. Such certificates shall be issued on such terms and conditions as the Council may determine,
but they shall become due not later than April 1August 1st of the year following their issuance. The
proceeds of the tax levied and such state or federal aids as the governing body may have allocated for the
fund against which tax anticipation certificates are issued, and the full faith and credit of the City shall be
irrevocably pledged for the redemption of the certificates.
Section 7.12. Emergency Debt Certificates.
Subdivision 1. If in any year the receipt from taxes, availability of reserves, or other sources
should for some unforeseen cause become insufficient for the ordinary expenses of the City, or if any
calamity or other public emergency necessitates the making of extraordinary expenditures, the Council may
by ordinance issue, on such terms and in such manner as the Council determines, emergency debt
certificates not to exceed 10% of the total City budget and to run not to exceed three years. A tax Taxes
sufficient to pay principal and interest on such certificates with the margin required by law shall be levied as
required by law. The ordinance authorizing the issue of such emergency debt certificates shall state the
nature of the emergency and be approved by at least three members of the Council. It may be passed as an
emergency ordinance.
Subdivision 2. A description of each such proposed certificate shall be published in the City
Newsletter, but failure to give such description, or any defect in the description, shall not invalidate the
certificate.
Item No. 01A
Type of Business: WK
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: Desaree Crane, Administrative Assistant to
Administration
Item Title/Subject: Discuss Recommended Changes from the Charter
Commission in regard to Chapter 7 of the City Charter,
Jonathan Thomas will be present at this meeting to discuss the changes to Chapter 7 of the
Mounds View City Charter. Attached is Charter Commission Resolution 2005-02, which
outlines the recommended changes to Chapter 7.
If the City Council is in agreement with these changes, Staff will prepare an Ordinance outlining
these changes. The First Reading is scheduled for the April 10, 2006, City Council Meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree Crane
Item No: 2A
Meeting Date: April 3, 2006
Type of Business: Information
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mounds View City Council
From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Environmental Processing Center at 4889 Old
Highway 8 Presentation and Discussion;
Planning Case No. CU2006-001
Introduction:
The applicant, Merlin Brisbin of Star Environmental, Inc., has applied for a conditional use
permit to allow for an Environmental Processing Center, which would be located at 4889 Old
Highway 8. This is the site of the current Skyline Motel, which is zoned “Industrial” and
encompasses three lots for a total of approximately 2.85 acres. The applicant has a signed
purchase agreement with the owners of the motel. The applicant would demolish the existing
building and is proposing to construct approximately an 11,200 square foot building which
would include 10,000 square feet for the processing center and 1,200 square feet office and
research & development space, and an exterior bio-filter which would be underground with
the top being at ground level.
Discussion:
This Environmental Processing Center is designed in response to the Metropolitan Council
Environmental Service’s need to change the way industrial and household liquid wastes are
managed. This Center will include a receiving and processing facility that uses leading
technology to dewater liquid waste in a clean and odor-controlled environment. The
dewatering process produces a non-toxic, dry by-product ready for reuse or disposal. The
filtrate water will be returned to the Metropolitan Council’s collection system, aiding their
downstream processing. According to numerous Environmental Protection Agency
documents, utilizing recyclable components of wastewater is preferred and will significantly
lower costs for local and state governments.
Mounds View was chosen as a location for Star Environmental because they need to locate
within a 15 mile radius of the Met Council receiving sites. Mounds View is within that radius
for four of the Met Council’s current receiving sites.
The proposed business would be located on Old Highway 8 on the edge of the Mounds View
Industrial Park. This part of the City and the neighboring area of New Brighton is entirely an
industrial area with the exception of the manufactured home park on the north end. A natural
vegetative buffer does separate the industrial area from the manufactured home park. There
are no properties across the street since 35W/Highway 10 run next to Old Highway 8 in this
area. The processing center would be an attractive, newly constructed building which would
be an improvement over the existing building on the site. The applicant will have invested
about $5.5 million into this project when completed. A processing center would be much more
in line for the area than the current use of an aging and deteriorating motel. The motel
generates many police calls and problems, so the removal of this blighted property would
improve the safety of the entire area, including the manufactured home park that is located
north of this site.
Traffic counts on Old Highway 8 are 6,800 vehicles per day, so even at the peak traffic time in
October, this business would only increase traffic on Old Highway 8 by a little over one
percent. The trucks that come to this business would drive completely into the building to
unload and the property would be set up for truck staging on-site. Each truck only takes 7-10
minutes to unload, so there would not be trucks waiting for long periods of time outside. This
area already has high truck traffic due to the existing businesses in the industrial park, so
additional traffic going to this new business would not be out of place. The site is located on
Old Highway 8 which has good access to nearby highways and freeways.
The applicant has owned and operated the “Sewerman” business for over 25 years and
understands the need for this type of business in Minnesota. The Metropolitan Council
currently operates the stations for septage discharging and treatment in the metro area, but
they have plans to begin closing the receiving sites beginning in 2009. The product that is
discharged at these stations must go through a pre-treatment process in order to remove
paper, plastic, and anything else that cannot be part of the regular treatment process of
septage. This is an expensive extra step that must be done because things that should not be
in the sewer system do get put into it, which then clogs and deteriorates pipes. The Met
Council would like to open up this “pre-treatment” process to private businesses in order to
reduce the Met Council’s costs for water treatment and pipe maintenance and repair. There is
great potential for the environmental processing industry and Star Environmental would also
include a research & development piece. This would be a state of the art facility, and would
be the first one in Minnesota and the first of this exact model in the United States.
Public Input:
A public hearing will be held when this Conditional Use Permit application goes to the
City Council for approval on April 10, 2006. Staff and the applicant held a neighborhood
meeting on Thursday, March 30 at the Towns Edge Manufactured Home Park to talk to
the park residents about the proposed project.
Concerns:
Both staff and the Planning Commissioners have concerns regarding odor, noise and traffic.
The noise concern hasn’t generated much discussion and since all the equipment will be
indoors and the trucks will be unloading indoors, there shouldn’t be much noise from the
business. Old Highway 8 has high traffic counts and includes a lot of truck traffic due to the
trucking firms in our industrial park. Industrial areas generate a lot of traffic and this business
would only add about 1% of additional traffic during peak time in October. The septic trucks
that will be coming to the site are completely sealed and don’t allow any leakage.
Bio-filter tour:
On Wednesday, March 29, 2006, several city staff, two Planning Commissioners (Herb Zwirn
and Gary Meehlhause) and one City Council member (Sherry Gunn) went to a Met Council lift
station in Woodbury where they have a large sewer interceptor with a 60 inch pipe coming in
and then running to Cottage Grove. Leo Hermes from the Met Council met us there along
with Mr. Brisbin. They use a bio-filter to eliminate odor just like what Star Environmental is
proposing. We wanted to see what they looked like, how they operated, and if they did indeed
eliminate odors. There are pictures of the bio-filter included in this report. It looks like a
landscaping garden with woodchips and no plants. There was no bad odor anywhere outside.
People even got down to smell the top of the bio-filter where the woodchips are, and there is
no smell other than the woodsy odor of the woodchips. Inside the lift station building there
also were no foul odors.
Staff Report
Star Environmental
Page 2
Planning Commission Action:
On Wednesday, March 15, 2006, the Planning Commission heard the applicant’s request for a
Conditional Use Permit. At this meeting, Mr. Brisbin gave his presentation and we had quite a
bit of discussion about this type of business and how it operates. A representative from MFRA
engineering who is designing the bio-filter was at the meeting, along with Leo Hermes,
Manager of the Industrial Waste Division with the Met Council. The Planning Commission did
recommend approval of the CUP by a 6-1 vote after adding language to the resolution for
reviewing the CUP annually, and if odor at the facility becomes a problem, summary
abatement proceedings may be initiated.
Summary:
This is an opportunity to have private investment of a site that the City has long desired to
redevelop, and Merlin Brisbin has been able to negotiate a purchase agreement with the
owners of the Skyline Motel. At full running capacity, Star Environmental, Inc. anticipates to
have 8-9 employees.
Merlin Brisbin, the applicant and business owner, will make a presentation at the April 3rd
City Council Worksession in order to better explain how this processing center will function,
and the need for this type of business in the metro area. Representatives from MFRA
engineering firm and the Metropolitan Council will also be present.
Respectfully submitted,
Heidi Heller
Planning Associate
Attachments:
1. Letter of Approval & Support from the Metropolitan Council
2. Zoning Map
3. Aerial View
4. Comp Plan Future Land Use Map
5. Photographic Documentation
6. Resolution 828-06
7. Flyer about an Environmental Processing Center business
8. Site plans – separate attachment
Letter of Approval & Support
from the Metropolitan Council
Staff Report
Star Environmental
Page 3
Letter from Met Council about closing their disposal sites
Aerial View
Zoning Map
Comp Plan Map
Photographic Documentation
Front of motel - facing Old Highway 8
South side of motel
Bio-filter at lift station in Woodbury
The Bio-filter is the woodchips on the ground
with a couple of pipes sticking up.
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 828-06
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
ALLOW FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSING CENTER AT 4889 OLD
HIGHWAY 8; PLANNING CASE NO. CU2006-001
WHEREAS, Merlin Brisbin, Star Environmental, Inc. has applied for a conditional
use permit to allow for an environmental processing center; and,
WHEREAS, the three subject properties, located at 4889 Old Highway 8, are zoned
I-1, Industrial, and are legally described as follows:
See Exhibit A
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows manufacturing,
compounding, processing, packaging or treatment of cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and food
products and the rendering or refining of fats and oils as a conditional use in Industrial
districts; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents
regarding this proposal:
1. Staff Report
2. Application
3. Letter of Approval & Support from the Metropolitan Council
4. Zoning Map
5. Aerial View
6. Comp Plan Future Land Use Map
7. Photographic Documentation
8. Resolution 828-06
9. Flyer about an Environmental Processing Center business
10. Proposed Site Plans
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Resolution 828-06
Page 2
Commission makes the following findings of fact related to the conditional use permit
request:
1. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the Comprehensive Plan encourages new business in Mounds View. 2. The proposed environmental processing center would not be out of place given the character and geography of the surrounding area involved and the size of the subject property which is able to accommodate the facility.
3. The proposed Environmental Processing Center would not depreciate the
surrounding area.
4. The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed
business.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the 11,200 square foot
environmental processing center, with conditions as follows:
1. The applicant shall consolidate parcels, if such action is required by the City
Attorney.
2. The applicant shall apply for a Development Review prior to construction of
the facility.
3. The applicant shall adhere at all times to Section 607 of the City Code in
regards to nuisances; particularly regarding Noise, Section 607.08, and Odor,
Section 607.03. If, in the opinion of the City Council, odor at the facility
becomes a problem, summary abatement proceedings may be initiated.
4. The Conditional Use Permit may be reviewed on an annual basis.
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 15th day of March, 2006.
_____________________________________
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
____________________________________
James Ericson,
Community Development Director
(SEAL)
EXHIBIT A
Resolution 828-06
Page 3
PARCEL 1:
All that part of the South 175 feet of the North ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of the Northeast ¼
of Section 17, Township 30, North, Range 23 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota, lying
Northeasterly of a line run from a point on the North line of said North ½, 558.78 feet
West from the Northeast corner there to a point on the South line of said North ½,
504.33 feet West of the South corner thereof and lying Southwesterly of a line run from
a point on the North line of said North ½, 385 feet West from the Northeast corner
thereof to a point on the South line of said North ½, 250 feet West from the Southeast
corner thereof, said line being the Southwesterly right-of-way line of S.T.H. #8, except
therefore all that part of the Northeasterly 130 feet measured at right angles from said
right-of-way line thereof lying North of the South 75 feet of said North ½ and except
therefrom the South 30 feet of the said North ½, subject to S.T.H. #8.
PARCEL 2:
A strip of land 130 feet wide measured at right angles Southwesterly of and adjacent to,
a line running Southeasterly from a point on the North line of the Southeast ¼ of the
Northeast ¼ of Section 17, Township 30, Range 23, and 385 feet from the East line of
said Section 17, to a point on the South line of the North ½ of the Southeast ¼ of the
Northeast ¼ of said Section 17 and 250 feet from the East line of said Section 17, and
measuring 132.94 feet on the North line of said Southeast ¼ of Northeast ¼ and
132.92 feet on the South line of said North ½ of the Southeast ¼ of the Northeast ¼
excepting the North 75 feet and the South 75 feet of said tract, containing a total of 1.56
acres, more or less.
PARCEL 3:
All that part of the North ½ of the Southeast ¼ of the Northeast ¼ of Section 17,
Township 30 North, Range 23 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota, lying Northeasterly of
a line run from a point on the North line of said North ½, 558.76 feet West of the
Northeast corner thereof to a point on the South line of said North ½, 504.33 feet West
of the Southeast corner thereof and lying Southwesterly of a line run from a point on the
North line of said North ½, 385 feet West from the Northeast corner thereof to a point
on the South line of said North ½, 250 feet West from the Southeast corner thereof,
said line being the Southwesterly right-of-way line of S.T.H. #8, except therefrom all that
part lying in the South 175 feet of said North ½ and also excepting therefrom all that
part of the Northeasterly 130 feet measured at right angles to said right-of-way line,
lying South of the North 75 feet of said North ½, subject to S.T.H. #8.
Item No. 2B
Meeting Date: April 3, 2006
Type of Business: Work Session
City Administrator Review _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Jim Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Discuss Proposed Amendments to the Liquor Licensing
Provisions in Chapters 502 and 503
Discussion:
Based on direction provided at the December 6, 2005 Council worksession, staff has
prepared an ordinance that amends the liquor licensing provisions of the City Code in
Chapters 502 and 503. The amendments change the code to require that a public hearing
be conducted for every new, transferred or renewed license. This change is recommended
based on feedback from residents who would have wanted to provide input during license
renewals however were not notified of the public hearing. The Council agreed and
indicated that the Code could be amended accordingly.
Also based on direction provided at the same December 6 worksession, the other change
contemplated by the proposed ordinance would be to allow our liquor license facilities to
offer outdoor seating in association with their establishment. The Code would need to be
amended to allow for the outdoor sale and consumption of alcohol in those establishments.
The new language states the following:
Outdoor Consumption Endorsement. A special endorsement may be issued by
the City to the holder of a regular on-sale liquor or on-sale wine license to allow
sales and consumption of liquor or wine outdoors when the outside service area
is immediately adjacent to and contiguous with the licensed premises. The
licensee shall make application for the special endorsement to the City and pay
the annual fee for said special endorsement. The special endorsement may be
issued by the City Council to the licensee by resolution after a public hearing on
the special endorsement is held. The designated outside service area shall not
reduce the number of off-street parking spaces which would be required if the
licensed premises together with the outside service area were to be newly
constructed in conformity with the City’s zoning code. The City may also require
improvements to the outside service area prior to issuing the special
endorsement, including but not limited to, safety barriers or other enclosures to
be placed around the perimeter of the outside service area in order to protect
patrons from any hazards, including vehicular traffic.
Our City Attorney has reviewed the proposed changes and supports the ordinance as
presented.
Ordinance 771
Page 2
The outdoor consumption endorsement would be considered by the City Council with any
new, transferred or renewed license. The applicant would submit along with the other
required information a site plan which would indicate the outdoor area to be utilized for
dining or serving alcohol.
The Council would need to consider whether an additional fee would be imposed or if the
base license would be sufficient. A fee could be charged based upon the additional area
added into the overall square footage of the facility, or there could be a flat “rider” fee such
as what is done for Sunday sales. Staff will contact other cities to determine how much (if
anything) is charged for the outdoor sales and consumption endorsement and will make a
recommendation at the time of ordinance adoption.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Council review the attached ordinance which amends Chapters
502 and 503 relating to public hearings and outdoor consumption.
Respectfully submitted,
James Ericson
Community Development Director
763-717-4021
Attachment:
1. Ordinance 771
ORDINANCE SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. 771
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF MOUNDS VIEW
BY AMENDING CHAPTERS 502 and 503 RELATING TO LIQUOR LICENSES
On _______ 2006, the Mounds View City Council adopted an ordinance which amends
Chapters 502 and 503 of the City Code relating to Liquor Licenses. The changes to the City’s
Liquor License regulations were adopted to require that all liquor license transfers or renewals
would be subject to a public hearing with notice published ten days in advance of the hearing.
The other change is to allow outdoor consumption and sale of alcohol in association with a
licensed premises. Such outdoor area would be immediately adjacent to the premises and
would not take up any required parking spaces among other design and safety requirements.
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/771.pdf.
Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk-Administrator
ORDINANCE NO. 771
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 500, CHAPTERS 501 AND 502 OF THE MOUNDS
VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 502.03, 502.08, 502.11, 503.03
AND 503.08 RELATING TO LIQUOR LICENSING
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Section 502.03 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to “License
Classifications” is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined:
502.03: LICENSE CLASSIFICATIONS:
Subd. 8. Outdoor Consumption Endorsement. A special endorsement may be
issued by the City to the holder of a regular on-sale liquor or on-sale wine license to
allow sales and consumption of liquor or wine outdoors when the outside service
area is immediately adjacent to and contiguous with the licensed premises. The
licensee shall make application for the special endorsement to the City and pay the
annual fee for said special endorsement. The special endorsement may be issued
by the City Council to the licensee by resolution after a public hearing on the special
endorsement is held. The designated outside service area shall not reduce the
number of off-street parking spaces which would be required if the licensed
premises together with the outside service area were to be newly constructed in
conformity with the City’s zoning code. The City may also require improvements to
the outside service area prior to issuing the special endorsement, including but not
limited to, safety barriers or other enclosures to be placed around the perimeter of
the outside service area in order to protect patrons from any hazards, including
vehicular traffic.
SECTION 2. Section 502.08 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to “License
Hearing” is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and the deletion of the
stricken language as follows:
502.08: LICENSE HEARING:
No issuance of a new license, transfer of an existing license, renewal of an existing
license, issuance of temporary special event or banquet licenses, or special outdoor
consumption endorsements for the sale of intoxicating liquor on-sale or off-sale, club,
Sunday sales or on-sale wine shall be hereafter granted by the Council until a public
hearing has been conducted by the Council after published notice in the official
newspaper at least ten (10) days in advance of the hearing. Renewals of existing
licenses issued under this Chapter and the issuance of temporary intoxicating special
event and banquet licenses as defined in Section 502.03, subdivisions 6 and 7 of this
Chapter may be granted by the Council after a public hearing without the requirement
of a prior published notice.
Ordinance 771
Page 2
SECTION 3. Section 502.11 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to “Conduct of
Business, Conditions of License” is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined:
502.11: CONDUCT OF BUSINESS; CONDITIONS OF LICENSE:
Subd. 8. Consumption in Parking Lots: No person may loiter or consume or have in
their possession any bottle or receptacle containing intoxicating or nonintoxicating
liquors on any premises licensed for the on-sale or off-sale of intoxicating liquors while
outside of the building or structure located on the licensed premises, including but not
limited to parking lots, driveways and landscaped areas, as well as steps,
passageways or vestibules located outside of said building or structure, except as
provided by Sections 502.03, Subdivision 8 and 503.03, Subdivision 1 (c). Any person
in violation of this subdivision shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
SECTION 4. Section 503.03, Subd. 1 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
“License Classifications” is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined:
503.03: LICENSE CLASSIFICATIONS:
c. Outdoor Consumption Endorsement. A special endorsement may be issued by
the City to the holder of an on-sale license to allow sales and consumption of 3.2
percent malt liquor outdoors when the outside service area is immediately adjacent
to and contiguous with the licensed premises. The licensee shall make application
for the special endorsement to the City and pay the annual fee for said
endorsement. The special endorsement may be issued by the City Council to the
licensee by resolution after a public hearing on the special endorsement is held.
The designated outdoor service area shall not reduce the number of off-street
parking spaces which would be required if the licensed premises together with the
outside service area were to be newly constructed in conformity with the City’s
zoning code. The City may also require improvements to the outside service area
prior to issuing the special endorsement, including, but not limited to, safety barriers
or other enclosures to be placed around the perimeter of the outside service area in
order to protect patrons from any hazards, including vehicular traffic.
Ordinance 771
Page 3
SECTION 5. Section 503.08 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to “Investigation
of Application; Hearing; Issuance or Denial” is hereby amended with the proposed additions
underlined and the deletion of the stricken language as follows:
503.08: INVESTIGATION OF APPLICATION; HEARING; ISSUANCE OR
DENIAL.
The Council shall investigate all facts set out in the application. Opportunity shall be
given to any person to be heard for or against the granting of the license. No issuance
of a new license, transfer of an existing license, renewal of an existing license,
issuance of temporary special event or festival in the park license or special outdoor
consumption endorsement for the sale of 3.2 percent malt liquor on-sale or off-sale
shall be hereafter granted by the Council until a public hearing has been conducted by
the Council after published notice in the official newspaper at least ten (10) days in
advance of the hearing. After such investigation and hearing, the Council shall grant or
refuse the application, in its discretion.
SECTION 6. This ordinance is effective 30 days after its publication.
Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 10th day of April, 2006.
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 24th day of April, 2006.
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Item No: 2C
Meeting Date: April 3, 2006
Type of Business: Worksession
Administrator Review : ____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Review Amendments to Ordinance 769, an
Ordinance Amending Chapter 1008 of the Municipal
Code Relating to Signs and Billboards
Discussion:
At the Council meeting on March 27, 2006, the Council gave second reading to the
ordinance amending sections of the Sign Code. Staff recommended two revisions to the
ordinance as it was presented, the first being elimination of billboard sites along the north
side of County Road 10 south of Woodale due to potential conflict with the City’s own
Gateway / entryway sign, the second being changing the max height to 45 feet for ONLY
those signs along 35W, US 10 and Old Highway 8.
Much discussion ensued regarding the two proposed revisions. Ultimately the Council
amended the first revision such that both sides of County Road 10 south of Woodale were
eliminated. Billboard would only be allowed fronting Old Highway 8, US 10 and 35W. The
billboard height allowance was discussed and ultimately the proposed revision stood as
provided by staff. The revision relating to the County Road 10 locations essentially rendered
staff’s revision moot. The end result was that the ordinance remained unchanged as to
billboard height—45 feet.
Reconsideration:
Later in the Council meeting after the ordinance had been adopted, I requested that the
Council reconsider its adoption of the ordinance and table action until April 10 to give staff
time to draft supplemental language regarding the maximum number of billboards in the
community. City Attorney concurred with the recommendation to reconsider and to table the
ordinance and indicated he would work with staff to draft language appropriate to address
the identified issue. The Council reconsidered the ordinance and tabled action until April 10.
The language suggested by staff and reviewed by the City Attorney is as follows:
h. Maximum Number. The maximum number of billboards that may be located within the
City at any one time shall be limited to ten (10). Any billboard legally existing at the time that
this ordinance is adopted may be removed and relocated consistent with the provisions of
this Code. Any billboard in the process of being relocated at the time that this ordinance is
adopted shall be counted among the maximum number allowed and shall be allowed to
complete its relocation.
Sign Code Ordinance Report
April 3, 2006
Page 2
If the Council is satisfied with the proposed revision, the ordinance may be readopted by roll
call vote at your April 10 meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
Attachments:
1. Map Illustrating Existing and Proposed Billboard “Zones”
2. Ordinance 769
` Billboard Overlay Zones – Existing and Proposed
ORDINANCE SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. 769
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF MOUNDS VIEW
BY AMENDING CHAPTER 1008 RELATING TO SIGNS
On April 10, 2006, the Mounds View City Council adopted an ordinance which amends
Chapter 1008 of the City Code relating to Billboards and Signs. Many of the changes to the
City’s sign code were adopted to make the regulations more consistent with First
Amendment rights and free speech issues in light of recent court cases and local legal
challenges. These changes generally eliminated language which differentiates between
commercial and non-commercial “content” or specific references to advertising. The end
result of the changes is that the sign code has been clarified to regulate the sign itself rather
than the messages (the “content”) that appear on said signs. The other adopted changes
allow for greater flexibility in relocating billboards within the community. The Code was
amended to permit billboards in the B2, B3, I1, PUD and CRP zoning districts along 35W, US
Highway 10 and Old Highway 8.
The full and complete text of this ordinance along with a supplemental map is on file at the
office of the Clerk Administrator and is posted in its entirety on the City’s website, located at
www.ci.mounds-view.mn.us/ords/769.pdf.
Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk-Administrator
ORDINANCE NO. 769
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF MOUNDS VIEW
BY AMENDING CHAPTER 1008 RELATING TO SIGNS
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Section 1008.01 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to “Purpose of
Sign Regulation” is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions
struck out:
h. commercial signs are generally incompatible with residential uses and should be
strictly limited in residential zoning districts; and
i. the right to express noncommercial opinions in any zoning district must be protected,
subject to reasonable restrictions on size, height, location and number.
SECTION 2. Section 1008.02 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to “Definitions”
is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions struck out:
INCIDENTAL SIGN: A sign, generally informational, that has a purpose secondary to the
uses on the property on which it is located. Such signs might include, but are not limited
to, “No Parking,” "Entrance," "Exit," "ATM," or "Payphone." No sign with a commercial
message legible off the premises shall be considered incidental.
NONCONFORMING SIGN: Any sign that does not comply with the requirements of this
Section is considered nonconforming. A sign which was erected legally but does not
comply with subsequently enacted sign restrictions or regulations is considered legal
nonconforming.
TEMPORARY SIGN: Any sign displaying a commercial or non-commercial message
erected or maintained for a limited specific period of time and not of a permanent
nature. Such signs shall include banners, inflatable devices, sandwich boards, portable
changeable copy signs or any other device intended to attract attention.
Ordinance 769
Page 2
SECTION 3. Section 1008.03, Subd f of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
“Sign Permit Exemptions” is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and
deletions struck out:
f. National, state, regional, local, non-commercial institutional or cultural flags.
SECTION 4. Section 1008.05, Subd 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
“Sign Permit Fees” is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions
struck out:
Subd. 2. Waiver: The Council, if so requested in writing, may waive the fee required
by this Section where the signs are to be erected by civic or religious organizations.
Temporary sign permit fees shall be waived for civic or religious organizations.
SECTION 5. Section 1008.07, Subd 5 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
“License Provisions” is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and
deletions struck out:
Subd. 5. Revocation: A license may be terminated and renewal thereof may be
denied by the Council for violations of this Chapter or other applicable ordinances.
cause after notice to the licensee and reasonable opportunity for the licensee to be heard
on the question of such termination. Cause shall include any repeated or persistent
violation of the requirements of this Chapter.
SECTION 6. Section 1008.09, Subd 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
Signs allowed by District, is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and
deletions struck out:
Sign Type R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-O B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 I-1 PF CRP PUD
Ground No No 32 32 32
32 100
200 200 200 200 100 100 *
Wall No No 64 64 No 100 100 100 100 100 100 *
Projection No No No No No 8 24 24 24 24 No *
Window No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No *
Identification 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 8 8 8 4 4 *
Temporary Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Real Estate 10 10 32 32 10 32 32 32 32 32 64 32 32 32
Home
Occupation 1 1 No No 1 No No No No No No No No No
Campaign Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes
Billboards No No No No No No No No
700
No
700 No No
700 700 700 700
Directional No No 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 8 8 8 8 8
Construction 8 8 8 8 8 8 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32
Incidental 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Ordinance 769
Page 3
SECTION 7. Section 1008.09, Subd 3 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
Ground Sign Height by District, is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined
and deletions struck out:
R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-O B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 I-1 PF CRP PUD
(1) (1) 8 8 8 8 20 20 (3) 35 (3) 35 35 (3) 35 35 (3) (2), (3)
(1) No ground sign, other than home occupation, campaign, real estate, incidental and
temporary signs shall be allowed in these districts.
(2) Signage requirements within a PUD shall be as indicated by the PUD Narrative
document. If no such document exists, signage shall be as allowed for a B-3 zoning
District.
(3) Maximum billboard sign height is 45 feet. See also Section 1008.10 Subd 6 of
this Code.
SECTION 8. Section 1008.10, Subd 1f of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
Ground Sign Requirements is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and
deletions struck out:
f. Notwithstanding the provisions of Subd 6 of this Section, No more than one (1)
pole or pylon sign shall be allowed per lot. However, the ground sign area allowance
may be divided between one (1) pole or pylon sign and a monument sign or between
multiple monument signs, subject to the requirements herein, provided that one (1) or
more of the following conditions are applicable:
SECTION 9. Section 1008.10, Subd 4(a) of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
“Temporary Signs” is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions
struck out:
(4) The Director of Community Development may waive the permit fee for a temporary
sign requested by a charitable, municipal or religious institution or for other just cause.
SECTION 10. Section 1008.10, Subd 6 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
Billboards is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions struck
out:
Subd. 6. Billboards: A permit shall not be issued for any new billboard unless it complies
with the following interim use requirements, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section
462.3597: (Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 656, 3-27-00; Ord. 679, 5-29-01)
Ordinance 769
Page 4
a. Interim Use Permit: An interim use permit (IUP) must be obtained in accordance
with procedures identical in form and substance to the conditional use permit
procedures found in Section 1125.01, subdivision 3 of the Mounds View Municipal
Code. Any interim use permit issued for an interim use billboard shall automatically
expire no later than December 31, 2023 July 1, 2035 or when the lease agreement
for the billboard expires whichever date is earlier. An Such IUP shall be null-and-void
if the applicant fails to obtain any required permit from the State of Minnesota. (Ord.
644, 12-13-99; Ord. 656, 3-27-00; Ord. 679, 5-29-01; Ord. 708, 12-30-02)
b. Location: The billboard must be located along and north of State US Highway 10
(old 118), Interstate 35W or Old Highway 8. The applicant must have an approved
lease agreement with the property owner. The billboard shall be oriented towards
State US Highway 10 (old 118) and/or I35W. Billboards must be located at least two
hundred fifty feet (250') from residentially zoned property. Billboards may be located
adjacent to the right-of-way of a street or highway, but no part thereof shall extend
over such right-of-way. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 679, 5-29-01)
c. Minimum Spacing: The minimum spacing between Billboards must be at least
seven hundred fifty feet (750’) apart five hundred feet (500’). Spacing between signs
shall be measured by projecting the nearest points of the signs to the property line of
the right-of-way from which they are intended to be read and measuring the distance
in a straight line between the projected points. Required spacing shall apply only to
billboards on the same side of the same roadway. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 679, 5-
29-01; Ord. 708, 12-30-02)
d. Maximum Sign Area: The maximum gross surface display area of the sign cannot
exceed seven hundred (700) square feet per side except that any rectangular
billboard may contain temporary extensions, cutouts, or top lettering which occupy a
total area not in excess of twenty five percent (25%) of the area of the basic billboard
and form an integral part of the design thereof. No such temporary extension, cut out,
or top lettering may project more than six feet (6') from the top, eighteen inches (18")
from either side or fifteen inches (15") from the bottom of the basic rectangular
advertising message. The area of an extension, cutout, or top lettering shall be
deemed to be the area of the smallest rectangle into which such extension, cutout, or
top lettering will fit. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 679, 5-29-01)
e. Orientation of Sign Faces: Billboards may have no more than two (2) sign faces.
Sign faces must be back-to-back with sign faces parallel or angled. All billboards with
their faces back-to-back and parallel shall have no greater distance than eight feet (8')
between the faces. All billboards with faces at an angle shall have no greater angle
than thirty-five degrees (35°). (Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 679, 5-29-01)
Ordinance 769
Page 5
f. Maximum Sign Height: The maximum allowable height of billboards shall be thirty
forty-five feet (35 45'). The height shall be measured from the grade at the base of
the sign or from the surface of the roadway whichever is higher. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99;
Ord. 679, 5-29-01)
g. Obstruction: No billboard may be located in such a manner as to obscure or
otherwise interfere with the effectiveness of an official traffic sign, signal, or device, or
obstruct or interfere with a driver's view of approaching, merging, or intersecting traffic.
(Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 679, 5-29-01)
h. Existing Billboards: Any billboard legally existing as of December 13, 1999, may
continue to be maintained in its present form and size but shall not be expanded.
This does not preclude the periodic changing of the message or advertisement
presented on the billboard. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 679, 5-29-01)
h. Maximum Number. The maximum number of billboards that may be located
within the City at any one time shall be limited to ten (10). Any billboard legally
existing at the time that this ordinance is adopted may be removed and relocated
consistent with the provisions of this Code. Any billboard in the process of being
relocated at the time that this ordinance is adopted shall be counted among the
maximum number allowed and shall be allowed to complete its relocation.
i. Destruction: Any billboard destroyed by an act of nature shall be allowed to be
rebuilt provided said billboard complies with or is capable of complying with all
requirements of this subdivision. Nonconforming billboards shall not be allowed to be
rebuilt. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 679, 5-29-01)
SECTION 11. Section 1008.11, Subd 3 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
Garage Sale Signs is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions
struck out:
Subd. 3. RESERVED. Garage Sale, Estate Sale and Open House Signs: Garage sale,
estate sale and open house signs and similar signs may be allowed to be located
within a public right of way provided:
a. The duration of the display of such sign shall not exceed three (3) days.
b. No part of such sign shall extend within five feet (5') of a traveled roadway.
c. Such sign shall relate to or direct people to a residential property within the City.
d. Such sign shall not exceed four (4) square feet in area and shall not obscure
pedestrian or vehicle visibility or any traffic control sign or violate any other provision
of this Code, specifically subdivision 2 hereof.
Ordinance 769
Page 6
SECTION 12. Section 1008.12, Subd 4 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
“Prohibited Signs” is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions
struck out:
Subd. 4. Temporary or permanent advertising signs posted within public right-of-ways,
excluding directional signs and signs expressly allowed herein and by other
governmental agencies.
SECTION 13. Section 1008.13 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
Nonconforming Signs is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and
deletions struck out:
Subd. 3. Roof signs, unless integrally incorporated into the roof design, then such sign
shall be considered a wall sign. Roof signs in existence as of the date of
enactment of this Code revision may be allowed to continue and may be repaired
or maintained as needed, but may not be replaced except by variance.
SECTION 14. Section 1008.13 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
Nonconforming Signs is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and
deletions struck out:
1008.13 NONCONFORMING SIGNS: Any sign, including a billboard, legally
existing at the time of the passage of this ordinance that does not conform in use,
location, height or size with the regulations of the zone in which such sign is located to
the provisions of this Ordinance shall be considered a legal nonconforming use or
structure sign and may be continued in such status until such time as it is either
abandoned or removed by its owner, subject to the following limitations: including
through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement but not
including expansion. “Expansion” shall be defined as any structural alteration,
change or addition that is made outside of the original sign structure or design.
Subd. 1. Structural alterations, enlargement, or re-erection are permissible only
where such alterations would not increase the degree of the nonconformity of the
sign. Nothing in this Ordinance shall prevent the return of a sign structure that
has been declared unsafe by the Building Official to a safe condition.
Subd. 2. Any legal, nonconforming sign shall be removed or rebuilt without
increasing the extent of the sign’s nonconformity if it is damaged. When any lawful
nonconforming sign is discontinued for a period of more than one (1) year, or
is changed to a conforming sign, any future sign shall be in conformity with
the provisions of this Ordinance.
Ordinance 769
Page 6
Subd. 3. Any legal, nonconforming sign shall be removed and shall not be
repaired, replaced, restored, or rebuilt if it is allowed to deteriorate to the extent
that the cost of repair or restoration exceeds fifty (50%) of the replacement cost of
the sign as determined by the City’s Building Official. damaged by fire or other
similar peril to the extent of greater than fifty percent (50%) of its market value
at the time of destruction and no sign permit or building permit (if applicable)
has been applied for within 180 days of the date of destruction. The City’s
Building Official shall be responsible for making the determination whether a
nonconforming sign has been destroyed greater than fifty percent (50%) of its
market value at the time of destruction. In making this determination, the
Building Official shall consider the market value of the entire sign at the time
prior to the destruction and the replacement value of the existing sign. In the
event a building permit is applied for within 180 days of the date of
destruction and the sign did not withstand damage greater than fifty percent
(50%) of its market value at the time of destruction, the City may impose
reasonable conditions upon the building permit in order to mitigate any newly
created impact on adjacent properties.
Subd. 4. A lawful nonconforming sign shall not be changed to a similar
nonconforming sign or to a more restrictive nonconforming sign.
SECTION 15. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after the date of its publication.
First reading by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 13th day of March, 2006
Second reading and adoption by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 27th day
of March, 2006.
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(SEAL)
Approved as to form:
Mounds View City Attorney
Item No: 2D
Meeting Date: April 3, 2006
Type of Business: Worksession
Administrator Review : ____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Continued Discussion Regarding Request of Brian
and Valerie Amundsen Regarding Alleged Code
Violation
Introduction:
At the City Council’s last meeting on March 27, 2006, Brian and Valerie Amundsen appeared
before the Council seeking Council action to require their neighbor at 7092 Pleasant View
Drive to remove a retaining wall and fill material that was constructed last year.
Discussion:
Understandably so, the Amundsens believe that the retaining wall, located just inches away
from their six-foot tall security fence, poses a safety hazard and security liability as it could
allow someone easier access to their rear yard and potentially their in-ground pool. While
staff acknowledges the Amundsens’ concern and strong desire to protect the health and
safety of others, based on a legal interpretation of the situation, it was determined that the
fence satisfied the intent of Code, which is to “…prevent the unauthorized entrance into the
swimming pool by any person when said fence or barrier is locked.” A letter to this effect was
sent to the Amundsens on March 10, 2006.
At the Council meeting on March 27, 2006, the Amundsens indicated that staff is overlooking
the fact that the work was done without a valid permit and not in accordance with Code. As
explained at the meeting, the neighbor applied for a zoning permit to construct a two-foot tall
fence. Upon inspection of what the neighbor was intending, it became clear that he was not
constructing a fence but rather a retaining wall to allow for a leveling of the space alongside
the garage. Staff consulted with the public works department which indicated it had no
concern with the grading being proposed and work was permitted to proceed. While the
permit may have been amended to reflect the actual work being performed, it remains a valid
permit. Because there was no immediate plan to improve the surface, the neighbor was
advised that the area could not be used to park a vehicle. The neighbor was also advised a
permit for the surfacing would be required and that the parking area would need to maintain
a five foot set back from the property line. The neighbor indicated he understood these
requirements.
The Amundsens point out that staff has ignored or overlooked Section 1104.01, Subd 5c of
the City Code, which reads as follows:
c. Terraces, steps, decks, stoops or similar features; provided, they do not
extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal structure or
to a distance less than two feet (2') from any lot line.
They assert that what was built is in fact a “Terrace”, which would be subject to a two foot
setback requirement.
Amundsen Report
April 3, 2006
Page 2
Staff responded that “Terrace,” in this context, would be something similar to a patio area,
hence its inclusion with decks and the like. Neither terrace nor retaining wall however is
defined in the code. In situations such as this, the Section 1102.01 indicates the following:
Subd. 5. Whenever a word or term defined hereinafter appears in the text of
this Title, its meaning shall be construed as set forth in the definition thereof;
other words or terms shall be construed as having their common meaning.
I would submit that “retaining wall” has a common meaning, that being “a wall built to support
or prevent the advance of earth.” This meaning is consistent with definitions found online. I
would further submit that “terrace,” when used as a noun, also has a common meaning, that
being of an outdoor, open air seating area. Online resources define a “terrace” as a garden
or landscape element where a raised, flat paved or graveled section overlooks a scenic view,
providing a transition between the hard materials of the architecture and softer ones of the
garden. The Webster’s New World Dictionary defines terrace as a paved area immediately
adjacent to a house, usually overlooking a garden or lawn; something comparable to a
veranda.
Used as an adjective, terrace can mean a type of landscaping or grading, usually appearing
as a series of flat, vertically elevating landscaped or paved areas, as in “a terraced hillside.”
Another example as an adjective would be of terraced seating, which is a series of level rows
of seats, with each ensuing row slightly elevated above the previous, such as in a sports
arena or movie theater offering stadium seating. The practice of “terraced” farming is used
along mountainsides, where a series of tillable earthen benches are carved from the hillside,
serving the dual purpose of utilizing scarce land as well as retaining rainwater and preventing
erosion.
While it is understandable how confusion may exist, based on the above definitions and
upon common meaning, the two-foot tall retaining wall and associated grading cannot be
interpreted as a terrace, and thus is not subject to a two-foot setback.
Next Steps:
The Amundsens have brought to our attention a potential shortcoming in the explicit
definitions used in our zoning code relating to retaining walls and terraces. I would
recommend that the Council refer this issue back to the Planning Commission for the
purpose of resolving any confusion relating to these and other terms and to consider, if
necessary, appropriate setbacks for same. It should be noted however that whether or not
code amendments are ultimately adopted, such changes could not be applied retroactively
and would only apply to such improvements constructed in the future.
Staff seeks direction from the Council as to the desired next steps.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________
Jim Ericson
Photographic Documentation
Included for the Council’s information are photographs of retaining walls, terraces, terracing
and terraced walls. On this page are photos of “Terraces.” Note their patio-like qualities.
Retaining Walls
The photo above represents a good example of
how retaining walls are often used between
properties to provide a more level lawn area on both
parcels, rather than both property owners having a
sloped side yard. If such a structure would be
required to be set back two feet, it would be akin to
giving your neighbor two “bonus” feet of yard space.
Terracing
Terraced Retaining Walls
\\trout\CommDev\Users\JIME\City Council Stuff\Reports\Amundsen Report - April 3, 2006.doc
Item No. 04A
Meeting Date: April 3, 2006
Type of Business: WS
City Administrator Review _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Desaree Crane, Assistant to the City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Salary Compensation Study and Pay Equity RFP Results
Introduction
A RFP for a Mounds View Salary Compensation Study and Pay Equity Report was authorized
by the Mounds View City Council on February 13, 2006, with the passing of Resolution 6732.
Staff received 4 proposals for this study.
Discussion
The Human Resources Committee has been pursuing a compensation study that puts into
consideration population, city market value, and taxable tax capacity instead of just using
Stanton 6 cities (population 10,000 – 25,000) as outlined in the Personnel Manual. The
City Council also agreed to these parameters at the February 13, 2006 City Council
Meeting. The RFP put these parameters as part of the compensation study. The study
would encompass all positions within the City (both union and non-union). Any
compensation adjustments resulting from this study could then be negotiated into new
contracts and/or included in budgets for 2007.
In addition to the salary compensation, the Request for Proposal also requests that a Pay
Equity Report be completed. The State of Minnesota's Pay Equity Law requires that:
. . . "every political subdivision of this state shall establish equitable
compensation relationships between female-dominated, male-dominated, and
balanced classes of employees in order to eliminate sex-based wage disparities
in public employment in this state." (Minn. Stat. § 471.992, subd. 1)
The term “equitable compensation relationship” means that the compensation for female-
dominated classes is not consistently below the compensation for male-dominated classes
of comparable work value . . . (Minn. Stat. §. 471.991, subd. 5). The Mounds View Pay
Equity Report is due to the Department of Employee Relations by January 31, 2007.
Staff received four (4) proposals, which are attached to this report. Prices range from
$9,500 to $34,500. They include Laumeyer & Associates Human Resources Consulting,
Springsted, Fox, Lawson & Associates, and The Waters Consulting Group, Inc.
Laumeyer & Associates
Laumeyer & Associates is a Human Resources Consulting firm located in Duluth,
Minnesota. As stated in their RFP dated March 15, 2006, this firm incorporates a personal
and interactive process with city staff, elected officials, employees and union
representatives. Their process would involve personal contact with staff, employee,
elected officials and union representatives to have a clear understanding of all job
descriptions. According to their RFP, this personal contact would maximize both
understanding and acceptance of the compensation results. Laumeyer & Associates did
submit references, which include the City of Baxtor, City of Menahga (MN), City of Little
Falls (MN), City of Cohasset (MN), City of Hutchinson (MN) and the City of Hector (MN).
According to their RFP, the products and services outlined in their proposal include all
travel and administrative expenses. Their full cost is $9,500. This includes the Pay Equity
Study and Report. However, the quoted figure is based on the use of the current HAY
evaluation system. The use of a new system would be an additional $1,500. In addition,
the quoted figure is based on the use of current market data. The use of customized data
would be an additional $1,500.00 or $750 with utilization of city employees. The City
Council has expressed pursuing a compensation study that puts into consideration
population, city market value, and taxable tax capacity instead of just using Stanton 6 cities
(population 10,000 – 25,000) as outlined in the Personnel Manual. This may constitute an
additional $1,500 on top of their full quote of $9,500 for a total cost of $11,000.
Springsted, Inc.
Springsted, Inc., has done consulting work for the City in the past. They are located in St.
Paul, Minnesota and have been in business for over 50 years. Their references include the
City of Moorhead (MN), City of Waite Park (MN), Pope County (MN), Yellow Medicine
County (MN), City of Hagerstown (MD), Fauquier County (VA), and Onslow County (NC).
Springsted would begin the compensation process by meeting with the Assistant to the City
Administrator to get background, address major issues, gather current job descriptions, and
review the project schedule. Springsted will also conduct employee informational meetings
to introduce the study, explain study procedures and answer any questions that employee
may have with the process. The cost for their study is $17,250. According to Robert
Thistle, the Executive Vice President of Springsted, the cost includes the Pay Equity Study
and Report. They are also additional costs involved if city employees were to dispute the
findings of the compensation study.
Fox Lawson & Associates
Fox Lawson & Associates are located in St. Paul and have an additional office in Arizona.
They have been in business since 1981, beginning as the public sector compensation
consulting practice firm. Their clients include the City of Jackson (MN), St. Paul Public
Housing (MN), City of Fergus Falls (MN), West St. Paul School District #197 (MN),
Hennepin County (MN), University of Minnesota (MN), City of Eden Prairie (MN), City of
Bismarck (ND), Massachusetts Port Authority (MA), Rhode Island Housing (RI), City of
Healdsburg (CA), City of Davis (CA), City of Flagstaff (AZ), and Marin County (CA) to name
a few. The total cost of their study is $31,000. Staff spoke to the CEO, James Fox, and he
stated that the $31,000 includes the Pay Equity Study. They are additional costs if city
employees dispute the compensation results.
As stated in their RFP, they are not able to make the June 3, 2006 deadline. The would
like five months to complete the project. It has been expressed by the City Council, that the
Compensation Study be implemented by July 1st. The June 3, 2006 deadline would give
Staff and the City Council enough time to review the final report to make the July 1st
implementation deadline.
The Waters Consulting Group, Inc.
The Waters Consulting Group, Inc., is a Dallas, Texas based management consulting firm
specializing in compensation, classification, job analysis, job evaluation, performance
management, organizational analysis, HR audits and executive search consulting.
According to their RFP, they have more than 29 years experience in the field. The cost of
their compensation study is $34,500. This is the highest bid, and staff would rather have a
local company perform the compensation study to minimize extra costs due to travel, etc.
Recommendation
Attached are all four proposals. Staff will be discussing the findings of these proposals with
the Human Resources Committee prior to this Work Session. Staff will be presenting to the
City Council all updated job descriptions for Council approval on April 10, 2006. In addition,
Staff would like to approve a firm to do the Compensation Study at the April 10, 2006 City
Council Meeting.
Item No. 04B
Type of Business: WK
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: Desaree Crane, Administrative Assistant to
Administration
Item Title/Subject: Closing City Hall on May 5, 2006 at 12noon to move from
the Mounds View Community Center to Mounds View
City Hall
Professional movers are scheduled to move all furniture, files, boxes, and equipment on
Saturday, May 6th. Staff recommends that consideration be given to closing the City Hall
building on the Friday before (May 5, 2006) starting at 12noon due to the need to have
everything prepared and ready for the movers on Saturday. This will minimize potential
overtime, and avoid disruptions and hazardous situations due to the move.
The closing of City Hall will be announced on the City’s Voice Mail system, on Cable Television,
the Mounds View Website and posted at the front door of the Mounds View Community Center.
In addition, a press release will be forwarded to all newspapers and news agencies to announce
the move back to the new City Hall facility, to include the announcement of closing City Hall on
May 5, 2006 at 12noon.
If the City Council is in agreement, then Staff will prepare a Resolution to authorize closing of
City Hall on Friday, May 5, 2006 starting at 12noon. The proposed resolution would be
presented at the next City Council meeting on April 10, 2006.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree Crane
Item No. 04C
Type of Business: WK
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: Desaree Crane, Administrative Assistant to Administration
Item Title/Subject: Discuss Ways of Thanking the Ramsey County Sheriff’s
Department, YMCA, New Brighton City Hall, Spring Lake
Park City Hall, Roseville IT Department for their Support
during the City Hall Construction Project
Since the move from the old Mounds View City Hall facility, the City has received great support
from many entities to include the Ramsey County Sheriff Department, YMCA, the City of New
Brighton, the City of Spring Lake Park, and City of Roseville I.T. Department. Staff feels very
grateful in receiving such great support from these cities and organizations.
Ramsey County Sheriff’s Department
Since September of 2005, the Mounds View Police Department relocated to the Ramsey County
Sheriff’s Department due to the remodeling of Mounds View City Hall. The Ramsey County
Sheriff’s Department has been very welcoming and accommodating to the Mounds View Police
Department. The Ramsey County Sheriff’s Department did not charge the City, which saved the
City thousands of dollars.
YMCA
Staff relocated to the Mounds View Community Center in September of 2005. Since then, the
YMCA has assisted Staff in numerous ways to include using their facilities for office space,
directing residents to the right city departments, and even help with resident complaints. Their
amazing customer service skills helped many city residents in this difficult transition.
New Brighton City Hall
The City of New Brighton has been very accommodating with the City’s needs to include cable
television support and the use of their Council Chambers. The City of New Brighton has expressed
interest in getting a tree for their atrium. A tree might be a good suggestion for the City Council to
consider.
Spring Lake Park City Hall
The City of Mounds View used Spring Lake Park City Council Chambers for at least one Planning
Commission Meeting. There is a chance that the Mounds View Planning Commission will meet
there again on the first Wednesday in May. Staff would like to thank the City of Spring Lake Park
for this and suggest a resolution of appreciation to Spring Lake Park for their support.
Roseville I.T. Department
The Roseville IT Department presently assists the City with computer networking and IP Telephone
and Voice Mail services. Terrence Heiser and his crew worked long hours to ensure an easy
transition, and were very accommodating to the City’s needs. City was up and running in a short
period of time due to the extraordinary efforts of the Roseville I.T. Department.
Staff is very grateful, and would like to show our appreciation for their efforts and support. If the
City Council is in agreement, then Staff would like to discuss what to give or do for them. These
tokens of appreciation are not currently budgeted.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree Crane
Item No. 04D
Type of Business: WK
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: Desaree Crane, Administrative Assistant to Administration
Item Title/Subject: Discuss Draft of the 2nd Annual Town Hall Meeting
The Mounds View 2nd Annual Town Hall Meeting is scheduled for Saturday, April 29, 2006. The
proposed theme this year is Mounds View: Building a Better Future. Attached is the Town Hall
Meeting Press Release along with the proposed Agenda. Please review the Agenda and make any
changes you feel necessary. Staff will present a final draft of this Agenda at the next City Council
Meeting scheduled for Monday, April 10, 2006. Staff will present a final draft of this Agenda at the next
City Council Meeting scheduled for Monday, April 10, 2006.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree Crane
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PRESS RELEASE
There will be a Town Hall Meeting held on Saturday, April 29, 2006 at 9am to noon in the Mounds View
Community Center. The Mounds View Community Center is located at 5394 Edgewood Drive in Mounds View.
All Mounds View residents are invited to this great event. There will be Mounds View Historical Displays, City
Vehicle Displays, and great City Department Exhibits. The City will also have seminars to discuss the Vision and
Goals of our City for 2006. This is your chance to ask questions of Mounds View City Staff to include the Mayor
and Mounds View Councilmembers. Below is a schedule of events. We hope to see you there!
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
TOWN HALL MEETING AGENDA
SATURDAY, APRIL 29, 2006
MOUNDS VIEW: BUILDING A BETTER FUTURE
9-915am Registration (Cookies and Coffee Served)
915am-1130am Department Exhibits and other Exhibits
• Mounds View Police Department
• SBM Fire Department
• Public Works
• Community Development
• Finance
• YMCA
• Festival in the Park
915am-1200pm City Council and Staff Presentations
915am-930am Welcome Presentation by the Mayor
930am-945am History of Mounds View Video Presentation
945am-1005am Vision, Mission and Goals for 2006
Speaker: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
1005am-1020am Fix our Roads: Re-building City Streets, Sewer and Water
Speaker: Greg Lee
1020am-1035am Keep Our Taxes Low: The State of the City’s Financial Health
Speaker: Mark Beer, Finance Director
1035am-1050am Protecting Our Community: A Report on City Emergency
Services
Speaker: Police Chief Mike Sommer
Fire Chief Nyle Zikmund
1050am-1105am Break
1105am-1120am Encourage Growth: Reviewing the City Economic Development
Policy
Speaker: Jim Ericson, Community Development Director
1120am-1135am Putting the “Community” back in the Community Center: Report
of the Mounds View Community Center Task Force
Speaker: Barbara Thomas, Chair or Gary Stevenson, Vice Chair
1130am-12pm Final Thoughts
12pm Town Hall Meeting Adjourns
Item No. 07G
Meeting Date: April 10, 2006
Type of Business: CB
City Administrator Review _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Desaree Crane, Assistant to the City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6792, Awarding a Firm to Conduct a Salary
Compensation and Pay Equity Report for Mounds View
Employees
Introduction
A RFP for a Mounds View Salary Compensation Study and Pay Equity Report was authorized
by the Mounds View City Council on February 13, 2006, with the passing of Resolution 6732.
Staff received 4 proposals for this study.
Discussion
The Human Resources Committee has been pursuing a compensation study that puts into
consideration population, city market value, and taxable tax capacity instead of just using
Stanton 6 cities (population 10,000 – 25,000) as outlined in the Personnel Manual. The
City Council also agreed to these parameters at the February 13, 2006 City Council
Meeting. The RFP put these parameters as part of the compensation study. The study
would encompass all positions within the City (both union and non-union). Any
compensation adjustments resulting from this study could then be negotiated into new
contracts and/or included in budgets for 2007.
In addition to the salary compensation, the Request for Proposal also requests that a Pay
Equity Report be completed. The State of Minnesota's Pay Equity Law requires that:
. . . "every political subdivision of this state shall establish equitable
compensation relationships between female-dominated, male-dominated, and
balanced classes of employees in order to eliminate sex-based wage disparities
in public employment in this state." (Minn. Stat. § 471.992, subd. 1)
The term “equitable compensation relationship” means that the compensation for female-
dominated classes is not consistently below the compensation for male-dominated classes
of comparable work value . . . (Minn. Stat. §. 471.991, subd. 5). The Mounds View Pay
Equity Report is due to the Department of Employee Relations by January 31, 2007.
Staff received four (4) proposals, which are attached to this report. Prices range from
$9,500 to $34,500. They include Laumeyer & Associates Human Resources Consulting,
Springsted, Fox, Lawson & Associates, and The Waters Consulting Group, Inc.
Laumeyer & Associates
Laumeyer & Associates is a Human Resources Consulting firm located in Duluth,
Minnesota. As stated in their RFP dated March 15, 2006, this firm incorporates a personal
and interactive process with city staff, elected officials, employees and union
representatives. Their process would involve personal contact with staff, employee,
elected officials and union representatives to have a clear understanding of all job
descriptions. According to their RFP, this personal contact would maximize both
understanding and acceptance of the compensation results. Laumeyer & Associates did
submit references, which include the City of Baxtor, City of Menahga (MN), City of Little
Falls (MN), City of Cohasset (MN), City of Hutchinson (MN) and the City of Hector (MN).
According to their RFP, the products and services outlined in their proposal include all
travel and administrative expenses. Their full cost is $9,500. This includes the Pay Equity
Study and Report. However, the quoted figure is based on the use of the current HAY
evaluation system. The use of a new system would be an additional $1,500. In addition,
the quoted figure is based on the use of current market data. The use of customized data
would be an additional $1,500.00 or $750 with utilization of city employees. The City
Council has expressed pursuing a compensation study that puts into consideration
population, city market value, and taxable tax capacity instead of just using Stanton 6 cities
(population 10,000 – 25,000) as outlined in the Personnel Manual. This may constitute an
additional $1,500 on top of their full quote of $9,500 for a total cost of $11,000.
Springsted, Inc.
Springsted, Inc., has done consulting work for the City in the past. They are located in St.
Paul, Minnesota and have been in business for over 50 years. Their references include the
City of Moorhead (MN), City of Waite Park (MN), Pope County (MN), Yellow Medicine
County (MN), City of Hagerstown (MD), Fauquier County (VA), and Onslow County (NC).
Springsted would begin the compensation process by meeting with the Assistant to the City
Administrator to get background, address major issues, gather current job descriptions, and
review the project schedule. Springsted will also conduct employee informational meetings
to introduce the study, explain study procedures and answer any questions that employee
may have with the process. The cost for their study is $17,250. According to Robert
Thistle, the Executive Vice President of Springsted, the cost includes the Pay Equity Study
and Report. They are also additional costs involved if city employees were to dispute the
findings of the compensation study.
Fox Lawson & Associates
Fox Lawson & Associates are located in St. Paul and have an additional office in Arizona.
They have been in business since 1981, beginning as the public sector compensation
consulting practice firm. Their clients include the City of Jackson (MN), St. Paul Public
Housing (MN), City of Fergus Falls (MN), West St. Paul School District #197 (MN),
Hennepin County (MN), University of Minnesota (MN), City of Eden Prairie (MN), City of
Bismarck (ND), Massachusetts Port Authority (MA), Rhode Island Housing (RI), City of
Healdsburg (CA), City of Davis (CA), City of Flagstaff (AZ), and Marin County (CA) to name
a few. The total cost of their study is $31,000. Staff spoke to the CEO, James Fox, and he
stated that the $31,000 includes the Pay Equity Study. They are additional costs if city
employees dispute the compensation results.
As stated in their RFP, they are not able to make the June 3, 2006 deadline. They would
like five months to complete the project. It has been expressed by the City Council, that the
Compensation Study be implemented by July 1st. The June 3, 2006 deadline would give
Staff and the City Council enough time to review the final report to make the July 1st
implementation deadline.
The Waters Consulting Group, Inc.
The Waters Consulting Group, Inc., is a Dallas, Texas based management consulting firm
specializing in compensation, classification, job analysis, job evaluation, performance
management, organizational analysis, HR audits and executive search consulting.
According to their RFP, they have more than 29 years experience in the field. The cost of
their compensation study is $34,500. This is the highest bid, and staff would rather have a
local company perform the compensation study to minimize extra costs due to travel, etc.
Recommendation
All four proposals were give to the City Council at the April 3, 2006, Work Session. Staff
removed the RFP Review off the Work Session Agenda because the Human Resources
Committee wanted to interview the apparent low bidder before making their
recommendation. Staff will be discussing the findings of these proposals with the Human
Resources Committee prior to this City Council Meeting. Please bring all RFP materials
that were given to you at the April 3, 2006 Work Session. Staff’s recommendation will be
pending review by the Human Resources Committee. Resolution 6792 is prepared in case
the Human Resources Committee recommends the apparent low bidder, Laumeyer &
Associates. The Human Resource Committee will be meeting on April 10, 2006 at 530pm.
Staff will be presenting to the City Council all updated job descriptions for Council approval
on April 24, 2006.
RESOLUTION 6792
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING LAUMEYER & ASSOCIATES TO CONDUCT A SALARY
COMPENSATION STUDY AND PAY EQUITY REPORT FOR
MOUNDS VIEW CITY EMPLOYEES
WHEREAS, it has been discussed by the Mounds View Human Resources
Committee to revise the Mounds View Personnel Policy in regard to salary
compensation; and
WHEREAS, the Human Resources Committee recommends a salary
compensation study that puts into consideration population, city market value, and
taxable tax capacity instead of just using Stanton 6 cities (population 10,000 – 25,000)
as outlined in the Personnel Manual; and
WHEREAS, Resolution 6732 authorized Staff to advertise for a RFP to conduct a
salary compensation study and pay equity report; and
WHEREAS, four (4) companies submitted quotes to provide a salary
compensation study and pay equity report; and
WHEREAS, the lowest quote was from Laumeyer & Associates in the amount of
$____________.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council approved
Laumeyer & Associates to conduct a salary compensation study and pay equity report
in the amount of $______________.
Adopted this 10th day of April, 2006.
___________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)