HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2005/04/25
Item No: 09O
Meeting Date: May 23, 2005
Type of Business: CB
City Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6543 Approving a Revised Labor Contract with
Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. (LELS), Local 204
(Police Officers) for 2004-2005
In reviewing the final labor contract for the Police Officers, it was noted that the final version
approved by the Council on April 25th contained a section that was intended to be deleted.
The section to be deleted is 23.1 (Severance) that allows a cash option for retiring employees.
Language was also added under the new 22.2 in regard to clarify the employee’s responsibility
for naming a beneficiary and tax liabilities.
Employees will now be required to put severance into a Retirement Health Savings account as
defined under the contract. This section was also removed from the Sergeants contract and
the Police Officers contact is proposed to be consistent with that language.
The attached resolution authorizes amendments to the LELS labor agreement as outlined.
The contract period is from January 1, 2004 and expires on December 31, 2005.
The agreement specifies a wage increase, plus new employer insurance contributions, and
other amendments.
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 6543
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 6543 APPROVING A REVISED LABOR CONTRACT WITH LAW
ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES, INC. (LELS), LOCAL 204 (POLICE OFFICERS)
FOR 2004-2005
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mounds View ratified the LELS, Local #232
(Police Sergeants) Contract for the year 2003, on April 25, 2005 and
WHEREAS, it was determined that an amendment to Section 23 SEVERANCE PAY
was intended to be included as part of the original ratification of the contract and included as
part of the following amendments:
1. Article 9 Probationary Periods
9.1 All newly hired or rehired employees will serve a twelve (12) months’
probationary period.
9.2 All employees will serve a six (6) months’ probationary period in any job
classification in which the employee has not served a probationary
period.
9.3 At any time during the probationary period a newly hired or rehired
employee may be terminated at the sole discretion of the EMPLOYER.
9.4 At any time during the probationary period a promoted or reassigned
employee may be demoted or reassigned to the employee’s pervious
position at the sole discretion of the EMPLOYER.
2. Article 17 Insurance
17.1 The EMPLOYER will contribute to each employee per month a
maximum amount equal to eighty percent (80%) of the lowest cost family
health insurance for employee and family health insurance and basic life
insurance, or an amount as agreed in Section 17.3.
17.2 Employees may designate any unused portion of the EMPLOYER
contribution amount to provide dental coverage and/or supplemental life
insurance offered according to established guidelines through the City’s
plans.
17.3 The Employer will contribute a maximum amount of $613.30 per month
in 2004 to each full-time permanent employee, for group health, dental
and life insurance including dependant coverage.
17.4 The EMPLOYER will contribute a maximum amount of $672.30 per
month in 2005 to each full-time permanent employee, for group health,
dental and life insurance including dependant coverage. If the increase
in the lowest cost group health insurance premium for family coverage in
2005 is 15% or greater, the City will contribute an additional $10 per
month per employee.
4. Article 23 Severance Pay
23.1 Any employee who has accumulated 960 hours of sick leave as a
January 1, 2005, and who have completed ten (10) years of service will
be eligible to receive severance pay in the amount of fifty percent (50%)
of unused sick leave. Upon death of the employee, the beneficiary of
the employee shall be paid the benefit.
23.12 Any employee who has accumulated a minimum of 960 hours of sick
leave as of January 1, 2005 will be eligible to contribute, in lieu of
severance pay as provided in Section 23.1, sixty-five percent (65%) of
the employee’s accumulated and baked sick leave for contribution to the
employee’s designated health savings plan.
Employees who have accumulated a minimum of 960 hours of sick leave
as of January 1, 2005, will be covered by the Retirement Health Savings
language of Section 22.3.
23.23 Retirement Health Savings
The City of Mounds View offers its employees a Retirement Health
Savings Plan pursuant to Internal Revenue Code regulations through a
third party administrator selected by the City. Future changes in the
Internal Revenue Code regulations may change the tax status of this
plan and the City shall not be liable for such changes. The employee is
responsible for enrolling in the plan and designating a beneficiary during
a regularly scheduled open enrollment period prior to termination of their
employment.
The following contributions will be allowed to the Retirement Health
Savings Plan:
A. Upon separation from employment with the City, an employee
may contribute their compensation for accrued vacation and
compensatory time. Employees who have completed two years
of service and leave in good standing may also contribute fifty
percent (50%) of unused sick leave calculated against a
maximum accumulation of 960 hours. Additional bank sick leave
hours will not be computed for the contribution.
B. An employee may elect to contribute a percentage of their annual
pay to the plan on a pre-tax basis. Once this election is made, it
can never be changed.
C. An employee may elect to make an after-tax contribution of their
annual pay to the plan. This election may be changed each
year, but is limited to 25% of total contributions to the plan by all
employees.
D. An employee may annually elect to contribute a portion of their
sick leave balance to the plan. The employee would have to
maintain a minimum balance of 480 hours of sick leave after the
contribution and would be allowed to convert up to 160 hours of
sick leave into 80 hours of RHS contribution per year at a 2 to 1
rate. This election may be changed each year.
23.34 An employee will be compensated for accrued vacation and
compensatory time upon separation.
5. Article 24 Holidays
24.2 For employee who work Monday through Friday schedules, if a holiday
falls on a Saturday, the preceding Friday shall be considered the holiday.
If a holiday falls on a Sunday, the following Monday shall be considered
the holiday. Holiday Hours shall be calculated based on the length of
patrol officer shifts.
6. Appendix A: Wages Increases effective January 1, 2004, January 1, 2005 and
July 1, 2005 as specified in the chart.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council
does hereby ratify the LELS, Local #232 (Police Sergeants) Contract, as revised, effective
January 1, 2004 and expiring on December 31, 2005.
Adopted this 25th day of April, 2005.
_________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
Monday, April 25, 2005
8 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, Thomas
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC INPUT:
Citizens may speak to issues not on tonight’s agenda. Before speaking, please give your full name
and address for the minutes. Also, please limit your comments to three minutes.
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
A. Proclamation declaring the week of May 15 through 21, 2005 as “NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK”. (To
be read aloud by the Mayor.)
7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS
8. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Set a Public Hearing for 7:05 pm on May 9, 2005 to Consider a Conditional Use Permit to add two additional
units to a multi-family residential building at 2071 Hillview Road
B. Set a Public Hearing for 7:10 pm on May 9, 2005 to Consider a Development Review for a Retail
Development at 2525 County Road 10
C. Resolution 6501 Proclaiming April 29, 2005 as “Arbor Day”
Staff seeks council approval to Proclaim April 29th as “Arbor Day”
Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
D. Schedule a Special Work Session for Tuesday, May 3, 2005, to discuss street rehabilitation issues.
E. Schedule an Executive Session immediately following this City Council meeting to discuss Golf Course
property purchase and Billboard Contract negotiations.
F. Licenses for Approval
Staff seeks council approval of the listed licenses for approval.
Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
9. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. 7:05 pm Public Hearing to Consider a Conditional Use Permit for a Residential Kennel at 8370 Pleasant View
Drive
After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and affected neighbors, the
Council can select one of the following actions related to the request:
1. Table the request until the City Attorney can provide information about the appropriate action to take
for a temporary approval. The City Attorney and Staff support this option. If this option is selected, Staff will
need to notify the applicant that the City will need an additional 60-day review time. Staff would still process
the request in a timely manner.
2. Approve the conditional use permit, without the three-month time frame. Resolution 6507, a resolution
approving the conditional use permit, with conditions, is attached if the Council selects this option.
3. Deny the conditional use permit. If the Council selects this option, Staff will return at the following
Council meeting on May 9, 2005 with a resolution of denial. If this option is selected, Staff will need to notify
the applicant that the City will need additional time beyond the initial 60-day review time.
Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
B. 7:10 pm Public Hearing to Consider a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage at 7965 Fairchild
Avenue
After holding the Public Hearing and taken testimony from staff, the applicants and affected neighbors, the
City Council make take one of the following actions listed in the staff report pertaining to the Oversized
Garage at 7965 Fairchild Avenue.
Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
C. 7:15 pm Public Hearing to Consider the City Hall Rehabilitation Project
Verbal Report. Hold a Public Heading to Consider the City Hall Rehab Project.
Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
D. Resolution 6504 Ordering the City Hall Rehabilitation Project and Authorizing the Preparation of Detailed
Plans and Specifications
Staff is looking for direction from the City Council pertaining to this matter. Specifically, Staff is looking for
Council input as to whether this project should proceed, and if so, what items should be included in the
project.
Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
E. Resolution 6503 Step/Longevity Increases for Officer Keith Demarest (4/26/05), Officer Tom Baumgart
(5/3/05), and PSO Robin Marion (5/4/05).
Recommend Step/Longevity Increases per Personnel Manual and Labor Agreements
Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
F. Resolution 6502 Ordering the Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) Installation Project
It is recommended that the City Council approve a resolution to accept the Memorandum Report, waive the
public improvement hearing, order the project, authorize the preparations of plans and specifications,
authorize the solicitation of quotes, and authorize the iniation of discussions with Ramsey County to update
agreements for the Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) Installation Project.
Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
G. Resolution 6500 Authorizing Inter-fund Loans for the Year 2004 and Setting an Interest Rate on Inter-fund
Loans for the Year 2005.
Resolution to Authorize Inter-fund Loans for 2004 and setting a interest rate.
Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
H. Resolution 6506 Adopting an Investment Policy.
If the City Council finds enclosed draft of the investment policy to be acceptable, then I recommend approval
of the attached Resolution 6506 to adopt the investment policy.
Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Minutes, March 14, 2005.
B. City Council Minutes, March 28, 2005
C. City Council Minutes, April 11, 2005.
D. Executive Session Minutes, April 11, 2005.
11. REPORTS
A. Reports of Mayor and Council
B. Reports of Staff
1. a. Finance Quarterly Report
b. Investment Quarterly Report
2. Announce the Town Hall Meeting (Saturday, Apr 30 from 9am to noon @ Community Center)
3. Announce a Special Work Session on Tuesday, May 3, 2005 to discuss Street Rehabilitation
Issues.
C. Reports of City Attorney
12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, May 2, 2005, @7pm Next Council Meeting: Monday, May 9, 2005 @7pm
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
Monday, April 25, 2005
8 p.m.
(Revised as of April 25, 2005 @ 12noon)
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, Thomas
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC INPUT:
Citizens may speak to issues not on tonight’s agenda. Before speaking, please give your full name
and address for the minutes. Also, please limit your comments to three minutes.
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
A. Proclamation declaring the week of May 15 through 21, 2005 as “NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK”. (To
be read aloud by the Mayor.)
7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS
8. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Set a Public Hearing for 7:05 pm on May 9, 2005 to Consider a Conditional Use Permit to add two additional
units to a multi-family residential building at 2071 Hillview Road
B. Set a Public Hearing for 7:10 pm on May 9, 2005 to Consider a Development Review for a Retail
Development at 2525 County Road 10
C. Resolution 6501 Proclaiming April 29, 2005 as “Arbor Day”
D. Schedule a Special Work Session for Tuesday, May 3, 2005, to discuss street rehabilitation issues.
E. Schedule an Executive Session immediately following this City Council meeting to discuss Golf Course
property purchase and Billboard Contract negotiations.
F. Licenses for Approval
9. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. 7:05 pm Public Hearing to Consider a Conditional Use Permit for a Residential Kennel at 8370 Pleasant View
Drive
B. 7:10 pm Public Hearing to Consider a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage at 7965 Fairchild
Avenue
C. 7:15 pm Public Hearing to Consider the City Hall Rehabilitation Project
D. Resolution 6504 Ordering the City Hall Rehabilitation Project and Authorizing the Preparation of Detailed
Plans and Specifications
E. Resolution 6503 Step/Longevity Increases for Officer Keith Demarest (4/26/05), Officer Tom Baumgart
(5/3/05), and PSO Robin Marion (5/4/05).
F. Resolution 6502 Ordering the Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) Installation Project
G. Resolution 6500 Authorizing Inter-fund Loans for the Year 2004 and Setting an Interest Rate on Inter-fund
Loans for the Year 2005.
H. Resolution 6506 Adopting an Investment Policy.
I. Resolution 6509 Ratifying the Labor Contract with Law Enforcement Labor Services (L.E.L.S.), Local 232
(Police Sergeants) for 2004-2005.
J. Resolution 6510 Ratifying the Labor Contract with Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. (L.E.L.S.), Local
204 (Police Officers) for 2004-2005.
City Council Meeting Agenda
April 25, 2005
Page 2
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Minutes, March 14, 2005.
B. City Council Minutes, March 28, 2005
C. City Council Minutes, April 11, 2005.
D. Executive Session Minutes, April 11, 2005.
11. REPORTS
A. Reports of Mayor and Council
B. Reports of Staff
1. a. Finance Quarterly Report
b. Investment Quarterly Report
2. Announce the Town Hall Meeting (Saturday, Apr 30 from 9am to noon @ Community Center)
3. Announce a Special Work Session on Tuesday, May 3, 2005 to discuss Street Rehabilitation
Issues.
C. Reports of City Attorney
12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, May 2, 2005, @7pm Next Council Meeting: Monday, May 9, 2005 @7pm
Item 06A
Special Order of Business
Monday, April 25, 2005
City Administrator Review: ______
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, public works services provided in our community are an integral part of our
citizens everyday lives; and
WHEREAS, the support of an understanding and informed citizenry is vital to the efficient
operation of public works systems and programs such as water, sewers, streets and
highways, public buildings, and solid waste collection; and
WHEREAS, the health, safety, and comfort of this community greatly depends on these
facilities and services; and
WHEREAS, the quality and effectiveness of these facilities, as well as their planning,
design, and construction is vitally dependent upon the efforts and skill of public works
officials; and
WHEREAS, the efficiency of the qualified and dedicated personnel who staff public works
departments is materially influenced by the people’s attitude and understanding of the
importance of the work they perform,
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Rob Marty, Mayor of the City of Mounds View, do hereby proclaim
the week of May 15 through 21, 2005 as
“NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK”
in The City of Mounds View, and I call upon all citizens and civic organizations to acquaint
themselves with the issues involved in providing our public works and to recognize the
contributions which public works officials make every day to our health, safety, comfort,
and quality of life.
Given under my hand and Seal of the City of Mounds View, this 25th day of April 2005.
Rob Marty, Mayor
(seal)
Item 8C
Consent Agenda
Monday, April 25, 2005
City Administrator Review: ______
RESOLUTION 6501
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
PROCLAIMING APRIL 29, 2005 AS “ARBOR DAY”
WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View has been recognized for twenty-
three consecutive years as Tree City USA by the National Arbor Day Foundation
for its efforts in urban forestry; and
WHEREAS, trees in our City beautify our surroundings, shade our parks
and residences, increase property values and enhance the economic vitality of
business areas, and
WHEREAS, neighbors and scouts will be planting trees at Sunnyside
School; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that April 29, 2005, be Arbor
Day in Mounds View and public-spirited and foresighted citizens be called upon
to assist in the planting of trees now for the use and enjoyment of present and
future generations.
Adopted this 25th day of April, 2005
___________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, Clerk/Administrator
(seal)
Item No. 8D
Meeting Date: April 25, 2005
Type of Business: CA
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
City Administrator Review _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Schedule a Special Work Session for Tuesday
May 3, 2005 to discuss Street Rehabilitation
Issues
Staff is proposing to conduct informational presentation on issues pertaining to
street rehabilitation projects. This has been scheduled for May 3, 2005 at 7:00PM
at City Hall. Staff is also recommending that the City Council make this an official
City Council Work Session Meeting. Topics to be covered by the presentation will
include; general street construction, drainage, and watershed permit
requirements.
A notice of the meeting will be published in the official City newspaper on
September 27, 2005. Attached is a copy of the notice. It will also be posted on
the City web site, displayed on the City’s message board, and directly mailed to
the property owners in the proposed 2005 Street Project area. A notice will also
be sent to the Rice Creek Watershed District Administrator.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council approve setting a Special Work Session
for Tuesday May 3, 2005 to discuss street rehabilitation issues.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
April 20, 2005
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
STREET REHABILITATION ISSUES
Tuesday, May 3, 2005
Dear Resident / Property Owner: ----Direct Mailing Notice
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN ----Published Notice
The City of Mounds View invites all interested parties to attend a Special City
Council Meeting on Tuesday, May 3, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. at the Mounds View City
Hall, located at 2401Highway 10, across from the Community Center. The
purpose of the meeting is to discuss street rehabilitation issues that face the City.
Staff and the City’s engineering consultant will be conducting a presentation.
Following the presentation there will be an opportunity to discuss the information
presented and to ask questions and provide comments. Topics to be covered by
the presentation will include; general street construction, drainage, and
watershed permit requirements.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate contact me, or the Public
Works Department at 763-717-4050.
Sincerely,
Greg Lee
Public Works Director
Telephone Number: 763-717-4051
Fax Number: 763-784-3462
Email: greg.lee@ci.mounds-view.mn.us
Item No: 08F
Meeting Date: April 25, 2005
Type of Business: CA
City Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Barb Benesch, Administrative Assistant
Item Title/Subject: CONTRACTOR LICENSES FOR APPROVAL
Please consider the following contractor licenses for approval. All contractor licenses will
expire on December 31, 2005. All applicants have submitted appropriate fees and proof of
insurance. Those companies that are “new” include applicants that have never been licensed
with the City or they may have been licensed with the City in the past, but were not licensed in
2004. Those companies renewing their license were licensed, at a minimum, in the year 2004.
The type of license they are applying for follows the company name.
Fran’s Tree Service Tree Trimming/Removal Renewal
L & D Maintenance Co., Inc. General (Commercial) New
McPhillips Bros. Roofing Co. General (Commercial) Renewal
Summit Heating & Air Conditioning HVAC New
Watson’s of Minneapolis, Inc. Swimming Pool Installation Renewal
Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested.
Item No: 9A
Meeting Date: April 25, 2005
Type of Business: PH & CB
Administrator Review: _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mounds View City Council
From: Kristin Prososki, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Conditional
Use Permit for a Residential Dog Kennel at 8370
Pleasant View Drive; Planning Case No. CU2005-002
Introduction:
The applicant, Elizabeth Stoltz, is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for a residential
kennel at 8370 Pleasant View Drive, which is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. The
applicant is proposing to keep three German Shepard dogs as pets.
Discussion:
Section 1106.04 of the Zoning Code conditionally allows residential dog kennels in Single
Family Residential districts. The applicant is proposing to keep two female German Shepard
dogs and one male German Shepard dog on the property. The Municipal Code requires that
residents obtain a residential kennel license if they will be keeping more than two dogs that
are more than six months old on the property. A residential kennel license will permit the
resident to have up to four dogs.
One of the conditions of the residential kennel license is that the applicant must submit a
petition signed by at least 50% of the property owners within 500 feet of the applicant’s
property stating that they agree with the establishment of the kennel. There are 40
properties in Mounds View within 500’ of applicant’s property. The applicant has obtained
the signatures of 22 property owners, which is two more than the code requires (see
attached petition).
The applicant is planning to enclose the backyard with a five (5) foot tall fence. A privacy
fence will be constructed on the east (front) side, on the north side (to match up with an
existing privacy fence) and half way on the south side of the property. A black chain link
fence will be installed on the west (back) side and the back half of the south line. There is
currently a small fenced area in the yard and an existing kennel in the yard.
The applicant has three German Shepard dogs; one male and two females. All three dogs
are neutered/spayed. The applicant has indicated that the dogs are “inside” dogs most of the
day. The dogs are only let outside when the applicant is home and are not outside from 10
p.m. to 7 a.m. The applicant has indicated that the dogs have not been trained to be
aggressive guard dogs and have only received behavioral training.
8370 Pleasant View Drive CUP Report
April 25, 2005
Page 2
Staff contacted the Mounds View Police Department and requested any complaints or
reports filed regarding animals at the subject property. There is one complaint on file with
the Police Department for 8370 Pleasant View Drive. On March 5, 2005, the Police
Department received a complaint about barking dogs at the residence. Because the
applicant moved to Mounds View just a few months ago, Staff also contacted the City of
West St. Paul, where the applicant previously resided. The Police Department in West
St. Paul had no reports or complaints regarding animals for the applicant or her previous
residence.
CUP Considerations:
Conditional Use Criteria
In granting a conditional use permit, the City Council shall consider the advice and
recommendations of the Planning Commission (see “Adverse Effects” on page 3), and the effect
of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan and upon the health, safety and general
welfare of occupants of surrounding lands. Among other things, the City Council shall make the
following findings where applicable:
(1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other
public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area.
The proposed residential kennel would cause none of these identified problems.
(2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent
residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there
will be no deterrence to development of vacant land.
The applicant’s property will be fenced in and having pets is a common situation in
residential areas. The proposed use should not cause depreciation in value of the
neighboring properties.
(3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon
adjacent residential properties.
The rear yard of the applicant’s property will be entirely fenced in. The property appears
similar to all other residential properties and the site should not have an adverse effect
upon the adjacent properties. The concern that has been pointed out by the neighbors, is
that if the dogs bark excessively, it would cause a nuisance to the adjacent properties.
(4) The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the
City and to the existing land use.
Dog ownership is fairly common in residential neighborhoods.
Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report
April 6, 2005
Page 3
(5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning
district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use.
The Zoning Code conditionally allows for residential kennels in residential districts and this
proposal is consistent with all zoning requirements and the purpose of the RI-1, Single-
Family Residential District.
(6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
The proposed conditional use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
(7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion.
There will be no added traffic or congestion resulting from the proposed residential kennel.
(8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be
provided.
All utilities and infrastructure have already been provided. No additional utilities are
needed.
Adverse Effects
The Planning Commission reviewed and addressed any potential adverse effects which
include, but are not limited to, relationship with the Comprehensive Plan, geographical area
involved, potential depreciation, the character of the surrounding area and the demonstrated
need for such a use. Each of these potential adverse effects is listed below.
Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal to keep three dogs on the property
would not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Geographical Area Involved. The applicant’s property is located on Pleasant View Drive.
The area of the lot is slightly more than three-quarters of an acre. The size of the property
would accommodate the proposed kennel. In addition, the applicant is proposing to fully
fence the back yard, which would prevent the dogs from entering into neighboring properties.
Depreciation. The applicant has had one complaint made to the Police Department about the
dogs on her property. The proposed kennel would probably not decrease the value of the
surrounding properties, however, if the dogs bark excessively, it would decrease the
neighbors’ enjoyment of their own property.
The Character of the Surrounding Area. This part of the City is strictly a single-family
residential area. Keeping dogs as pets is a common practice.
The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use. The applicant has indicated that the need is
because she would like to keep her three dogs.
Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report
April 6, 2005
Page 4
Public Comment and Planning Commission Action:
Prior to the first public hearing held by the Planning Commission, Staff received many phone
calls, letters and in-person visits by neighboring property owners. The neighbors have
concerns about allowing the applicant to keep three dogs, specifically because they indicate
that the dogs bark excessively. In addition, some of the neighbors indicate that there are
already several dogs in the neighborhood and that “more is not merrier…just louder” (see
attached letter). Finally, the neighbors are concerned that allowing this applicant to have
three dogs would set a precedence, which would make it harder for the City to deny other
potential applicants in the area, should they choose to apply for a residential kennel.
Some of the neighbors have concerns about the barking and the loss of enjoyment of their
property, but are reluctant to force the applicant to sell or give away one of her pets. They
asked if it was possible to limit the conditional use permit to these specific dogs in order to
allow the applicant to keep these three pets, but to make sure that she didn’t continuously
have three dogs. Although this seems like a good compromise, conditional use permits run
with the property and cannot be limited to these three specific dogs.
Staff received letters from two residents who were opposed to the City allowing the
residential kennel because they were concerned about having a dog breeding business in the
neighborhood and felt that they did not have enough information about the request. Staff
contacted the residents to explain that in this case, the applicant would only be keeping pets
and would not be breeding the dogs and Staff gave them more specific information regarding
the request. The residents then indicated that they have no problems with the applicant
keeping pets and stated that they no longer object to the request. The original letters are on
file in the Community Development Department, but were not included in this report, as the
letters do not reflect the current opinion of the two neighbors.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 6, 2005. Several neighbors
appeared before the Commission and expressed their concern about the excessive barking
from the dogs. After much discussion between the Commission members, the neighbors and
the applicant, the Commission decided to recommend approval of the conditional use permit,
with the stipulation that the permit be reviewed again in three months time. This decision
was based on the idea that the dogs may bark less after they are used to their new
surroundings. (The applicant and neighbors agreed that the barking had already gotten
better since the applicant has moved to the neighborhood and that more time might allow the
dogs to become accustomed to the neighborhood.) Planning Commission Resolution 790-05
is attached for the Council’s review.
After the Planning Commission meeting, Staff discussed the decision with the City Attorney,
Scott Riggs. There was concern that it may not be appropriate to approve a conditional use
permit for only three months. Mr. Riggs researched the topic and found that we cannot put a
short-term time limit on the conditional use permit, that it would then be considered an interim
use. At this point, he is recommending that the Council table action on this request until a
determination has been made regarding other options for short-term approval.
Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report
April 6, 2005
Page 5
Recommendations:
After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and affected
neighbors, the Council can select one of the following actions related to the request:
1. Table the request until the City Attorney can provide information about the appropriate
action to take for a temporary approval. The City Attorney and Staff support this option.
If this option is selected, Staff will need to notify the applicant that the City will need an
additional 60-day review time. Staff would still process the request in a timely manner.
2. Approve the conditional use permit, without the three-month time frame. Resolution
6507, a resolution approving the conditional use permit, with conditions, is attached if the
Council selects this option.
3. Deny the conditional use permit. If the Council selects this option, Staff will return at the
following Council meeting on May 9, 2005 with a resolution of denial. If this option is
selected, Staff will need to notify the applicant that the City will need additional time
beyond the initial 60-day review time.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristin Prososki
Planning Associate
Attachments:
1. Application
2. Letter from the Applicant
3. Petition Submitted by Applicant
4. Zoning Map
5. Location Map
6. Photographic Documentation
7. Letter from Neighboring Properties
8. Planning Commission Resolution 790-05
9. Resolution 6507
Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report
April 6, 2005
Page 6
Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report
April 6, 2005
Page 7
Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report
April 6, 2005
Page 8
Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report
April 6, 2005
Page 9
Petition Signed by Neighbors (submitted by Applicant)
Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report
April 6, 2005
Page 10
Zoning Map
Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report
April 6, 2005
Page 11
Location Map - 8370 Pleasant View Drive
Dog Kennel Conditional Use Permit Request
8370
Spring Lake Park
Mounds View
Properties within shaded area are within 350 feet of 8370 Pleasant View Drive
Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report
April 6, 2005
Page 12
Photographic Documentation
Backyard Area
Existing Kennel
Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report
April 6, 2005
Page 13
Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report
April 6, 2005
Page 14
Map Submitted with Letter
(shaded properties are opposed to request)
Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report
April 6, 2005
Page 15
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 790-05
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR A RESIDENTIAL DOG KENNEL AT 8370 PLEASANT VIEW DRIVE; PLANNING
CASE NO. CU2005-002
WHEREAS, Elizabeth Stoltz has applied for a conditional use permit for a residential
dog kennel; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 8370 Pleasant View Drive, is zoned R-1,
Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows:
Lot 1, Block 2
Pleasant Acres
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows residential dog
kennels in Single Family Residential districts; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents
regarding this proposal:
a. Planning Application
b. Letter from the Applicant
c. Zoning Map
d. Location Map
e. Letter from Neighboring Properties
f. Photographic Documentation
g. Staff Report
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing regarding
the conditional use permit request on Wednesday, April 6, 2005.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
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.
Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report
April 6, 2005
Page 16 2. The size of the subject property is able to accommodate three dogs. The rear yard will be fully fenced, which will prevent the dogs from entering neighboring properties.
3. There has been only one complaint regarding dogs at the subject property. The
proposal to keep three dogs should not depreciate the surrounding area.
4. The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed
residential kennel.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit for a residential dog
kennel, with conditions as follows:
1. No more than three dogs shall be allowed on the property.
2. The applicant shall be responsible for paying an annual license fee upon
approval of this permit and again every year thereafter.
3. The applicant shall maintain the yard and kennel area in a clean, quiet, orderly
and sanitary condition.
4. The City Council, at its discretion, may review this conditional use permit at any
time in the future if the need to do so arises.
5. This permit is in effect for three (3) months from the date of approval. After three
months, the permit shall be reviewed during a public hearing by the Planning
Commission and City Council, at which time a determination regarding a permanent
conditional use permit will be made.
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 6th day of April, 2005.
_____________________________________
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
____________________________________
James Ericson,
Community Development Director
(SEAL)
Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report
April 6, 2005
Page 17
RESOLUTION NO. 6507
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND LICENSE FOR A
RESIDENTIAL DOG KENNEL FOR ELIZABETH STOLTZ,
8370 PLEASANT VIEW DRIVE; PLANNING CASE NO. CU2005-002
WHEREAS, Elizabeth Stoltz has applied for a conditional use permit and license
for a residential dog kennel at her property located at 8370 Pleasant View Drive,
property zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, legally described as followed:
Lot 1, Block 2
Pleasant Acres
Ramsey County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code allows, with a conditional use
permit, three to four dogs at a single-family residence; and
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the following
documents regarding this proposal:
a. Planning Application
b. Zoning Map
c. Location Map
d. Petition from Neighboring Properties
e. Photographic Documentation
f. Staff Report
g. Planning Commission Resolution 790-05
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council finds that the signatures on the
submitted petition are valid and meet the licensing requirement for residential dog
kennels; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council held a duly noticed public hearing
regarding the conditional use permit request on Monday, April 25, 2005; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code requires that the City Council consider
the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and shall consider the
relationship between the proposed conditional use and the Comprehensive plan and
consider the impacts of the use supported by findings of relevant fact.
Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report
April 6, 2005
Page 18
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View City Council
makes the following findings regarding the criteria for approval of a conditional use
permit:
(1) The proposed use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks,
schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are
proposed to serve the area.
(2) The use is sufficiently compatible and is fenced from adjacent residential land so
that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no
deterrence to development of vacant land.
(3) The property appears similar to all other residential properties and should not
have an adverse effect upon the adjacent properties.
(4) Dog ownership is fairly common in residential neighborhoods and is
reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land
use.
(5) This proposal is consistent with all zoning requirements and the purpose of
the R-1, Single-Family Residential District.
(6) The proposed conditional use does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
(7) There will be no added traffic or congestion resulting from the proposed
residential kennel.
(8) All utilities and infrastructure have already been provided. No additional
utilities are needed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View City
Council approves the conditional use permit and license request of Elizabeth Stoltz, with
the following stipulations:
1. No more than three dogs shall be allowed on the property.
2. The applicant shall be responsible for paying an annual license fee upon approval of
this permit and again every year thereafter.
3. The applicant shall maintain the yard and kennel area in a clean, quiet, orderly and
sanitary condition.
4. The City Council, at its discretion, may review this conditional use permit at any time
in the future if the need to do so arises.
Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report
April 6, 2005
Page 19
Adopted this 25th day of April, 2005.
_____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk / Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No: 09E
Meeting Date: April 25, 2005
Type of Business: CB
City Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Desaree Crane, Administrative Assistant
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6503 Approving a Step/Longevity Increases Officer
Keith Demarest, Officer Tom Baumgart, and Public Safety
Officer Robin Marion
Background:
Officer Keith Demarest, Officer Tom Baumgart and Public Safety Officer (PSO) Robin
Marion are current employees with the City of Mounds View. Their supervisors have
reviewed their performances as it relates to their responsibilities outlined in the job
descriptions.
Discussion:
It was determined that Officer Keith Demarest, Officer Tom Baumgart and PSO Robin
Marion have more than satisfactorily performed in the capacity of their positions, and
therefore, a step/longevity increase wage adjustments are consistent with the
Personnel Manual and Labor Agreements.
Respectfully Submitted,
Desaree Crane
RESOLUTION 6503
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING STEP/LONGEVITY ADJUSTMENTS
WHEREAS, the following below are regular full-time employees who are
currently working for the City of Mounds View; and
WHEREAS, their supervisors reviewed their performances as it relates to the
responsibilities outlined in the job description; and
WHEREAS, their supervisors determined that the following employees below
have more than satisfactorily performed in the capacity of their positions documented in
their performance reviews on file.
WHEREAS, a step increase wage adjustment is consistent with the Mounds
View Personnel Manual and Labor Agreements.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does
hereby approve a wage adjustment to the following indicated in the chart below.
NAME CURRENT
POSITION
DATE OF
EMPLOYMENT/CURRENT
POSITION
CURRENT STEP &
WAGE
STEP & WAGE
ADJUSTMENT
EFFECTIVE
DATE OF
ADJUSTMENT
Officer Keith
Demarest
Police Officer April 26, 2004 Step 2
$17.87/hr
Step 3
$20.42/hr
April 26, 2005
Officer Tom
Baumgart
Police Officer May 3, 1993 Longevity: (5%)
$26.80/hr
Longevity (7%)
$27.31/ hr
May 3, 2005
PSO Robin
Marion
Public Service
Officer
May 4, 2004 Step 2
$11.56/hr
Step 3
$12.24/hr
May 4, 2005
Adopted this 25th day of April, 2005.
__________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No: 09I
Meeting Date: April 25, 2005
Type of Business: CB
City Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6509 Ratifying the Labor Contract with Law
Enforcement Labor Service (LELS), Local 232 (Police
Sergeants) for 2004-2005
The attached resolution authorizes amendments to the LELS labor agreement. The contract
period is from January 1, 2004 and expires on December 31, 2005.
The agreement specifies a wage increase, plus new employer insurance contributions, and
other amendments.
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 6509
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RATIFYING THE LABOR CONTRACT
WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES, INC. (L.E.L.S),
LOCAL NO. 232 (POLICE SERGEANTS) FOR 2004-2005
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby ratify the LELS,
Local #232 (Police Sergeants) Contract for the year 2003, with the following amendments:
1. Article 9 Probationary Periods
9.1 All newly hired or rehired employees will serve a twelve (12) months’
probationary period.
9.2 All employees will serve a six (6) months’ probationary period in any job
classification in which the employee has not served a probationary
period.
9.3 At any time during the probationary period a newly hired or rehired
employee may be terminated at the sole discretion of the EMPLOYER.
9.4 At any time during the probationary period a promoted or reassigned
employee may be demoted or reassigned to the employee’s pervious
position at the sole discretion of the EMPLOYER.
2. Article 14 Overtime
14.1 Employees will be compensated at one and one-half (1 ½) times the
employees’ regular base rate for hours worked in excess of the
employee’s regularly scheduled shift. Changes of shifts do not qualify
an employee for overtime under this Article.
14.2 Overtime will be distributed as practicable.
14.3 Overtime refused by employees will for record purposes under Article
13.2 be considered an unpaid overtime worked.
14.4 For the purposes of computing overtime compensation, overtime hours
worked shall not be pyramided, compounded or paid twice for the same
hours worked.
14.5 Overtime will be calculated to the nearest fifteen (15) minutes.
14.6 Employees have the obligation to work overtime or call backs if
requested by the EMPLOYER unless unusual circumstances prevent the
employee for so working.
14.7 Employees may take compensatory time in lieu of overtime pay.
Compensatory time may be calculated up to fifty (50) hours.
3. Article 17 Insurance
17.1 The EMPLOYER will contribute to each employee per month a
maximum amount equal to eighty percent (80%) of the lowest cost family
health insurance for employee and family health insurance and basic life
insurance.
17.2 Employees may designate any unused portion of the EMPLOYER
contribution amount to provide dental coverage and/or supplemental life
insurance offered according to established guidelines through the City’s
plans.
17.3 The Employer will contribute a maximum amount of $613.30 per month
in 2004 to each full-time permanent employee, for group health, dental
and life insurance including dependant coverage.
17.4 The EMPLOYER will contribute a maximum amount of $672.30 per
month in 2005 to each full-time permanent employee, for group health,
dental and life insurance including dependant coverage. If the increase
in the lowest cost group health insurance premium for family coverage in
2005 is 15% or greater, the City will contribute an additional $10 per
month per employee.
4. Article 22 Severance Pay
22.1 Any employee who has accumulated 960 hours of sick leave as of
January 1, 2005, and who have completed ten (10) years of service will
be eligible to receive severance pay in the amount of fifty percent (50%)
of unused sick leave. Upon death of the employee, the beneficiary of
the employee shall be paid the benefit.
22.2 Any employee who has accumulated a minimum of 960 hours of sick
leave as of January 1, 2005 will be eligible to contribute sixty-five percent
(65%) of the employee’s accumulated and baked sick leave for
contribution to the employee’s designated health savings plan.
Employees who have accumulated a minimum of 960 hours of sick leave
as of January 1, 2005, will be covered by the Retirement Health Savings
language of Section 22.3.
22.3 Retirement Health Savings
The City of Mounds View offers its employees a Retirement Health
Savings Plan pursuant to Internal Revenue Code regulations through a
third party administrator selected by the City.
The following contributions will be allowed to the Retirement Health
Savings Plan:
A. Upon separation from employment with the City, an employee
may contribute their compensation for accrued vacation and
compensatory time. Employees who have completed two years
of service and leave in good standing may also contribute fifty
percent (50%) of unused sick leave calculated against a
maximum accumulation of 960 hours. Additional bank sick leave
hours will not be computed for the contribution.
B. An employee may elect to contribute a percentage of their annual
pay to the plan on a pre-tax basis. Once this election is made, it
can never be changed.
C. An employee may elect to make an after-tax contribution of their
annual pay to the plan. This election may be changed each
year, but is limited to 25% of total contributions to the plan by all
employees.
D. An employee may annually elect to contribute a portion of their
sick leave balance to the plan. The employee would have to
maintain a minimum balance of 480 hours of sick leave after the
contribution and would be allowed to convert up to 160 hours of
sick leave into 80 hours of RHS contribution per year at a 2 to 1
rate. This election may be changed each year.
22.4 An employee will be compensated for accrued vacation and
compensatory time upon separation.
5. Article 27 Post Licensure
The EMPLOYER will pay $90.00 toward the cost of maintaining POST
licensure.
6. Appendix A: Wages Increases effective January 1, 2004, January 1, 2005 and
July 1, 2005 as specified in the chart.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council
does hereby ratify the LELS, Local #232 (Police Sergeants) Contract effective January 1,
2004 and expiring on December 31, 2005.
Adopted this 25th day of April, 2005.
_________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No: 09J
Meeting Date: April 25, 2005
Type of Business: CB
City Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6510 Ratifying the Labor Contract with Law
Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. (LELS), Local 204
(Police Officers) for 2004-2005
The attached resolution authorizes amendments to the LELS labor agreement. The contract
period is from January 1, 2004 and expires on December 31, 2005.
The agreement specifies a wage increase, plus new employer insurance contributions, and
other amendments.
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 6510
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RATIFYING THE LABOR CONTRACT
WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES, INC. (L.E.L.S),
LOCAL NO. 204 (POLICE OFFICERS) FOR 2004-2005
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby ratify the LELS,
Local #232 (Police Sergeants) Contract for the year 2003, with the following amendments:
1. Article 9 Probationary Periods
9.1 All newly hired or rehired employees will serve a twelve (12) months’
probationary period.
9.2 All employees will serve a six (6) months’ probationary period in any job
classification in which the employee has not served a probationary
period.
9.3 At any time during the probationary period a newly hired or rehired
employee may be terminated at the sole discretion of the EMPLOYER.
9.4 At any time during the probationary period a promoted or reassigned
employee may be demoted or reassigned to the employee’s pervious
position at the sole discretion of the EMPLOYER.
2. Article 17 Insurance
17.1 The EMPLOYER will contribute to each employee per month a
maximum amount equal to eighty percent (80%) of the lowest cost family
health insurance for employee and family health insurance and basic life
insurance, or an amount as agreed in Section 17.3.
17.2 Employees may designate any unused portion of the EMPLOYER
contribution amount to provide dental coverage and/or supplemental life
insurance offered according to established guidelines through the City’s
plans.
17.3 The Employer will contribute a maximum amount of $613.30 per month
in 2004 to each full-time permanent employee, for group health, dental
and life insurance including dependant coverage.
17.4 The EMPLOYER will contribute a maximum amount of $672.30 per
month in 2005 to each full-time permanent employee, for group health,
dental and life insurance including dependant coverage. If the increase
in the lowest cost group health insurance premium for family coverage in
2005 is 15% or greater, the City will contribute an additional $10 per
month per employee.
4. Article 23 Severance Pay
23.1 Any employee who has accumulated 960 hours of sick leave as a
January 1, 2005, and who have completed ten (10) years of service will
be eligible to receive severance pay in the amount of fifty percent (50%)
of unused sick leave. Upon death of the employee, the beneficiary of
the employee shall be paid the benefit.
23.2 Any employee who has accumulated a minimum of 960 hours of sick
leave as of January 1, 2005 will be eligible to contribute, in lieu of
severance pay as provided in Section 23.1, sixty-five percent (65%) of
the employee’s accumulated and baked sick leave for contribution to the
employee’s designated health savings plan.
Employees who have accumulated a minimum of 960 hours of sick leave
as of January 1, 2005, will be covered by the Retirement Health Savings
language of Section 22.3.
23.3 Retirement Health Savings
The City of Mounds View offers its employees a Retirement Health
Savings Plan pursuant to Internal Revenue Code regulations through a
third party administrator selected by the City.
The following contributions will be allowed to the Retirement Health
Savings Plan:
A. Upon separation from employment with the City, an employee
may contribute their compensation for accrued vacation and
compensatory time. Employees who have completed two years
of service and leave in good standing may also contribute fifty
percent (50%) of unused sick leave calculated against a
maximum accumulation of 960 hours. Additional bank sick leave
hours will not be computed for the contribution.
B. An employee may elect to contribute a percentage of their annual
pay to the plan on a pre-tax basis. Once this election is made, it
can never be changed.
C. An employee may elect to make an after-tax contribution of their
annual pay to the plan. This election may be changed each
year, but is limited to 25% of total contributions to the plan by all
employees.
D. An employee may annually elect to contribute a portion of their
sick leave balance to the plan. The employee would have to
maintain a minimum balance of 480 hours of sick leave after the
contribution and would be allowed to convert up to 160 hours of
sick leave into 80 hours of RHS contribution per year at a 2 to 1
rate. This election may be changed each year.
23.4 An employee will be compensated for accrued vacation and
compensatory time upon separation.
5. Article 24 Holidays
24.2 For employee who work Monday through Friday schedules, if a holiday
falls on a Saturday, the preceding Friday shall be considered the holiday.
If a holiday falls on a Sunday, the following Monday shall be considered
the holiday. Holiday Hours shall be calculated based on the length of
patrol officer shifts.
6. Appendix A: Wages Increases effective January 1, 2004, January 1, 2005 and
July 1, 2005 as specified in the chart.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council
does hereby ratify the LELS, Local #232 (Police Sergeants) Contract effective January 1,
2004 and expiring on December 31, 2005.
Adopted this 25th day of April, 2005.
_________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL 1
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3
4
Regular Meeting 5
March 14, 2005 6
Mounds View City Hall 7
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 8
7:05 P.M. 9
10
11
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 12
13
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 14
15
3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, and Thomas 16
17
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 18
19
Monday, March 14, 2005 City Council Agenda. 20
21
MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Gunn. To Approve the Monday March 14, 2005 agenda as 22
presented. 23
24
Ayes –5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 25
26
5. PUBLIC INPUT 27
28
Tom Winkey, 2700 block of Sherwood Road. He asked whether he will be assessed the same 29
amount of money for the street improvement project in three or four years when his street is done 30
as the citizens whose streets were redone this past year. 31
32
Public Works Director Lee stated that they can’t guarantee the same project value in the future as 33
the 2004 project, but it would be based on the same methodology, which is that 25 percent of the 34
total project cost would be divided equally among the total single family properties. 35
36
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUISNESS 37
38
A. YMCA Quarterly Report (oral report with handouts) 39
40
Pat Riemersma from the YMCA stated that the total revenue for Parks and Recreation was 41
$101,830, total expenses were $70,463, management fee was $8,807, and so the City received a 42
check for $22,560. She explained the Income Statement for Management of the Facility for 43
2004 and the other handouts she provided to the Council. She explained the need for the new 44
cash register they are going to buy. 45
Mounds View City Council March 14, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 2
7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS.. 1
2
Council Member Thomas asked about Check 115600, final payment for County Road H 3
sidewalk. She asked if the county had reimbursed them. 4
5
Public Works Director Lee stated that they would be invoicing the County for about $150,000 for 6
that soon. 7
8
Council Member Thomas asked what the $646 was for on page 10 to Anderson. 9
10
Finance Director Hanson stated it was part of the water service program, and it was for locating 11
leaks and doing repairs on that. 12
13
Council Member Flaherty asked what the $493 for advertising was for on page 2 of the second 14
report. 15
16
Finance Director Hanson stated it was advertising for the golf course. 17
18
Council Member Flaherty asked if the $12,244 on page 4 was the last payment for the 19
redevelopment for BRAA Construction. 20
21
Finance Director Hanson stated it was the latest invoices received from BRAA Construction, and 22
that this is just the start of the invoices that they would be receiving from them. 23
24
Council Member Flaherty asked if this would be a monthly bill. 25
26
Public Works Director Lee stated that this is for the Highway 10 corridor improvement. He 27
indicated they would be providing monthly updates on where they are at with the project. 28
29
Council Member Gunn asked about page 11, the first item, 1156700, traffic control. 30
31
Public Works Director Lee stated that this was approved on January 10 with Resolution 6430, 32
and it was contracting with the County to upgrade the signal system, and it would be paid off in 33
three years. 34
35
Council Member Stigney asked what vehicle was damaged for the $371.76 for vehicle repair on 36
page 6. 37
38
Public Works Director Lee stated it was for a 2000 three-quarter ton pickup that was backed into 39
in the shop and had a damaged bumper and grill. He stated the repairs had been done in-house, 40
and it would have cost five times that much had it been sent out somewhere else. 41
42
MOTION/SECOND. To approve the Just and Correct Claims as Presented. 43
44
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 45
Mounds View City Council March 14, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 3
1
8. CONSENT AGENDA 2
3
Council Member Flaherty asked to remove Item A. 4
5
A. Resolution 6421 Approving the Purchase of a Replacement Water Tanker 6
Truck 7
B. Schedule a Public Hearing for 7:05 pm for Monday, March 28, 2005 to consider 8
the Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 758, an Ordinance Limiting 9
Garbage Pickup Thursdays Only. 10
C. Schedule a Public Hearing for 7:10 pm on Monday, March 28, 2005 to consider 11
Resolution 6475, a Resolution Pertaining to a Proposed Interim Use Permit (IUP) 12
for a Temporary Outdoor Membrane Structure at the Mermaid. 13
D. Schedule a Public Hearing for 7:15 pm on Monday, March 28, 2005 to Consider 14
a Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage at 5343 Clifton 15
Drive. 16
E. Resolution 6476 Approving a Certificate of Correction for the Velmeir CVS Final 17
Plat 18
F. Licenses for Approval 19
20
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Gunn. To approve Items B, C, D, E, and F of the Consent 21
Agenda as presented. 22
23
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 24
25
A. Resolution 6421 Approving the Purchase of a Replacement Water Tanker 26
Truck. 27
28
Council Member Flaherty said he noticed Item 7 talked about a 20 year warranty on a stainless 29
steel drum and he wondered if they wouldn’t be asking for another truck for 20 years. 30
31
Finance Director Lee stated that their replacement program is actually 25 years. 32
33
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Flaherty. To approve Resolution 6421 Approving the Purchase of a 34
Replacement Water Tanker Truck and to waive the reading. 35
36
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 37
38
9. COUNCIL BUSINESS. 39
40
A. 7:20 Public Hearing for the 2005 Street Improvement Project, Resolution 6474 41
Approving the Feasibility Report 42
43
44
Public Works Director Lee pointed out the location on the map of the section of streets slated for 45
Mounds View City Council March 14, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 4
improvement in the 2005 Street Improvement Project that are south of County Road I 1
and east of Silver Lake Road. He stated the reason for doing this section is economy due to its 2
proximity to the location of the streets that were done in 2004 and storm water utility 3
considerations. He advised that the map was set up based on 1 ½ miles of streets per year, which 4
correlates to $1.5 million per year. He stated this is a complete street upgrade, and the streets 5
would be completely removed and new subgrade added. There would be concrete curb and 6
gutter and a new bituminous. There would be utility repairs, sanitary sewer repairs, and storm 7
sewer added, along with storm water infiltration basins. He stated that as part of this plan, they 8
would like to add a sidewalk on Knollwood and Woodcrest. He stated that $950,000 of the cost 9
would be paid out of city funds, and they would be selling bonds for that, and there would be 10
$350,000 of assessments allocated between 101 single family properties. The single family 11
residential home assessment would be a little under $3,000, payable over 10 years with an 12
interest rate of 5 percent, although this could be paid off early to avoid interest charges. 13
14
Public Works Director Lee stated that should the Council proceed with this project, the next 15
thing that would occur is a 60-day appeal period established by the City’s Charter, and if there is 16
a Petition filed with the City Council with more than 50 percent of the people in that area, this 17
project cannot go forward. However, if the project does go forward, Staff would be coming back 18
to the City Council on May 9th to order the project, and July 11th would be the assessment 19
hearing, and awarding the contracts for construction would begin August 1st. 20
21
Public Works Director Lee reported that a survey had been sent out regarding the sidewalks on 22
Knollwood and Woodcrest, and they had received 26 responses back, all opposed to the 23
sidewalks. 24
25
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing. 26
27
Valerie Amundson, 3048 Woodale Drive, stated that since she had sent her survey in, she had 28
decided she was opposed to the project because there is a property across the street from hers that 29
has not been developed yet. She informed the Council that over the last three or four years the 30
City has been dumping fill from projects on the property, and there has been substantial damage 31
that has occurred to their street as a result of that. She doesn’t believe this project should move 32
forward until the dumping has ceased and the property has been developed. 33
34
Mayor Marty stated it was his understanding that the fill had stopped last year. 35
36
Public Works Director Lee advised that their grade permit had expired, so they would have to 37
come back to the City to get another grading permit. 38
39
Ms. Amundson stated that the property could not be developed as it is now, and there would need 40
to be major work to make that property buildable. She stated she didn’t want to waste her $3,000 41
until that was done. 42
43
Jim Wilson, 7025 Pleasantview Drive, stated that it was his opinion that the streets didn’t need to 44
be completely redone because they weren’t in that bad of shape. He stated he works for MnDOT 45
Mounds View City Council March 14, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 5
in construction, and he believed that an inch and a half overlay would be sufficient for the 1
amount of traffic that goes down those streets. He also wasn’t sure that curb and gutter was 2
needed because there weren’t any water problems. He stated he would like to read the feasibility 3
study so he could get a better idea of what is needed. 4
5
Mayor Marty indicated that the feasibility study is a matter of public record. 6
7
Public Works Director Lee informed that a condensed version of the feasibility study was mailed 8
to every property owner. 9
10
Mr. Wilson said an overlay would save the city and the taxpayers a lot of money. 11
12
Public Works Director Lee noted that soil borings had been done, and the subgrade underneath 13
the road is in very poor condition. 14
15
Mr. Wilson remarked that there is no reason to drive down his street unless you live there. 16
17
Mayor Marty indicated that they were trying to fix the roads and construct them so they will last 18
50 years. 19
20
Public Works Director Lee stated that the garbage trucks are extremely heavy, and those are the 21
vehicles that really damage the street, especially on the edges of the streets. 22
23
Jerry Blanski, 2933 Woodale Drive, remarked he went through the feasibility study with a fine-24
tooth comb, and he couldn’t find anything wrong with it and it was a very good report. He stated 25
for $3,000 it was a good deal, and he thanked the people who put the report together. 26
27
Brian Amundson, 3048 Woodale Drive, stated he is opposed to the concrete curb and also 28
opposed to the project. He is also opposed to the holding ponds that are being built in the city. 29
He reported that Minneapolis had done this years ago, and they had issues with drowning deaths 30
of young children. He said that holding ponds damage and disrupt natural wetland that exist 31
today and seem counter to allowing nature to take care of itself. He reiterated the concerns 32
regarding the property across the street as listed above by his wife. He stated he has prepared a 33
petition that he has started circulating already so they can all see what the neighborhood really 34
wants to do. He stated that there are issues that still need to be addressed that don’t have answers 35
yet. 36
37
Mayor Marty asked what those issues were. 38
39
Public Works Director Lee stated the sidewalks continue to be an issue, there is an issue with the 40
Silver Lakes Condominiums, and there is an issue with how Spring View Lane terminates. 41
42
Mayor Marty stated he had received phone calls from citizens that had been totally against the 43
project last year, but that most everyone has been very happy with the outcome. 44
Mr. Amundson said he was glad that neighborhood was happy, but that didn’t have anything to 45
Mounds View City Council March 14, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 6
do with this neighborhood. He stated he would be going house to house with his petition, but if 1
anyone wished to call him, his phone number is (763)786-5699. 2
3
Mayor Marty stated they are trying to be proactive by fixing the sewers while they are putting in 4
the streets so they don’t have a problem later and have to rip the streets up. 5
6
Dick Comden, 2832 Woodcrest Drive, stated he wasn’t sure if this was the forum for his 7
concern, but in reading the report he discovered he has a nonconforming driveway. He said his 8
he has a circular driveway because a member of his family is in a wheelchair. He stated as far as 9
he is concerned he doesn’t want to do the project if they are going to cut off his driveway, but 10
other than that, it’s a good deal. 11
12
Public Works Director Lee stated they thought it had been important to identify nonconforming 13
properties, and as part of this project they would provide a concrete driveway apron. 14
15
Mr. Wilson stated that by building the holding pond they would be ripping up the woods and 16
displacing the wildlife that they all enjoyed, and they had already been displaced from the County 17
Road H2 project. 18
19
Mike Marrone, 5045 Brighton Lane, stated he thought that someone from Rice Creek Watershed 20
District should be present at some of these meetings to address the reasoning behind the ponding 21
issues. He stated when you propose ponds, you are looking for a place for a kid to drown. He 22
stated that the citizens should be able to dictate what happens to their property. 23
24
Mayor Marty stated they are well aware of the disadvantages of working with Rice Creek 25
Watershed District, but they hold power over them as far as what they can and cannot do. 26
27
Charles Asparl, 2948 Springview Lane, asked for an explanation of the ponding south of his area. 28
29
Public Works Director Lee stated that the feasibility report is in draft form at the present time and 30
there are three options, and there is a meeting tomorrow with the property owners. 31
32
Mr. Asparl asked what size pond was being considered. 33
34
Public Works Director Lee stated that it was a rain garden, not a pond. He stated in larger rain 35
events it would fill with water, but it would infiltrate into the ground over a day or two. 36
37
Mr. Asparl stated that they had looked at the idea of working with the city in the future to 38
actually build a pond there in the future, but they hadn’t gotten that far. He stated he would be 39
very interested in having a pond put near this area, and he would be more than willing to give 40
access through his yard and would encourage that. 41
42
Someone in the audience stated that as his neighbor, he would be opposed to that. 43
44
There was a short discussion about the rain garden concept. 45
Mounds View City Council March 14, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 7
1
Keith ___, 2940 Woodale Drive, stated he had paid top dollar for his property and had spent a 2
substantial amount of money on an addition and remodeling. He stated that his issue is not with 3
the City of Mounds View, but it is with the Rice Creek Watershed District. He stated that the 4
proposed ponding area would wipe out his back yard, and it would become a huge liability issue 5
regarding drawing the youth in the neighborhood. He stated that the water isn’t really running in 6
the first place, so he has no idea where Rice Creek Watershed is coming from with this need for a 7
pond. He stated there is going to be a lot of future debate from he and the rest of the neighbors 8
on the amount of trees that are going to need to be removed for this pond. He stated they don’t 9
want to lose the wildlife that they bought their property to enjoy. He stated that it’s time to take 10
a stand against the Rice Creek Watershed District. 11
12
William Werner, 2765 Sherwood Road, stated he had worked at the Charter Commission before, 13
and he stated that they are talking about the big picture policies of the Rice Creek Watershed 14
District, and he invited others to consider joining the Charter Commission. 15
16
Council Member Gunn stated that perhaps they should invite their resident Rice Creek 17
Watershed Commissioner to attend one of these meetings. 18
19
Jerry Blanski, 2933 Woodale Drive, stated he thought they were to be talking about the feasibility 20
report on the Street Improvement Project tonight, but it seems like they have shifted to the report 21
on the regional pond, and he did not come prepared to speak to that. 22
23
Public Works Director Lee stated they are linked to some degree, but at this point in time they are 24
two separate projects. 25
26
David Rudnik, 7191 Knollwood, stated the parking situation at the church is extremely 27
hazardous, and he went into details of that. He brought up the issue of phosphorous and whether 28
anyone had tested the water coming through the pipes through that drainage area to figure out 29
where phosphorous containment is required. He stated if the wetland isn’t cleaning the water 30
sufficiently, as good neighbors they need to look at working with Rice Creek. He asked how the 31
pond would be paid for. 32
33
Public Works Director Lee stated that it was being paid for out of the City Storm Water Utility 34
Fund. 35
36
Mr. Rudnik asked how they could make a decision in the next 60 days when they didn’t know 37
what the cost of the pond was going to be. 38
39
Public Works Director Lee stated that they are two separate projects. 40
41
Mr. Rudnik pointed out that they couldn’t do one without the other. 42
43
Public Works Director Lee stated that they could if they worked with the Watershed District and 44
said that the bond isn’t feasible and it’s too exorbitant and the property owners aren’t agreeable. 45
Mounds View City Council March 14, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 8
1
Mr. Rudnik stated he is in support of the street project, and the streets need to be redone, but the 2
biggest issue is finding a solution for the ponding that doesn’t destroy everything. 3
4
Mr. Amundson stated he didn’t understand why this section of town was being done right now 5
when there were other sections in the city where the streets were in worse condition than his 6
neighborhood. 7
8
Kimberly Kris, 2824 Woodale Drive, stated that it was time to stand up against the Rice Creek 9
Watershed District. She also stated that she is definitely opposed to the sidewalks. She stated 10
she agreed with the comments made about the dangerous parking situation at the church. 11
12
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing. 13
14
Council Member Stigney asked whether there were areas of the city that had streets in worse 15
condition than this area. 16
17
Public Works Director Lee stated that some of the areas slated for 2006 were in worse condition 18
than this area that was slated for 2005. 19
20
Council Member Stigney asked if the main factor was the contractor’s proximity to the 2004 21
project, regardless of whether they were bidding for the 2005 project or not. 22
23
Public Works Director Lee stated that another factor was that the City Council had wanted to 24
look at doing a larger project in 2004, and at that time they were using the 1999 pavement 25
condition indexes, and since that time those have been updated. 26
27
Council Member Stigney stated it would have been preferable to have asked on the feedback 28
form whether they were in favor of concrete curb or bituminous, but his personal opinion was 29
that if it was only a $186 difference, he would definitely favor concrete. He asked why the 30
county didn’t put concrete on Silver Lake Road. 31
32
Public Works Director Lee stated that they hadn’t because it’s not permanent, and they are 33
planning to do something else with Silver Lake Road in the near future so that’s why they used 34
bituminous. 35
36
Council Member Thomas stated she felt the question regarding concrete curb and gutter versus 37
bituminous was important to be asked of the citizens in each separate project. 38
39
Mayor Marty stated from here on out, they better put that question back in at the neighborhood 40
meetings every year. 41
42
Council Member Flaherty stated that what he is hearing is that the curb and gutter are virtually 43
secondary, and that he is hearing that they don’t want them touching their streets this year. He 44
stated they need to take a look at the future on what they are doing. 45
Mounds View City Council March 14, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 9
1
Council Member Gunn stated she felt there should be concrete curbs and gutter to make the roads 2
last as long as they possibly can. 3
4
Mayor Marty stated he didn’t see the need for sidewalks in this section of town. He asked how 5
the trailway along Silver Lake Road was coming along. 6
7
Public Works Director Lee stated that it is scheduled for construction in 2005, and the draft 8
report would be ready in mid April. 9
10
Mayor Marty stated they need to look at the parking by the church. He stated that tonight they 11
would not be approving the project per se, but they would just be going forward with the 12
feasibility study. He stated that the public would have a lot more opportunity to give input on 13
what they would and wouldn’t like. 14
15
Council Member Gunn asked what the percentage was for and against this area. 16
17
Public Works Director Lee stated that it was 58 percent in favor and 42 percent generally 18
opposed. He said that last year’s project was 82 percent in favor, and 12 percent opposed. 19
20
Council Member Gunn asked what it would entail to choose another area for this year. 21
22
Public Works Director Lee stated it would cost probably just a couple of thousand dollars, and all 23
the information that was collected as part of the report would basically remain as is. 24
25
Council Member Gunn stated that she was sure there would be enough signatures on the petition 26
to stop the project, and they could hold off on this area for a couple more years, and there was 27
other areas in the city that were in much more dire need of replacement than this area. 28
29
Council Member Thomas stated she wasn’t against curb and gutter, but there were places it was 30
useful and places were it wasn’t. She stated that the curb would last 50 years, but the road would 31
still have to be replaced in 25 to 30 years. She said that the roads in the sections in blue and red 32
on the map were in worse condition than the area on Woodcrest. 33
34
Council Member Flaherty stated that the Council wants to do what is best for the community, and 35
he hopes that people aren’t of the opinion that they don’t. 36
37
Mayor Marty asked if there would be time to do a street project this year if they decided to 38
choose another area. 39
40
Public Works Director Lee stated that even if everything had gone smoothly for this area, the 41
timing would have been tight, so if another area is chosen, the earliest they could start is next 42
year. He stated that they could perhaps do three miles of replacement next year, and, in fact, it’s 43
more efficient to have a larger project. He stated that the red area and the green area could be the 44
2006 project. 45
Mounds View City Council March 14, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 10
1
Mayor Marty stated that if the petition comes in, then this project would be dead, but they should 2
start working on the 2006 project. 3
4
Council Member Thomas questioned whether the Laport Meadows section should be put into the 5
2006 project because there is undeveloped land. She stated she thought they should tackle the 6
places that were already fully developed first. 7
8
Mayor Marty stated that at the EDA meeting it had been brought up that there were some 9
developers interested in developing that land there, and why would they want to put in new 10
streets and then have heavy equipment running over it. 11
12
Public Works Director Lee stated that they would not allow any hauling on the road for 13
development in the area. 14
15
Council Member Thomas stated that if they approve the feasibility report, it doesn’t mean they 16
are approving the project; it only means they can use the report in three years. 17
18
Public Works Director Lee stated that approving the report does not make the project official. 19
20
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Flaherty. To approve Resolution 6474 Approving the Feasibility 21
Report. 22
23
Mayor Marty reminded everyone that this is a work in progress, and he invited everyone to attend 24
future meetings. 25
26
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 27
28
B. Resolution 6436 Approving the 2005 Public Works Seasonal Employee Positions 29
30
Public Works Director Lee stated that they had been under budgeting for seasonals for the last 31
several years by about $15,000, so they need to do one of two things. Either they need to cut the 32
services and not hire as many seasonals, or they need to adjust the budget to keep the same level 33
of service. He felt that they get a lot of value out of their seasonals and their numbers in the 34
Public Works Department is fairly low in comparison to other cities on a per capita basis. 35
36
Council Member Thomas asked for an explanation of why this wasn’t in the budget and hadn’t 37
been caught the years before. 38
39
Public Works Director Lee stated he would take responsibility for that, and he hadn’t checked the 40
personnel part of it. 41
42
Council Member Thomas stated she hadn’t made up her mind yet, but she was having a difficult 43
time planning to go over budget when it’s only March. 44
45
Mounds View City Council March 14, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 11
Mayor Marty asked whether Public Works had gone over budget in the last couple of budgets. 1
2
Finance Director Hanson stated individual components may have been over, but Public Works as 3
a total entity had not been over. 4
5
Council Member Flaherty stated he didn’t like going over budgets, but if there was somewhere 6
else to shift the money from, he wouldn’t have a problem with approving it. 7
8
Public Works Director Lee stated that he would come back with a detailed proposal of where 9
the money could come from. 10
11
Council Member Thomas and Mayor Marty stated they would also feel comfortable with that. 12
13
Council Member Stigney stated perhaps this was an opportune time to work with a reduced staff 14
of seven people. He raised an issue of seeing employees standing and driving around aimlessly 15
in the past. 16
17
Council Member Thomas stated she would like to adopt the Resolution with Option 1 with seven 18
positions, and have two weeks of discussion on what to do regarding hiring three others. 19
20
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Gunn. To Approve Resolution 6436 with Option 1 with seven 21
positions, Approving the 2005 Public Works Seasonal Employee Positions. 22
23
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 24
25
C. 7:25 Public Hearing to Consider a Variance Request for a Reduced Number of 26
Covered Parking Spaces at Greenfield Estates Located at 7635 Greenfield Avenue 27
28
Director Ericson informed the Council that Greenfield Estates would like to build 100 29
garages, and by Code they are required to have 125 since they have 125 units. He stated they 30
only rent 50 percent of their current 125 garages out now. The Planning Commission voted 3-3 31
on this issue, so the motion failed, and the applicant has appealed that decision. He stated that he 32
has not received any comment from the property owners in the area regarding this issue, but that 33
Staff supports this plan and the renovation of the site. However, the Planning Commission 34
recommends that this not be approved because they fail to find a hardship and there is adequate 35
space to construct 125 stalls. 36
37
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 10:13 p.m. 38
39
Alan Menning, who offices at 321 University Avenue SE, Minneapolis, stated he has managed 40
Greenfield Estates for 20 some years. He explained the problems they’ve had with the garages 41
being placed where they are, and with people starting fires, vandalism, climbing fences, dumping 42
garbage, etc. He also explained that the new garages will have garage door openers so that 43
people won’t have to get out of their cars anymore to open and close the garage doors. He stated 44
they would exceed the Code for outdoor parking by having 325 spaces. He explained how if they 45
Mounds View City Council March 14, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 12
were to rent garages out for storage space to outside parties, they end up spending in excess of 1
$1,300 for court costs and dumping charges to get rid of it when the parties don’t pay, so it 2
doesn’t make economic sense. He stated that most young people today who rent apartments 3
don’t want to rent a garage, and they want to park in the parking lot close to the apartment doors. 4
He added that as part of this improvement they will be regarding and resurfacing the parking lot. 5
6
Director Ericson suggested perhaps a compromise would be to approve the Resolution with the 7
addition that if all 100 garages were to become rented out, that would trigger a requirement to 8
build 25 more. 9
10
Council Member Flaherty stated a concern regarding this being a common garage because of 11
storage of paint thinners and other hazardous waste products. He stated he agreed with the 12
concept of building less garages because of the low percentage of rental of the existing garages. 13
14
Council Member Gunn stated she would like to approve this variance, and she would like to 15
request that staff come back with a resolution. 16
17
Council Member Stigney stated he could not see a hardship, and the City Council is bound by 18
following the same Code that the Planning Commission is bound by. 19
20
Mayor Marty stated that possibly a code change is warranted, but he couldn’t vote against a 21
city ordinance without a hardship being demonstrated. 22
23
Council Member Flaherty stated he would like to go ahead and grant the variance with the stipu- 24
lation that Director Ericson had mentioned previously regarding the extra 25 garages. 25
26
Council Member Thomas asked when the applicant had to have this finalized by. 27
28
Mr. Menning that if there were all approvals, they would be looking at July or August. 29
30
Council Member Flaherty asked if he was in favor of putting a clause in regarding perhaps an 31
85 percent occupancy that would trigger building more garages. 32
33
Mr. Menning stated he would love to have 78, because that is what he honestly felt he could 34
do. He stated the worst case scenario would be to come back and say he would build 125. He 35
stated that he has been doing this for 30 years, and he knows how many he can rent. 36
37
Council Member Flaherty stated he would like to grant the variance with the stipulation Director 38
Ericson had suggested, and then send the code back to the Planning Commission to review for 39
possible amendment. He stated that common sense dictates that they allow him to move forward 40
with his project with that stipulation. 41
42
Council Member Gunn stated they could also have staff come up with a new resolution, or they 43
could table the request right now and have the Planning Commission make the modifications to 44
the Code that need to be done. 45
Mounds View City Council March 14, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 13
Mayor Marty stated that that could take a month or more. 1
2
Director Ericson stated that it could take many months, and there would be a public hearing. He 3
stated that they are recognizing that there may be a problem with the Code, and he thought 4
asking the Planning Commission to review them and make an amendment is the right approach. 5
He stated that this would resolve some safety issues and resolve the deficiency in surface 6
parking. He stated from a strict interpretation of the Code, the hardship isn’t there. He stated 7
that by directing the Planning Commission to look at those requirements makes the statement 8
that the Code needs to be changed. 9
10
Mayor Marty stated if a hardship existed, he wouldn’t have a problem granting the variance, but 11
if they granted a variance in this situation, they would be setting a precedent that anyone else in 12
the city could come back and demand the same or take legal action against the City, so they 13
would be basically rewriting the whole thing right here if they grant the variance by going 14
against the Code. 15
16
Director Ericson suggested that they had approved variances for this in the past, and every 17
variance the City approves has to stand on its own merit. He stated this is a unique situation. He 18
said that there are a number of multi-family properties that have no garages whatsoever. He 19
stated that the applicant wants to make some improvements to the property, but it doesn’t fit 20
within the strict interpretation of the Code, but this would not put the Council in the position of 21
having to make a similar ruling the next time this came up. 22
23
Mayor Marty stated that the Planning Commission had determined that no hardship exists. He 24
stated if a hardship existed, he wouldn’t have a problem with granting a variance. 25
26
Council Member Thomas stated that perhaps if this were a two-phase project, with 100 garages 27
in phase one, and 25 garages in phase two, they wouldn’t be talking about the same 28
variance/hardship issue. She stated that people who manage these properties are holding 29
onto every renter they can, so if he doesn’t have garages filled, he doesn’t have them filled. 30
She stated that this is the issue. She reiterated that if they could talk about this as a two-phase 31
construction project and have the plans for the 25 additional stalls, that is the way they could 32
present it. She stated that that does not actually require a variance; just a delayed 33
construction issue. 34
35
Council Member Stigney stated that those suggestions are nice for the Planning Commission 36
to look at. He stated that right now this is a legal Code they have to follow. He stated what 37
is being asked for is an overruling of the Planning Commission’s decision that no hardship 38
was created, and now they are saying a hardship is created. 39
40
Mr. Menning stated the hardship is that he can’t rent 125 garages. 41
42
Director Ericson suggested upholding the Planning Commission’s denial of the variance request, 43
and that the applicant could then come back with a plan in the future to build 100 garages, and 44
if those all became rented out, to build another 25, and that plan could be brought forward to the 45
Mounds View City Council March 14, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 14
Planning Commission. 1
2
Council Member Thomas stated that in the meantime they could take a look at the Code as it 3
relates to covered parking. 4
5
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing. 6
7
MOTION/SECOND. Stigney/Marty. To waive the reading and to approve Resolution 6475, 8
Affirming the Planning Commissions’s Denial of a Variance Request to Allow for a Reduced 9
Number of Covered Parking Spaces at Greenfield Estates Located at 2370 County Road I and 10
7521-7661 Greenfield Avenue; Mounds View Planning Case VR2005-002. 11
12
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 13
14
D. Resolution 6472 Appointing a Planning Commission Member and approving the 15
Planning Commission Chairperson 16
17
Mike Marrone, 5045 Brighton Lane, stated that he did not have any agenda for wanting to be 18
on the Planning Commission and simply wanted to become involved in the community. He 19
stated he had been a homeowner in Mounds View for 15 years and raised four children here. He 20
stated he had run for City Council, but he felt that being on the Planning Commission would help 21
to prepare him for a position such as that in the years to come. 22
23
Al Hull told the Council he had run for Mayor and for City Council in the last election, and being 24
on the Planning Commission would provide a good vehicle for him to learn what’s going on in 25
the city. He stated he had been involved in some issues involving the service station he works at, 26
but he would abstain from any future votes regarding that station, and that he had no particular 27
agenda. 28
29
Council Member Flaherty stated he appreciated both gentlemen applying and wanting to serve 30
their community. 31
32
MOTION/SECOND. Marty/Gunn. To appoint Al Hull to the Planning Commission. 33
34
Council Member Stigney suggested flipping a coin or discussing why one candidate would be 35
better over the other. 36
37
Mayor Marty stated that it was close, but he made the motion for Mr. Hull because of the amount 38
of time and effort he had put into the last two elections. 39
40
Council Member Gunn added that she had seconded the motion because the deciding factor was 41
that Mr. Hull works in the city, which she felt added an insight that the Planning Commission is 42
lacking in. 43
44
Council Member Stigney made the comment that the election process has nothing to do with 45
Mounds View City Council March 14, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 15
serving on the Planning Commission. He stated that Mr. Maroney has lived in the community 1
for 15 years, whereas Mr. Hull has only just moved into the city, so he would lean more towards 2
Mr. Marrone for his experience. 3
4
Council Member Thomas pointed out that there are openings on the Charter Commission. 5
6
Ayes-5 Nays-1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 7
8
Mayor Marty stated that the Chair of the Planning Commission as selected by the Planning 9
Commission will be Gary Stevenson. 10
11
E. Resolution 6473 Approving Step/Longevity Increases for Deputy Chief Tom 12
Kinney, Officer Ben Zender, Officer Kasey Keckeisen, Officer Steve Geringer, 13
and Jodi Salmonson. 14
15
MOTION/SECOND. Flaherty/Gunn. To approve Resolution 6473, Approving Step/Longevity 16
Increases for Deputy Chief Tom Kinney, Officer Ben Zender, Officer Kasey Keckeisen, Officer 17
Steve Geringer, and Jodi Salmonson. 18
19
Council Member Stigney read the Resolution aloud. 20
21
Council Member Thomas noted that the “a” in the Resolution title should be deleted. 22
23
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 24
25
F. First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 758, an Ordinance Limiting 26
Garbage Pickup to Thursdays Only. 27
28
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Flaherty. To waive the reading and approve the first reading of 29
Ordinance 758, an Ordinance Limiting Garbage Pickup to Thursdays Only. 30
31
Council Member Stigney noted that the only thing being removed is Wednesday pickup, yet 32
there was a lot of money spent putting the whole ordinance in the newspaper. 33
34
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 35
G. Resolution 6478 Converting one Patrol Officer Position to a Sergeant Position. 36
37
Chief Sommer stated this resolution involves converting one patrol officer position to a sergeant 38
position, and the promotion would be effective May 1st and would be funded by reducing the 39
amount of funding given to the New Brighton Police Department to help fund a school resource 40
officer over several years by the amount necessary to fund the sergeant position. 41
42
There was a discussion regarding funding the school resource officer, and it was decided that it 43
wouldn’t reduce the funding that much this year, and it could be worked into the budget in more 44
detail in later years. 45
Mounds View City Council March 14, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 16
1
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Flaherty. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6478 2
Converting one Patrol Officer Position to a Sergeant Position. 3
4
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 5
6
H. Resolution 6477 Approving Transfers Between Funds for the Year 2004. 7
8
Finance Director Hanson stated the proposal before the Council was necessary to close out the 9
year for 2004. He stated that many of the transfers are for the amounts that were budgeted for, 10
but there are some differences. He noted that a transfer to a debt service fund would be paid 11
from T.I.F. District #3 instead of T.I.F. District #1 as was budgeted due to T.I.F. District #1 12
being in a deficit position. He stated the General Fund would show a surplus of between $50,000 13
and $100,000. 14
15
Council Member Stigney asked for an explanation of the paragraph regarding the general fund 16
reduction. 17
18
Finance Director Hanson remarked that the surplus of $50,000-$100,000 is an adequate fund 19
balance for year end, and it’s in the City’s better interest to leave some money in the other funds. 20
He stated that the golf course was not the only fund that benefited from a reduction; the vehicle 21
and special projects fund also had reductions in their proposed transfers. 22
23
Council Member Stigney asked whether the whole purpose was so they didn’t exceed the 50 24
percent threshold. 25
26
Finance Director Hanson stated they were trying to avoid getting back into the situation of having 27
more money in the general fund than they really need. 28
29
Council Member Stigney stated he had a problem with the $15,000 remaining in the golf course 30
fund. 31
32
MOTION/SECOND. Marty/Gunn. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6477 33
Approving Transfers Between Funds for the Year 2004. 34
35
Ayes-4 Nays-1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 36
37
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 38
39
A. February 28, 2005 City Council Minutes. 40
41
Council Member Gunn made a correction to page 1, line 33, “Barb Haake”. 42
43
Council Member Gunn made a correction to page 7, line 40, “Dazenski”. 44
45
Mounds View City Council March 14, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 17
Council Member Gunn made a correction to page 9, line 31, “software”. 1
2
Council Member Gunn made a correction to page 2, lines 5 and 9, “Siercks.” 3
4
Council Member Stigney made a correction to page 11, line 41, to change the word appropriate 5
to “allocate”. 6
7
Mayor Marty made a correction to page 1, line 40, to read, “informed decision until all the 8
numbers are in.” 9
10
Mayor Marty made a correction to page 2, line 32, to change “JS” to “GIS”. 11
12
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Thomas. To approve the February 28, 2005 City Council Minutes 13
as amended. 14
15
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 16
17
11. REPORTS 18
19
A. Reports of Mayor and Council 20
21
Council Member Stigney stated that he had filled in for the Mayor at the last legislative session, 22
and there had been a discussion about MnDOT requesting money for land that was going to be 23
deeded back to the City, and that there are figures they are trying to work on, but no vote was 24
taken. He stated they will be talking more about it tomorrow. 25
26
. B. Staff 27
1. Designate Council Representative to County Road 10 Corridor Design 28
Theme Subcommittee 29
30
Director Ericson stated a City Council member representative is needed to attend meetings for 31
the County Road 10 corridor improvement program, the first of which is March 14th at 6:00. 32
33
Council Member Thomas said she would check her calendar and let him know if she could 34
attend the meeting. 35
36
City Administrator/Clerk Ulrich informed the Council that the public hearing before the EDA 37
regarding 38
the proposal for redevelopment of the golf course is scheduled for March 28th. He asked whether 39
they would be willing to set a special meeting on April 4th to address the Medtronic golf course 40
redevelopment proposal. 41
42
Director Ericson suggested that it be a joint meeting of the agreement with Medtronic, EDA, and 43
City Council. 44
45
Mounds View City Council March 14, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 18
Mayor Marty stated they should post it for three meetings (EDA, City Council, and a Work 1
Session) at 6:30 p.m. 2
3
C. Reports of City Attorney 4
5
12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, April 4, 2005 at 7pm 6
Next Council Meeting: Monday, March 28 2005 at 7pm 7
8
13. ADJOURNMENT 9
10
The meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m. 11
12
Transcribed and recorded by: 13
14
15
Sheree Theobald 16
Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 17
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL 1
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3
4
Regular Meeting 5
March 28, 2005 6
Mounds View City Hall 7
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 8
7:00 P.M. 9
10
11
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 12
13
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 14
15
Mayor Marty announced that Troop 167 was unable to attend tonight’s meeting, 16
17
3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, and Thomas 18
19
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 20
21
A. Monday, March 28, 2005 City Council Agenda. 22
23
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Flaherty. To Approve the Monday March 28, 2005 agenda as 24
presented. 25
26
Ayes –5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 27
28
5. PUBLIC INPUT 29
30
Tom Wittakee, 2700 Sherwood Road, asked when the road between Groveland, Red Oak, and 31
Sherwood was going to be done. 32
33
Public Works Director Lee stated that it is not in the current five-year plan. 34
35
Mr. Wittakee stated that his road is in very bad condition and needs to be fixed soon. 36
37
Carol Mueller, 8343 Groveland Road, stated that there are severe speeding issues on Groveland 38
Road. She stated that the police are good about patrolling Highway 10, but she asked for more 39
patrolling on the community streets to protect the children. 40
41
Public Works Director Lee stated that one of the opportunities that the City would have in the 42
future when they redo Groveland Road is to narrow it and have a sidewalk. 43
44
Mounds View City Council March 28, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 2
Brian Amundson, 3048 Woodale Drive, asked the Council to direct staff to put up a complete 1
five-year comprehensive plan for the street projects and any decisions that have been made either 2
in work sessions or by previous Councils in regard to policies about the construction of roads. 3
He stated there could be a significant savings by reconstructing rather than adding concrete curb 4
and gutter. He asked whether the full financial study of the street project would be made 5
available to the public. He stated by his calculations, he would be paying about $500 more in 6
taxes just for street improvements, so he didn’t think it was correct that it would only cost him 7
$3,000 for the current project. He stated he was disappointed that the Council approved a 8
feasibility study last session that had no options in it. 9
10
Mayor Marty stated that the Council started working on this in the late 1990’s, the citizens didn’t 11
want their streets fixed because the costs were so exorbitant. He stated that several years ago he 12
brought up the fact that the bonding rates were low, so everyone in the city would pay a smaller 13
portion when the streets are made. 14
15
Mr. Amundson stated that he is not opposed to the roads being repaired, but he questioned the 16
manner of financing them, the impact on the watershed, and the use of concrete curb and gutter. 17
18
Council Member Thomas stated that the feasibility study doesn’t lock them into anything, and 19
the project has not been approved at this point, so discussions will be ongoing. 20
21
Council Member Stigney stated that Mr. Amundson might be correct, and this looks good now, 22
but it’s projected. 23
24
Finance Director Hanson stated that the bonds they’ve sold and will continue to sell will be 10 25
year bonds, and the first bond was sold last year. He stated they are levying the tax for the first 26
time this year. In nine years, they will levy the tax for the last year’s bond, so the next ten years 27
the debt service levy will continue to grow, and then it will level off. He stated the existing TIF 28
Districts will reach the end of their life span in about the eighth or ninth year of that timeframe, 29
and then that value comes back onto the general tax rolls, which would help spread out the tax 30
burden a little bit farther. He stated that it’s hard to calculate exactly what the benefit will be, but 31
the tax levy is going to grow significantly if they follow the course as is, so he didn’t want to 32
underestimate that. 33
34
Council Member Stigney stated he hasn’t seen projections or dollar figures after nine or ten years 35
for what the tax burden is going to be, so he would still like to see that. 36
37
Finance Director Hanson stated that he had seen that because it was part of the last year. 38
39
Council Member Stigney stated that as long as they are preparing it for Mr. Amundson’s request, 40
he would like that brought forth to let the residents see it and also to put it in Mounds View 41
Matters. 42
43
David Jahnke, 8420 Eastwood Road, asked whether it was better to do concrete curb and gutters. 44
He stated they had put a lot of money into the golf course, and they maybe could have used that 45
Mounds View City Council March 28, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 3
for the roads. He stated that sometimes the voters don’t want to spend the money on the streets, 1
so it goes to pieces. 2
3
Mayor Marty stated that they need to take aggressive action regarding the streets. He stated that 4
the original program was that since the city didn’t have any money, they were going to assess the 5
residents, and the residents were up in arms over having to pay the total cost of the project. He 6
stated that they then started earmarking half of the money from the franchise fee for the street 7
fund, which generates about $200,000 per year. He stated that the streets are past fixing, so they 8
need to put in new ones or else no one would want to live in Mounds View. 9
10
David Jahnke asked whether if a group of residents wanted their street fixed now if they could 11
come to the Council or Public Works. 12
13
Public Works Director Lee stated that they would be very happy to receive input from residents 14
in order to start mapping out areas where the people are in favor of the street repair, and they 15
could then focus their attention on those areas. 16
17
Mayor Marty asked whether Public Works Director Lee had been in charge of a street program in 18
another city prior to working at Mounds View, and Mr. Lee stated that he had been. He stated 19
that once the street projects began, the residents realized what they were getting for their money 20
and that it raised their property values. 21
22
Jerry Blanski, brought up the question of how to get the residents to respond. He stated that all 23
affected residents had received a notice of the February 17th neighborhood meeting, and that the 24
feasibility report and a feedback form would be given out at that meeting. He stated that at the 25
February 17th meeting, all present received the 58-page report. He stated that all affected 26
residents received notice of the March 14th meeting, and again a copy of the 58-page report was 27
given. He stated that notice was again given in the New Brighton/Mounds View Bulletin on 28
March 9th, and notice was given in the Mounds View/New Brighton/St. Anthony Focus on March 29
10th. He stated that Public Works Director Lee had done an above-board job of informing the 30
residents. He stated that a petition may already be in circulation. He stated he hoped that 31
whoever was circulating the petition asks the residents to read the report so that they are 32
informed before signing the petition. He stated they’ve had meetings for projects like the street 33
and utility repair and the County Road H sidewalk repair, and that is good to a point and as it 34
should be, but he felt that they overlapped. He stated he felt there had been wasted time by 35
having so many meetings. He stated the city had done a tremendous job of presenting the report 36
and showing slides and pictures. He asked why the Council members had not been present at the 37
prior meetings so additional time wouldn’t have been wasted with questions by the Council 38
raising the same questions that had already been addressed at the previous meetings. He stated 39
he felt too much time is being wasted by criticizing the Rice Creek Watershed District, and it 40
would be a very sad day if they didn’t have that organization. He stated that Rice Creek 41
Watershed District’s mission statement is to prevent flooding and to enhance water quality and 42
harmony with the development for the common good. He stated he agreed with Council Member 43
Thomas to a point regarding her statement that areas in the city are different, and residents should 44
be able to have a say in what they want. He stated he felt the city should have uniformity because 45
Mounds View City Council March 28, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 4
all the streets belong to all the residents, and not just a few in a certain section. He stated that 1
maybe they should have a city-wide feasibility report to cover five years, with adjustments to the 2
areas that have already been completed, and send all residents a survey form. He stated that the 3
new City Council is a breath of fresh air, and that the employees of the city have been doing an 4
excellent job. 5
6
Council Member Stigney stated that Public Works Director Lee has done an excellent job, and he 7
asked whether he had any thoughts on how they could get the 75 percent of the people to respond 8
that haven’t. He stated he had asked if the neighborhood meetings could be videotaped, and he 9
would have viewed that had he had the opportunity. 10
11
Jerry Blanski stated that they should go by the people that have responded, and that is what they 12
should go by since apparently the others don’t care. He reiterated the need to educate the 13
residents when the petition is brought around. 14
15
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUISNESS 16
17
None. 18
19
7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS. 20
21
Council Member Stigney asked what the $1,337 for Elliot and Hendrickson for the Community 22
Center Banquet Center improvements was for. 23
24
Public Works Director Lee stated it was for the redesign of the entryway to the Banquet Center 25
that SEH did and also for some consulting regarding sprucing up the Banquet Center. 26
27
Council Member Stigney asked if that fell under the heading of equipment. 28
29
City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich stated he didn’t know why that title was used, and it seems a bit 30
inappropriate. 31
32
Council Member Gunn asked about page 6, No. 115717, and whether that was for water filters. 33
34
Council Member Thomas stated that it was. 35
36
Mayor Marty asked about page 1, No. 115690, building permit surcharge report. He asked what 37
building that was for. 38
39
Finance Director Hanson stated that when permits are issued, there is a state surcharge, and this 40
is for the fourth quarter of last year. 41
42
Mayor Marty asked about page 5, No. 115705, waste recovery, and whether they burned the 43
recycled oil. 44
45
Mounds View City Council March 28, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 5
Public Works Director Lee stated that this was for cleanup of a hydraulic spill that occurred on 1
Irondale. 2
3
Mayor Marty asked about page 5, No. 115712, for $1,700. 4
5
Public Works Director Lee stated that is was for adding an additional outlet for the electrical 6
ovens that were added to the Community Center. 7
8
Council Member Stigney asked if the Banquet Center was paying for that. 9
10
Public Works Director Lee stated that he was not sure. 11
12
City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich stated that he would have to check. 13
14
Mayor Marty asked about page 7, No. 115728. He asked if it was for the meth lab. 15
16
Director Ericson stated that it was for a property that the department had issued a corrective order 17
on. It had been deemed a hazardous building. He stated there were some structural issues, and 18
Kennedy and Graven were helping them to issue the orders. 19
20
Mayor Marty asked if this was billed to the property owner or if the city had to absorb the legal 21
fees. 22
23
Director Ericson stated that he wasn’t sure, but it may be something the city would need to pay to 24
maintain a healthy neighborhood. 25
26
Mayor Marty stated that since the property is abandoned, would somebody still have to pay for it. 27
28
Director Ericson stated that somebody owes it, and they will try to work out that issue. 29
30
Mayor Marty stated he would like to see that happen. He asked about page 11, No. 115761, 31
Silverview Park Pond. He asked if this was the final bill. 32
33
Public Works Director Lee stated that this is the final bill on that, and the project is complete. 34
35
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Flaherty. To approve the Just and Correct Claims as Presented. 36
37
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 38
39
8. CONSENT AGENDA 40
41
Council Member Flaherty stated he would like to pull Item E. 42
43
Mayor Marty stated he would like to pull Item A. 44
45
Mounds View City Council March 28, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 6
A. Resolution 6480 Approving the Purchase of Items Associated with the 2005 1
Parks Improvement Project. 2
B. Resolution 6483 Approving the Hire of a Part-time Temporary Building 3
Inspector. 4
C. Resolution 6486 Approving the Contract Award for the 2005 Tree Removal 5
Program. 6
D. Licenses for Approval 7
E. Resolution 6489 Approving Expenditure of Funds to Repair Roof Top Unit 8
No. 4 at the Community Center. 9
10
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Gunn. To approve Items B, C, and D of the Consent Agenda as 11
presented. 12
13
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 14
15
A. Resolution 6480 Approving the Purchase of Items Associated with the 2005 16
Parks Improvement Project. 17
18
Mayor Marty asked if it was going to be about $8,000 to do the parking lot. 19
20
Public Works Director Lee stated that it was, and the crack sealing would be done in 2005, and 21
they would include the rest of the parking lot as a chip seal, with a larger street chip sealing 22
project in 2006. He stated they are hoping to get better bides on that to be included with the 23
larger project. 24
25
Mayor Marty stated he didn’t notice it in 2006 and he asked if it was on there. 26
27
Public Works Director Lee stated that this is just from 2005. 28
29
Mayor Marty stated this is just 2004, and the total cost estimate carried over from 2004 was 30
$23,353, and this year the total cost estimate is $38,400. He asked whether all of these were 31
absolutely necessary and if the funding was coming from the Park and Recreation dedication fee. 32
33
Public Works Director Lee stated that that was correct, and the funds utilized would be coming 34
completely from the Park Dedication Fund. 35
36
Mayor Marty stated that on the summation of the 2005 Park Dedication Fund, it’s $43,200 that 37
was budgeted. He stated that the Park Dedication Fund is spending down rapidly at this point, 38
especially with the Groveland Park building. He stated he didn’t want this Council to do as other 39
Council’s had done such as spending the street fund down to zero. 40
41
Finance Director Hanson stated he didn’t recall the exact numbers, but the Park Dedication Fund 42
at the end of 2004 had between $400,000 and $500,000. He stated over the next three or four 43
years the Park Dedication Fund does get spent down to zero, but even if they were to cut some of 44
these items, without new money coming into the Park Dedication Fund, at some point it is going 45
Mounds View City Council March 28, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 7
to be spent down to zero, and they will have to find some other source of funding in order to 1
continue to do park improvements. He stated with the exception of a big Medtronics type 2
project, they are not going to have a continuous flow of new Park Dedication fees. He stated 3
there would be a few fees, but it wouldn’t be enough in the long run to maintain the parks, and 4
eventually they’ll have to look for a different source of funding for the parks. 5
6
Mayor Marty stated the reason he raised the question was when he was first elected to the 7
Council, he was a liaison to the Park and Recreation Commission, and at that time the Park and 8
Recreation Commission had decided that the fund was relatively healthy. He stated that ever 9
since then, they’ve been spending the park dedication fees as they been coming in, and he’s 10
concerned they’ll have to start taxing people to keep up with the parks. 11
12
Council Member Gunn stated that the things on the list need to be, and if they don’t maintain 13
these items now, they will be spending way more money in the future to get this items fixed. 14
15
Mayor Marty stated that he realized that, but he wanted to make sure these items were absolutely 16
necessary. 17
18
Council Member Thomas asked what number they were talking about as far as interest on this in 19
a year. 20
21
Finance Director Hanson stated that there is a conservative group of investments he can invest 22
the City’s money in, so there isn’t a great interest rate. He stated in 2004 it was 2 percent. He 23
stated at the end of the year it may raise to 3 percent. 24
25
MOTION/SECOND. Marty/Flaherty. To waive the reading and approve Resolution 6480 26
Approving the Purchase of Items Associated with the 2005 Parks Improvement Project. 27
28
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 29
30
E. Resolution 6489 Approving Expenditure of Funds to Repair Roof Top Unit 31
No. 4 at the Community Center. 32
33
Council Member Flaherty stated that after looking this over, it was going to cost $8,000 to 34
replace these items. He stated he thought 2-4 days for two technicians to change out the heat 35
exchanger would be excessive. He asked if they knew what the past BTU’s used were. 36
37
Public Works Director Lee stated he couldn’t answer that because he didn’t have the specs on 38
that particular unit. 39
40
Council Member Flaherty stated he felt four days would be excessive to replace that kind of heat 41
exchanger. 42
43
Public Works Director Lee stated that four days is the worst case scenario, and most likely it 44
would only be two days. 45
Mounds View City Council March 28, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 8
1
Mayor Marty asked whether it could then come back as $6,500 or $7,000. 2
3
Public Works Director Lee stated that the original estimate was around $5,000, but they had 4
given the worst case estimate. 5
6
Council Member Flaherty asked if they knew what the cost of a new one would be. 7
8
Public Works Director Lee stated that he didn’t have that information, but he could look it up. 9
10
Council Member Thomas stated she had also wanted to pull this item because the numbers were 11
jumping out at her, and this company has been maintaining this piece of equipment for three and 12
a half years, and it keeps failing. She asked why there wasn’t better planning on this unit since 13
there has been constant work on it. 14
15
Public Works Director Lee stated that UHL was hired to fix all the corrections that were 16
identified in their report that was put together 3 ½ years ago. He stated he didn’t know how 17
detailed that report was, but he didn’t think this particular one had been identified in that report. 18
He stated there were a lot of issues with it at the Community Center, and they had been making 19
corrections over the last three years. 20
21
Council Member Thomas asked if this was the same unit they had been talking about before. 22
23
Mayor Marty stated he didn’t recall specifically. 24
25
Council Member Thomas stated she didn’t mean to say they were falling down on the job, but 26
she felt this was the same unit they had been having trouble with significantly over the last four 27
years. 28
29
Public Works Director Lee stated that the breakdown was caused by plastic gears that sheared 30
and broke and the shutter door didn’t open. He stated that the proposal was to put metal gears in 31
to make sure this didn’t happen again. 32
33
Mayor Marty asked if they had looked into if they had plastic gears, if they could do some 34
preventative maintenance. 35
36
Public Works Director Lee stated he would have to look into that. He stated he could research 37
that and make sure that the other units are checked so they don’t have the same failure. 38
39
Mayor Marty stated he would prefer to have them check it and maybe do some preventative 40
maintenance so they wouldn’t have to spend more money later. 41
42
Council Member Flaherty stated that it seemed to be a lot of money to replace a heat exchanger. 43
He asked if they had ever contacted Carrier and asked them for a recommendation. 44
45
Mounds View City Council March 28, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 9
Public Works Director Lee stated that the logic with using UHL is they know the system, and it 1
would be cheaper than using a company that don’t know the details of it. 2
3
Council Member Flaherty stated he would like a better breakdown on what the $8,000 would be 4
used for. 5
6
Mayor Marty asked if they wanted to move to table this item until they got more information. 7
8
Council Member Gunn asked what the incentive was for them to get it done in two days for the 9
$5,000. 10
11
Public Works Director Lee stated that the City has built a very good trust relationship with UHL. 12
13
Council Member Stigney asked if there was any warranty on this and for what time period. 14
15
Public Works Director Lee stated that he would have to get back to him on that because he didn’t 16
know if there was a warranty on the gears they were putting in. 17
18
Council Member Stigney asked what “all materials guaranteed to be specified” meant in the 19
second paragraph of UHL’s proposal. 20
21
Public Works Director Lee stated he didn’t know what that meant. 22
23
Council Member Stigney asked whether anyone had gone back to the manufacturer for their 24
recommendations. 25
26
Council Member Flaherty stated that they couldn’t go back to the factory because they would 27
send them to a distributor. 28
29
Council Member Gunn asked how urgent this matter was. 30
31
Public Works Director Lee stated that it could be tabled until the next Council meeting, and right 32
now the unit is red tagged and shut off, and due to the time of year, it should be okay to wait. 33
34
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Flaherty. To table this item until the next Council meeting. 35
36
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 37
38
Bill Warner, 2765 Sherwood Road, asked if it turned out to be $5,000 if the Council would was 39
going to accept less money. 40
41
Mayor Marty stated that they were going to pay less money. 42
43
Mr. Warner asked if anybody would be embarrassed about working with the lower bid, and then 44
having it come back to them and asking for more if it’s really necessary. 45
Mounds View City Council March 28, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 10
1
Mayor Marty stated that it has to be at a Council meeting, and if UHL got to the $5,000 mark and 2
said they were not working past that by their contract, they may stop at that point. 3
4
Mr. Warner stated that it was more complicated than he thought. 5
6
Council Member Stigney asked if they estimate $5,000, and they went up to $8,000, whether 7
there hadn’t always been something about going 10 percent over the estimate to allow for 8
contingencies. He asked why this is so high compared to the $5,000. 9
10
Public Works Director Lee stated he understood it was the difference between having two 11
technicians working two days versus four days. and there is uncertainty about the time it’s going 12
to take to do that. 13
14
9. COUNCIL BUSINESS. 15
16
A. 7:05 p.m. Public Hearing to Consider the Second Reading and Adoption of 17
Ordinance 758, an Ordinance Limiting Garbage Pickup to Thursdays only. 18
(ROLL CALL VOTE) 19
20
Public Works Director Lee stated that this was first introduced to the City Council on March 1 at 21
a work session, and the introduction of the first reading of this ordinance provision was presented 22
on March 14th. It’s now being presented as the second reading to change the garbage hauling for 23
residential properties from Wednesday and Thursday to just Thursday, and this does not pose a 24
problem to any of the current haulers. 25
26
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 8:17 p.m. 27
28
Brian Amundson, 3048 Woodale, asked why the city felt the need to restrict the haulers to a 29
single day of the week. He urged the Council to vote against this item because he thought they 30
need two days so the haulers have an opportunity to be able to cut their costs by attending to the 31
city on a day when they may have excess labor available. 32
33
Mayor Marty stated that there was an issue with residents who worked nights who couldn’t sleep 34
when the garbage trucks were making so much noise many days of the week. 35
36
Brian Amundson stated he thought this would freeze out competition. 37
38
Council Member Thomas stated that the haulers they have are willing to work within this 39
schedule, and she didn’t feel that the competition had any problem with it. She asked that if the 40
haulers had a problem with this schedule, they could bring it back to the Council. She stated it’s 41
not something they couldn’t change again. 42
Dave Jahnke asked if they’ve compared the cost to other cities that have one hauler. He asked if 43
their rates were higher than the way it’s done in Mounds View. 44
45
Mounds View City Council March 28, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 11
Mayor Marty stated it could be, but different haulers provide different services. 1
2
Mr. Jahnke stated maybe it could be done cheaper if there was one hauler doing every house on 3
every street. 4
5
Mayor Marty stated that the hauler that they may choose might not provide the services that 6
you’ve grown accustomed to, and he believes in competition. 7
8
Council Member Thomas stated that she knows of several places where it’s more expensive, and 9
they are trying to get rid of it, but because of contract issues, it’s very difficult. 10
11
Council Member Stigney stated he was opposed to a single hauler, especially with the 12
government involved in it. 13
14
Mayor Marty stated that it was unfortunate that Larry’s Sanitation had sold out because he had 15
performed many services for the residents of Mounds View. 16
17
Bill Syrix, 2210 Pinewood Drive, stated he would strenuously oppose having one hauler. 18
19
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing. 20
21
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Flaherty. To waive the reading and adopt Ordinance 758, an 22
Ordinance Limiting Garbage Pickup to Thursdays only. 23
24
ROLL CALL: (Marty/.Stigney/Gunn/Flaherty/Thomas) 25
26
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 27
28
B. 7:10 p.m. Public Hearing to Consider Resolution 6484, a Resolution 29
Pertaining to an Interim Use Permit for a Temporary Membrane Structure 30
at the Mermaid Banquet and Entertainment Center. 31
32
Director Ericson stated that this item was to request to have a temporary outdoor membrane 33
structure at the Mermaid in order to have a more informal setting for outdoor events and 34
receptions. He stated the City Council had adopted Ordinance 735, which lists the regulations to 35
be associated with outdoor temporary structures, and there are a number of conditions that would 36
have to be met, and this structure does satisfy all of those regulations. He stated that the 37
Planning Commission recommends approval for the interim use permit for a five year period, and 38
the applicant has no problem with that. He stated the resolution includes a route to bring this 39
back to the Council if there are any issues at any time during the five year period. He stated that 40
the membrane is allowed to be there for 180 days out of the year. He stated that notice was sent 41
to property owners within 350 feet. 42
43
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing. 44
45
Mounds View City Council March 28, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 12
Brian Amundson, 3048 Woodland Drive, stated that an ordinance was passed that didn’t allow 1
property owners to have a structure on their property such as this, and he was concerned about 2
unequal treatment of business and residences. He stated he thought this tent had been put up 3
for a temporary use during a phase of construction. He stated that the tent is not attractive. 4
5
Director Ericson stated that allowing similar type structures in a residential district had been 6
voted down by the City Council, but that the ordinance relating to commercial or industrial 7
districts was adopted, and this structure is consistent with the Code. 8
9
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing. 10
11
Council Member Gunn asked whether they still needed this tent structure after the addition of the 12
banquet facilities downstairs. 13
14
Dan Hall stated that they did. He stated that this was never put up for a temporary use during 15
construction, and that it was put up a year after the construction had been completed. He stated it 16
is booked out every weekend until it’s taken down, along with the downstairs room. 17
18
Council Member Stigney asked whether he had plans to make a permanent structure out of that. 19
20
Mr. Hall stated he didn’t believe a permanent structure could be built there, plus the membrane 21
structure is the most popular booking. He stated that the tent does not degrade Mounds View 22
and that it cost about $250,000. 23
24
Council Member Stigney asked whether he had any plans to upgrade to a more permanent 25
structure. 26
27
Mr. Hall stated that he didn’t believe he would be allowed to put one there. 28
29
Council Member Thomas stated she disagreed with Mr. Amundson, and if there are 30
inconsistencies between residential and commercial, she didn’t think the answer was to deny 31
the commercial properties, and this isn’t the only structure like this. She stated perhaps the issue 32
of residential properties could be readdressed at some point, but there is a need for the 33
businesses to be able to conduct their business. 34
35
Mayor M arty stated he concurred, and the Planning Commission had spent a lot of time 36
discussing this issue and writing the Code, and the Fire Marshal had been involved. 37
38
MOTION/SECOND. Stigney/Marty. To waive the reading and approve Resolution 6484, a 39
Resolution Pertaining to an Interim Use Permit for a Temporary Membrane Structure at the 40
Mermaid Banquet and Entertainment Center, as presented. 41
42
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 43
44
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Gunn. To Approve Resolution 6484, A Resolution Pertaining 45
Mounds View City Council March 28, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 13
to an Interim Use Permit for a Temporary Membrane Structure at the Mermaid Banquet and 1
Entertainment Center. 2
3
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 4
5
C. 7:15 p.m. Public Hearing to Consider a Request for a Conditional Use Permit 6
for an Oversized Garage at 5343 Clifton Drive. 7
8
Director Ericson stated that the applicant would like to add 456 square feet onto the back of their 9
garage, which is currently 576 square feet. He stated that the addition wouldn’t be visible from 10
the street, and that it met all the requirements regarding setback, garage height, and garage area 11
accessory buildings, and back yard coverage area. He advised that the Planning Commission 12
had held a public hearing, and staff received one letter that opposed the request. Others had 13
come in to review the plans, and none were opposed to the request. He stated the Planning 14
Commission felt there would be no adverse effects by approving the Conditional Use Permit 15
Application. He stated that the property would have a more aesthetic appearance by reducing 16
the amount of items being stored outside of the garage. He stated that the individual who wrote 17
the letter in opposition had noise concerns, but that the garage addition would actually reduce 18
the noise. 19
20
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, the public hearing 21
was closed. 22
23
Council Member Flaherty asked whether there had been any violations of the noise ordinance 24
due to the race cars. 25
26
Director Ericson stated they had not looked into whether there had been actual noise violations. 27
28
Council Member Flaherty asked whether the garage would house the fifth wheel in the 29
winter time. 30
31
Mr. Syriks stated that it would not, and it would be in the driveway. He stated that none of 32
the neighbors have complained, and he didn’t think the noise would be that bad for the 33
individual who lived on Raymond Avenue. He stated that his son never unloads the cars 34
in the middle of the night. 35
36
Council Member Thomas stated that this had been thoroughly reviewed by the Planning 37
Commission, and the applicant had changed their plans several times to accommodate any 38
concerns that the city or the neighbors might have, and she didn’t think they could find a 39
hardship to the city. She stated she was in favor of this application. 40
41
Mayor Marty stated that he concurred, and that the applicants had done everything they 42
could to comply. 43
44
Council Member Stigney stated that he had watched the Planning Commission meetings, and he 45
Mounds View City Council March 28, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 14
supports this application. 1
2
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Thomas. To waive the reading and to approve Resolution 6482, 3
Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage at 5343 Clifton Drive. 4
5
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 6
7
8
D. 7:20 p.m. Public Hearing to consider Resolution 6487 to adopt the proposed 9
assessment for the Hidden Hollow project. 10
11
Public Works Director Lee stated that the Hidden Hollow project is nearing completion, and 12
there are a few punch list items that need to be completed, as well as putting bituminous on 13
the streets. He stated the proposal is to assess one property owner $395,596.63, and the 14
property owner, Pro Craft Homes, has subdivided the property into 17 lots, so the assessment 15
would be divided equally among those lots, which would be $23,270.39 per lot. He stated that 16
staff recommends approval of the assessment roll for the Hidden Hollow project. 17
18
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing. 19
20
Gary Nordness thanked the Council and staff for their support of this project, and he stated that 21
they accept the assessment. He stated he had talked about a 4 percent interest rate charge instead 22
of 5 ½, so that was the only question he had. He stated it was his understanding the payment 23
would be deferred until 2006, but he asked the Council to take into consideration when that 24
payment is due and when the interest begins. He stated that the home prices are between 25
$400,000-$500,000, and that increased the tax base considerably. 26
27
Finance Director Hanson stated that the 4 percent was specific to the installment purchase price 28
of the land, and that is what was charged. He stated that although the assessment is set up as a 29
ten-year assessment, as they close on the houses, they would be paying off the assessment, so it 30
wouldn’t be out there for ten years. He stated that the assessment would only exist for a few 31
months, and up to two years. 32
33
Mr. Nordness stated that they anticipated paying off six lots prior to the October 25th deadline. 34
35
Finance Director Hanson stated that interest would accrue on the remainder. 36
37
Mr. Nordness stated he thought interest would accrue until it was assessed, and he thought 38
Finance Director Hanson had said it would be put on the tax rolls and paid, and they hadn’t 39
talked about accruing interest. 40
41
Finance Director Hanson stated that he didn’t recall that part of the discussion. He stated that on 42
the houses that would take another year or two to complete, there wouldn’t be any payment due 43
until 2006. 44
45
Mounds View City Council March 28, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 15
Mr. Nordness stated he understood that, but that’s accruing interest up until that point. 1
2
Finance Director Hanson stated that he didn’t recall the agreement being that there would be no 3
interest on the assessment. 4
5
Gary ____ stated that they were just bringing that up for consideration as far as if there was a 6
deferral until the assessment is due, and then they would pay down whatever they got as they sell 7
it. 8
9
Finance Director Hanson stated that it would be up to the Council if they wanted to change the 10
terms of the agreement. 11
12
Gary ____ stated that they weren’t arguing about the assessment or the dollar amount. 13
14
Mayor Marty asked if the assessment was for the street construction and the utility installations. 15
16
Gary ____ stated it’s the streets, utilities, curb, and gutter. 17
18
Mayor Marty asked if that had already been provided. 19
20
Gary ____ stated that it had been, with the exception of some minor details. 21
22
Mayor Marty asked if the City had paid for this at the present time. 23
24
Finance Director Hanson stated that there was a bit of finishing work that is estimated in here, 25
and the great majority of the work has been done and paid for. 26
27
Mayor Marty stated the reason this was constructed was for their project, so the City had done 28
their part of it so they could build the homes. He stated that apparently a number of them had 29
been sold already. He asked when the first one was going to be done. 30
31
Gary ____ stated that it would close on April 22. 32
33
Council Member Thomas stated that it would make sense to her as far as planning wise, that the 34
work is done, and it would make sense that the assessment would be in place now and the 35
interest would accrue because the work is done. She stated she would be most comfortable 36
leaving the terms as they are. 37
38
Council Member Gunn read the Resolution aloud. 39
40
Brian Amundson, 3048 Woodale Drive, stated that he didn’t like the fact that the Council had 41
purchased pieces of this property, and he would like them to reconsider getting involved in the 42
purchase of property and then bundling it and reselling it to developers. He would like to see the 43
developers working with the individual property owners directly. He stated he was disappointed 44
that all the trees were wiped out in the area, and he had understood that as many as possible trees 45
Mounds View City Council March 28, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 16
were going to be saved. 1
2
Mayor Marty stated that there were issues with grading and elevation levels, and a pond also had 3
to be created, so that may have had an impact on some of the scrub trees. 4
5
Mr. Nordness stated that the initial water table was only 2 ½ feet, so putting in the basements 6
meant taking out the trees, and also the ponding had taken out a range of trees. He stated they 7
had tried to save as many trees as they could. 8
9
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing. 10
11
Council Member Flaherty stated that the City generally does not buy property unless there is a 12
plan for it. 13
14
Mayor Marty stated that that is the consensus of this City Council, and the City had owned a 15
portion of that piece of property for a period of time, and they had purchased one other house a 16
number of years ago. 17
18
MOTION/SECOND. Flaherty/Thomas. To waive the reading and to approve Resolution 6487, 19
to adopt the proposed assessment for the Hidden Hollow project. 20
21
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 22
23
E. 7:25 p.m. Public Hearing to consider Resolution 6488 to adopt the proposed 24
assessment for the Mounds View Manufactured Home Park Second Access 25
Project. 26
27
Public Works Director Lee stated this project is now complete, and the total project cost is 28
$17,789.80. He stated the proposed assessment is $16,508.75 to the manufactured home 29
community. 30
31
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, the public hearing was 32
closed. 33
34
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Flaherty. To waive the reading and approve Resolution 6488 to 35
adopt the proposed assessment for the Mounds View Manufactured Home Park Second Access 36
Project. 37
38
Kathy Pearson, manager of the Mounds View Manufactured Home Park, stated that this has 39
slowed the traffic down immensely, and everybody likes it. 40
41
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 42
43
F. Presentation by Architect and Construction Manager for the Fire Station 44
Construction Project and Resolution 6479 in Support of Selection of 45
Mounds View City Council March 28, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 17
Architect and Construction Manager by the City of Blaine. 1
2
Dan Pellanan, from Montgomery Architects, stated they would be coming to the Council at a 3
later time to go over the design, and they are simply here to recommend approval for 4
architectural services for Fire Station No. 3, which is located in Blaine. He stated Montgomery 5
Architects is a 25 year old company, and there are 26 people on staff. He stated that most of 6
their projects range from $3-$7 million. He stated that they do about 120 projects per year. 7
8
Pat Simms, the project manager for Bossard Construction, stated that the company is 22 years 9
old, and they do $100,000,000 worth of construction each year. He stated that most of their 10
work is publicly funded for school districts, cities, and counties. He stated that their office is 11
located in Bloomington, and there are 30 people in the office. 12
13
Nyles Sikle, Fire Chief, stated that the architect’s fee is 7 ½ percent of the construction cost, 14
which will equate to roughly $300,000, and the construction management fee is about $300,000 15
also. He explained the reasoning for choosing this architect firm and construction company. 16
He stated that the contract is scheduled for approval before the Blaine City Council on April 7th. 17
He stated that the closing of the property is pending, and the purchase price has been agreed to, 18
but there are ongoing negotiations with the property owners along the new frontage road. 19
20
Mayor Marty asked if the soil testing had been done. 21
22
Chief Sikle stated that they are anticipating having some soil correction, and they are anticipating 23
ponding on the site. He gave an explanation of the soil borings that had been done. 24
25
Council Member Flaherty asked if he could explain change orders and cost overruns. 26
27
Mr. Pellanan stated that there would be three phases of design, and they are going to do estimates 28
at each of the phases to make sure that the project is tracking on budget. He stated that there 29
will inevitably be change orders during construction, but their goal would be to minimize that 30
through the different estimates. He stated they would carry a five percent contingency when they 31
send it out for bid, so if they get five or ten percent over, the project would still be considered on 32
budget. 33
34
Council Member Stigney asked who would be going out for the bid. 35
36
City Attorney Scott stated it would be a competitive bid, and it would be what the subcontractors 37
would bid at that point in time. He stated that he hasn’t talked with the City Attorney for Blaine, 38
and Blaine would be holding the contracts, and it’s basically up to each community after that. 39
40
Mayor Marty stated they want a nice looking fire station that is functional, but not extravagant. 41
42
Chief Sikle stated that Spring Lake Park has sent that same message, and the Blaine City Council 43
has scheduled a May 12th workshop to discuss the cost. He stated that the preliminary drawings 44
will be available in early July, and there will be a number of opportunities for the Council to 45
Mounds View City Council March 28, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 18
give feedback on those. He stated they are confident they can build it for $26 million. 1
2
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Flaherty. To waive the reading and approve Resolution 6479 in 3
Support of Selection of Architect and Construction Manager by the City of Blaine. 4
5
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 6
7
G. Resolution 6485 Approving Three 2005 Public Works Summer Seasonal 8
Employee Positions. 9
10
Public Works Director Lee stated that the Council had approved 7 of the 10 proposed positions 11
for summer seasonal employees, and that page 2 of the report shows the funding sources from 12
which the other three remaining positions could be budgeted from. He stated he had given 13
a written report to the Council, and he summarized it. He stated that cutting the three 14
positions would be cutting 15 percent of the summer work that has to be done, so he would 15
propose approval of Resolution 6485. 16
17
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Gunn. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6485 18
Approving Three 2005 Public Works Summer Seasonal Employee Positions. 19
20
Council Member Thomas stated that the homework that had been done was excellent, and 21
she has a lot of confidence in knowing the need is there for the workers. 22
23
Council Member Stigney stated it was his view that they should try to get by with the seven 24
seasonal employees that they had approved. 25
26
Council Member Gunn stated that since they’ve budgeted for ten, and there is the number 27
ten in there, they could go ahead with adding three more on. 28
29
Mayor Marty stated that maybe the supervisors could keep a closer eye on the workers to 30
make sure they are not just standing around. 31
32
There was a discussion about where the funds would come from to pay for the seasonal 33
employees. 34
35
City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich stated that if they receive any complaints, they will investigate 36
those. He stated that there are a lot of hard workers in the Public Works Department, and 37
he doesn’t want them to be disparaged by the comments. 38
39
Ayes-4 Nays-1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 40
41
H. Resolution 6481 Approving the General Concept Plan for a 105-Room 42
Expansion to the American Hotel at the Mermaid Event and Entertainment 43
Center Located at 2200 County Road 10. 44
45
Mounds View City Council March 28, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 19
Director Ericson stated that this is a proposed 105-room addition to the 70-room AmericInn. He 1
stated that the site plan has an initial footprint of 81 rooms to the west. He advised that this is 2
a highly-occupied AmericInn, and this is an opportunity to capture greater use of the hotel, 3
greater use of the Banquet and Convention Center by expanding the hotel. He stated the 4
Planning Commission had looked at this issue, and there are two issues. One is the parking, and 5
there are currently 825 stalls, and would be reduced to 775 after the addition is built. The 6
Planning Commission had suggested checking with other facilities to see what their parking 7
requirements were for similar facilities. He stated he had checked with the Northland Inn and 8
Grand Rios, and they have less parking stalls for similar facilities, so staff feels confident that 9
there is sufficient parking available. He stated that the second issue is that the addition would be 10
within 12 feet to the property line, and the other line would be 30 feet, which is a standard 11
building setback. The PUD required a 50-foot building setback because at the time there didn’t 12
appear to be the need to have any reduction of a building setback. The plan that was adopted 13
with the renovation and expansion of the hotel originally, it didn’t appear that there would be any 14
further expansion of the site, so they went with a 50-foot setback. He stated that County Road 15
H is not a well-traveled road during the evening hours. He stated that the Planning Commission 16
would support the new setback. He stated the parking information from Grand Rios and the 17
Northland Inn makes staff believe the parking is more than adequate. He stated that this 18
resolution does not obligate the Council to approve the site plan when it is brought forward. 19
20
Council Member Thomas stated she hoped the speed would be slow enough on the back side 21
coming in from Highway 10 as far as visibility goes. 22
23
Dan Hall stated that it’s actually the cars that block the visibility at this time. 24
25
Council Member Thomas stated she was speaking of the cars on the road not seeing the cars 26
coming out of the parking lot. 27
28
Mr. Hall stated that the cars parked on both sides are what blocks the visibility, and once those 29
cars are not parked there, that takes away the sight block. 30
31
Council Member Gunn asked if the buildings are going to be connected. 32
33
Mr. Hall stated that they would be and there is also a third floor skyway. 34
35
Council Member Flaherty stated that parking is not the issue. He stated that traffic was what he 36
was concerned about and he asked whether there had been a traffic study done recently for that 37
area. 38
39
Director Ericson stated that they have 2003 numbers for that. 40
41
Council Member Thomas stated that since they are concerned about the 12-foot setback, whether 42
they could have the six rooms on the east side be the conditional rooms. 43
44
Mr. Hall stated that that could be arranged. He stated he is working with two different 45
Mounds View City Council March 28, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 20
developers, and he doesn’t have an answer right now, but he is looking for approval for the 105 1
rooms. 2
3
Council Member Stigney stated he has a problem with the setbacks they are proposing. He asked 4
the applicant to seriously consider reconfiguring it. 5
6
Council Member Thomas stated that there would definitely be more discussion in the future. 7
8
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Flaherty. To waive the reading and approve Resolution 6481, 9
Approving the General Concept Plan for a 105-Room Expansion to the American Hotel 10
at the Mermaid Event and Entertainment Center Located at 2200 County Road 10. 11
12
Ayes-4 Nays-1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 13
14
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 15
16
A. February 7, 2005 Special City Council Minutes. 17
18
Mayor Marty made a correction to page 5, line 9, as follows: “He stated he would like 19
civility maintained while speaking with citizens and to one another.” 20
21
MOTION/SECOND. Marty/Stigney. To approve the February 7, 2005 City Council Minutes as 22
amended. 23
24
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 25
26
B. March 14, 2005 City Council Minutes. 27
28
Numerous corrections were made by the Council on the March 14, 2005 Minutes, as well as 29
a request for additional minutes in one section, and the Recording Secretary will be submitting 30
a corrected set of Minutes in the near future. 31
32
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Gunn. To approve the March 14, 2005 City Council Minutes as 33
amended. 34
35
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 36
37
11. REPORTS 38
39
A. Reports of Mayor and Council 40
41
Council Member Stigney stated he had filled in for the Mayor at the State Legislature last week 42
when they were discussing TIF for possible redevelopment of the Bridges Golf Course, and the 43
end result was they were going to continue the discussion. 44
45
Mounds View City Council March 28, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 21
Council Member Gunn gave a reminder about the smoking ban in all bars and restaurants that 1
will go into effect on the 31st. 2
3
B. Staff 4
5
City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich gave a reminder that the City’s town meeting will be held on 6
Saturday, April 30th. 7
8
1. Golf Course Quarterly Report 9
10
Mary Berg from the Bridges Golf Course stated that she didn’t include financial information 11
because they are still waiting for the financials from last year to be completed. She stated 12
that the outdoor signs had been installed, and they had received their first payment of 13
$62,000. She explained some of the work that has been done on the golf course over the 14
winter months. She stated a lot of her time is spent on marketing strategies. She went over 15
some of they flyers that they advertise in. She stated that the soil testing had been done. She 16
stated that the taxpayer’s taxes aren’t impacted to help the golf course. 17
18
Mayor Marty stated that there has always been a misconception that the golf course is costing 19
the resident’s money out of their pockets. He stated if the projections are right on, by the 20
time it’s paid off in 2018, it’s anticipated that there will be $400,000 per year in income 21
that could be realized by the City. He noted that the Bridges Golf Course had out performed 22
all other nine whole municipal courses in 2004. 23
24
Ms. Berg stated she appreciated him making that comment. 25
26
Dave Jahnke stated that he wanted a financial report with numbers on it, and not a slide 27
presentation. 28
29
Ms. Berg stated that there was a lot of financial information in the fall report, and she 30
doesn’t have any additional information to report now. 31
32
Mr. Jahnke stated that Mounds View is not in good shape financially, and the green space at the 33
Bridges is not helping to pay the bills. He stated that when they built the golf course, they told 34
them how much money it was going to make, and they had hired a very expensive outfit to 35
analyze it. 36
37
Council Member Stigney stated that they had been told that after three years it was going to be 38
contributing to the tax base. 39
40
Mr. Jahnke stated that there are too many golf courses, and 15 have closed down already. He 41
stated that it’s a sad day when they can’t run a golf course without getting income from a sign 42
company. 43
44
Mayor Marty stated the golf course had submitted their numbers at the end of 2004, and the 45
Mounds View City Council March 28, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 22
golf course has been closed since, so that’s why there aren’t any new numbers. 1
2
C. Reports of City Attorney 3
4
None. 5
6
12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, April 4, 2005 at 7pm 7
Next Council Meeting: Monday, April 11, 2005 at 7pm 8
Town Hall Meeting Saturday, April 30, 2005. 9
10
13. ADJOURNMENT 11
12
The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. 13
14
Transcribed and recorded by: 15
16
17
Sheree Theobald 18
Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 19
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL 1
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3
4
Regular Meeting 5
April 11, 2005 6
Mounds View City Hall 7
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 8
7:00 P.M. 9
10
11
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 12
13
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 14
15
3. ROLL CALL: Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, and Thomas 16
17
NOT PRESENT: Mayor Marty. 18
19
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 20
21
A. Monday, April 11, 2005 City Council Agenda. 22
23
MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Gunn. To Approve the Monday April 11, 2005 agenda as 24
presented. 25
26
Ayes –4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 27
28
5. PUBLIC INPUT 29
30
Jerry Linke, 2319 Knoll Drive, stated he didn’t get a chance to speak at the EDA meeting. He 31
stated that one thing that was talked about was the taxes and the money that will be raised, and 32
there is something like $150,000, of which the City only receives a portion of that. He stated that 33
he felt the public hearing was premature because all of the facts and numbers are not there to give 34
to anybody. He stated they know very little about the entire project and the impact within 35
Mounds View. He stated that they know that the cost of infrastructure is going to be $800,000, 36
of which they are going to pay half of it. He stated it has been a year since this was brought up, 37
and he is still looking for numbers. He stated he wants to know what the cost to the City has 38
been so far as far as staff time and attorneys fees and when and how they are going to recoup 39
that. He stated that right now he is looking at a net loss. He stated it’s $400,000 out of TIF, and 40
what are they going to get back out of TIF. He stated that’s a net loss, from the numbers he is 41
looking at. He stated that a 25 year TIF is ludicrous. He stated that the building is only good for 42
15 years before it needs to be remodeled, and that is why most of the TIF in the City right now is 43
only 15 years, because that’s all they go. 44
45
Mounds View City Council April 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 2
Acting Mayor Stigney stated that the reason the hearing was tonight was because residents have 1
been asking the Council and the EDA to bring forth any information as soon as possible, and this 2
was what they had to present. 3
4
Tom Winneke, 2700 block of Sherwood Road, brought a bucket of pavement from his road. He 5
asked for a truck load of cold mix to dump on the street and he would patch his own holes. 6
7
Acting Mayor Stigney stated they could address the patching issue fairly soon, but the 8
reconstruction issue may be quite a ways out. 9
10
Public Works Director Lee stated that they are in the patching phase right now, and they would 11
be getting to Sherwood. He stated they are putting cold mix on any of the major holes, and 12
they’ll replace them with hot mix. He asked Mr. Winneke to call him to talk about it. 13
14
Mr. Winneke stated he would do it himself. 15
16
Acting Mayor Stigney stated that he was sure they could get his street patched. 17
18
Tim Wilson, 7200 Pleasant View Drive, stated that he would get the Council some numbers that 19
he had worked on. He stated that they could do four times the streets in a year, and they have to 20
be fiscally responsible. He stated the taxes are going out of sight, and the citizens of the City are 21
going to pay that whole $10 million sooner or later, and that is something they have to look at. 22
23
David Jahnke, 4228 Eastwood Road, asked when they would be able to discuss the numbers on 24
the survey. 25
26
Acting Mayor Stigney stated that the survey is going to be discussed in the next agenda item. 27
28
Valerie Amundson, 3048 Woodale Drive, stated she wanted to comment on the proposed road 29
construction in the Pleasant View and Woodale area. She stated that the packet that was mailed 30
to the citizens made it look like their cost was going to be $3009, except for Messiah, which she 31
didn’t really understand since it’s tax exempt, so that’s an issue. She stated her concern was that 32
the other 75 percent would be borne by the City, and as she understood it, there isn’t any state 33
funding for these roads, so that 75 percent gets added into their taxes. She stated that the true 34
cost is not $3,000, and most citizens are shocked when they learn about that. She stated that the 35
cost may actually be as high as $10,000 per resident. She stated that the true numbers need to be 36
presented to the citizens. 37
38
Acting Mayor Stigney stated that during work sessions there is a lot of discussion in that area, 39
and they will be discussing it further to see what the true costs are. He stated that he didn’t think 40
that staff or the City have made any attempts to try to minimize what the actual cost is. He stated 41
that the cost would be 25 percent to the residents directly, and 75 percent to the City, which is far 42
better than 50/50, which is what they had before they changed the policy. 43
44
Mounds View City Council April 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 3
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUISNESS 1
2
A. Results of the Community Survey (Presented by Decision Resources, Inc.) 3
4
Council Member Stigney stated that this was a phone survey that was handled by Decision 5
Resources, who contacted 400 residents on an equal basis within each precinct. 6
7
A representative from Decision Resources stated that the survey by telephone took place during 8
the first two and a half weeks of March, and the nonresponse rate was 4½ percent, and there was 9
½ percent of people that terminated mid-survey. He stated the average time it took to complete 10
the survey was 19 ½ minutes. He went through the survey questions and responses on a Power 11
Point Presentation and had previously provided the Council with the written document. 12
13
7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS.. 14
15
Council Member Flaherty asked what a bed knife is as listed on page 4 for $121. 16
17
Mary Berg stated that a bed knife is the base of a blade for a reel mower, and they are replaced all 18
the time. 19
20
Acting Mayor Stigney asked what the battery on page 3, first item, was for. 21
22
Council Member Thomas stated she assumed it was for the defibulators. 23
24
Ms. Berg stated that it was for the golf course defibulator. She stated they last about three years. 25
26
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Thomas. To approve the Just and Correct Claims as Presented. 27
28
Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried. 29
30
8. CONSENT AGENDA 31
32
Council Member Flaherty asked to remove Item C. 33
34
A. Set a Public Hearing for April 25, 2005 at 7:05 pm to Consider a Conditional 35
Use Permit for a Residential Kennel at 8370 Pleasant View Drive. 36
B. Set a Public Hearing for April 25, 2005 at 7:10 pm to Consider a Conditional 37
Use Permit for an Oversized Garage at 7965 Fairchild Avenue. 38
C. Resolution 6494 Authorization to Purchase a Radar Speed Display Trailer 39
from Decatur Electronics for $7450 utilizing forfeiture funds. 40
D. Schedule an Executive Session immediately following this City Council 41
Meeting to discuss Labor Contract Issues. 42
E. Licenses for Approval. 43
F. Resolution 6496 Designating the National Incident Management System 44
(NIMS) as the Basis for All Incident Management in Mounds View. 45
Mounds View City Council April 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 4
1
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Flaherty. To approve Items B, C, D, E, and F of the Consent 2
Agenda as presented. 3
4
Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried. 5
6
C. Resolution 6494 Authorization to Purchase a Radar Speed Display Trailer 7
from Decatur Electronics for $7450 utilizing forfeiture funds. 8
9
Council Member Flaherty asked how much is in the forfeiture fund right now. 10
11
Chief Sommer stated he wasn’t sure of the exact balance. 12
13
Finance Director Hanson stated it was in excess of $20,000. 14
15
Council Member Flaherty stated he was a firm believer in you get what you pay for, and he asked 16
if they’ve checked into the quality of this. 17
18
Chief Sommer stated that Decatur is a manufacturer of police radar equipment, and they’ve been 19
around for many years. He stated that this particular model is of good quality, and this one has 20
the features that they are looking for. He stated in comparison to the other options, they were 21
more expensive, and Decatur is a solid company that has been around for many years, and the 22
quality will be adequate. 23
24
Council Member Stigney asked if the other one was purchased used, and if so, when. 25
26
Chief Sommer stated he didn’t have the exact date when it was purchased, but he knows almost 27
every time they use it, they have to bring it in for repairs. He stated there are mechanical 28
problems with the trailer, and it’s hardly worthwhile to continue to use it. 29
30
Acting Mayor Stigney asked about the warranty. 31
32
Chief Sommer stated the warranty is for two years for parts and labor. 33
34
Acting Mayor Stigney asked if it was temperature sensitive. 35
36
Chief Sommer stated that he believed it worked in cold temperatures, but if it snows on it, that 37
can affect it a little bit. 38
39
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Flaherty. To approve Resolution 6494 Authorization to 40
Purchase a Radar Speed Display Trailer from Decatur Electronics for $7450 utilizing 41
forfeiture funds. 42
43
Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried. 44
45
Mounds View City Council April 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 5
9. COUNCIL BUSINESS. 1
2
A. Resolution 6495 Setting a Public Hearing for Monday, April 25, 2005 at 7:15 3
pm for the City Hall Rehabilitation Project. 4
5
Public Works Director Lee stated that this item is on Council business to make it known to the 6
public that the City is interested in learning more about this proposed project, and there will be a 7
Power Point presentation given on April 25th. 8
9
Acting Mayor Stigney asked if there were any questions for the Public Works Director. He asked 10
whether this item was premature because the Council hadn’t established what they wanted to do. 11
12
Public Works Director Lee stated that the proposed project will be presented that evening. He 13
stated that if they preferred they could do a proposal, present the proposal, and then have a public 14
hearing afterward, but all in the same night. 15
16
Council Member Gunn stated she was going by the list they had received that was basically the 17
basic fixes that need to be done to the building. 18
19
Council Member Flaherty asked if those were the figures he was going to introduce. 20
21
Public Works Director Lee stated that was right, and it would be the same items introduced on 22
April 4th at the work session. 23
24
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Thomas. To waive the reading and approve Resolution 6495 Setting 25
a Public Hearing for Monday, April 25, 2005 at 7:15 p.m. for the City Hall Rehabilitation 26
Project. 27
28
Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried. 29
30
B. Review Appeal from Tim Nelson Representing Property Owner Christen 31
Properties, LLC, Regarding the Connection of 2310 County Road 10 to 32
Municipal Water and Sanitary Sewer Services (Ericson) 33
34
Director Ericson stated that Mr. Tim Nelson, representing the property owner, Crystal Properties, 35
has requested an appeal to waive the connection requirement for city water and sewer. He stated 36
this was an ordinance that the City adopted back in 1992 that had required property owners to 37
hook up prior to that. He stated the Council had been provided with the correspondence between 38
the property owner and the City. He stated the City has asked that the property owner either 39
connect or come up with a redevelopment plan. He stated that Mr. Nelson did submit a 40
redevelopment plan, but it was incomplete in that it did not have signatures or consent of the 41
property owners of all of the property owners involved in the redevelopment, and he rejected the 42
application, and that the City will work with the property owners . He stated they need to have a 43
connection to the city water and sewer or have the City Council approve of a waiver, and that can 44
either take the form of a one-year waiver with an escrow deposit or be a permanent waiver. He 45
Mounds View City Council April 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 6
stated that he had presented some options to the City Council in the materials. He stated Mr. 1
Nelson was here this evening to speak to his request to waive the requirement. He stated that 2
maybe there should be a cash surety left with the City such that at the end of the year if there still 3
isn’t a development application, the City could go ahead and make the connections with the 4
funds that have been deposited. 5
6
Mr. Tim Nelson requested that the Council waive the imminent requirement that they hook up 7
to community sewer and water because this is recognized as a redevelopment site. He stated 8
that the house is a rental house, and the same family has lived there for seven or eight years. 9
He stated that the Building Inspection Department had found things that needed to be addressed, 10
and they had addressed them all, but then the connection to the water and sewer came up. He 11
stated that you don’t have to hook up to water and sewer if you have an imminent redevelopment 12
plan, but he recognizes that maybe there is some legitimacy to encourage or force redevelopment 13
of this property. He stated that requiring someone to connect to water and sewer isn’t going 14
to make the property redevelop, and the property is going to redevelop when the market is right 15
for that. He stated he has received a lot of calls from real estate agents looking for a lot to build 16
a single family home on the property, and that isn’t going to happen. He stated he couldn’t tell 17
them exactly what was going to happen, except that some form of commercial redevelopment 18
will happen, and it will happen when the time is right. He stated he developed the Mounds View 19
business park and numerous other projects around town, and he would like nothing better than to 20
do another project. He is interested in working with City staff and elected officials to try and 21
foster something that would happen there. He stated this isn’t a health and safety issue, and the 22
well and septic on the property have worked fine. He stated that they test the water quality 23
periodically with the Ramsey County Health Department, and it has tested out fine, and he 24
intends to keep doing that. He stated that more than likely the City will have to run new water 25
and sewer lines in the bigger pipe size for a redevelopment project, and it seems prudent to 26
wait for that connection, especially since there is no real need for it other than a Code 27
enforcement issue. He again requested a waiver, and that he would prefer to do it without putting 28
cash up because redevelopment will happen when things are ripe. 29
30
Council Member Thomas asked Mr. Nelson how long it would take him to put a development 31
plan together should he get a call even tomorrow. 32
33
Mr. Nelson stated it would depend on the nature of the use. He stated the plan can be put 34
together fairly quickly, and implementing it with users who want to be there is what can take 35
time if there is more than a single user. 36
37
Council Member Thomas asked if the property owner has any idea what kind of uses they are 38
looking for. 39
40
Mr. Nelson stated it is wide open to what is appropriate in the marketplace. He stated they 41
have interacted with City Staff on what they see as a commercial site of some kind, and it could 42
be a mixed use project, possibly even with some kind of residential element. He stated their 43
thinking was that it’s office or retail or a corporate facility type use. 44
45
Mounds View City Council April 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 7
Council Member Thomas stated she is familiar with what City Staff would like to see, and 1
she asked if the property owner had a desired use. 2
3
Mr. Nelson stated their preference would be to round out the rest of the business park with a 4
building on that corner that mirrors the Multitech Building or the Liberty Building across the 5
street. He stated they had received calls from other developers who are interested in the site for 6
a more typical suburban strip type development. He stated he could envision possibly a small 7
strip center with a bank or a restaurant. He stated that it is not a project that is going to take 8
three years to put together. 9
10
Council Member Thomas stated her assumption was that even if they were to do a general 11
office complex or retail strip with restaurant, they would be looking at about a year to put 12
together this development concept, so even if they are talking about a year waiver, this would 13
have to be a phone call he got this week. 14
15
Mr. Nelson stated that that was right. He stated that in one of the buildings in Mounds View 16
Business Park right across from Woodale was a building where Medtronic made a call, and they 17
had the building plans approved, and they started it in December, and they were in in 89 days. 18
He stated that was a long time ago, but that is the kind of thing that can happen, and it’s not as 19
likely to happen with a mixed use retail. 20
21
Council Member Thomas stated that should that proposal come to the table, she seriously 22
doubted that the sewer connection is going to be the first of their concerns. She asked what 23
their cutoff point was for saying that something is imminent. 24
25
Council Member Gunn asked about the other three properties. She stated she understood he 26
owned two of them, but in order to do this full development, they need to get the other three 27
property owners in the picture also. 28
29
Council Member Thomas stated she was not talking about those other three; she was just 30
talking about their properties. She stated if they start talking about the other three, that’s 31
a much bigger issue. She stated she was talking about the properties they have control over 32
and what they are talking about doing and can they do anything within a year. 33
34
Council Member Gunn stated from what she was looking at, they don’t have much to do that 35
they could do something with. 36
37
Mr. Nelson stated they could do something on one or both of their properties, but that it made 38
more planning sense to look at the whole six-acre package, including the three residences. 39
40
Council Member Thomas stated she was not going to start planning for someone else’s home. 41
42
Council Member Gunn stated she wasn’t either. 43
44
Mr. Nelson stated that they’ve been approached multiple times, and there is going to come a 45
Mounds View City Council April 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 8
time where they need to make decisions on what they are going to do with their property. He 1
stated it was his suggestion to grant a waiver for the coming year and ask them to come back 2
to report in a year on the status, and hopefully there will be something in front of them to look 3
at by way of a proposal, and they could take another look at it. He didn’t feel anybody was 4
going to suffer if there wasn’t a connection made for the next year. 5
6
Council Member Flaherty asked if he was the same Mr. Nelson that was in contact with James 7
Hesberg back in 1994 for this same subject. 8
9
Mr. Nelson stated it was brought up then, and there was a decision made on behalf of the City 10
not to require the connection at that point. 11
12
Council Member Flaherty asked if there was any background on what happened. 13
14
Director Ericson stated that a search had been made of the records, and there is nothing that 15
exists in writing. 16
17
Council Member Flaherty stated that the issue isn’t going to go away, and it’s been 11 years 18
since it was first brought up. 19
20
Council Member Gunn stated it was seven years ago. 21
22
Council Member Flaherty stated that Mr. Nelson was involved for the past 11, and it goes 23
back to 1986. He stated there is a lot of correspondence over the years saying they need 24
to hook up to sewer and water. He stated he’s sure the water is clean and the wells are working 25
fine, but the City Code was specifically drawn up for the betterment of the City to make things 26
like this don’t get out of hand. He stated he was curious what happened in the previous 11 years. 27
He asked if they thought the City was going to go away. 28
29
Mr. Nelson stated that the issue of 11 years going by without the issue being raised indicates 30
an agreement was reached in 1994 not to require it. If there had been a requirement it had to be 31
done within the next month or a year, that would have triggered some action from the City. 32
33
Council Member Thomas asked Mr. Ericson how many other properties had been required to 34
connect up to the sewer since this Code was in place in 1992. 35
36
Director Ericson stated there were 20 or 30 properties that had to be connected as a result of 37
the 1992 ordinance, and this is the one remaining property that does not have access to sewer and 38
water. He stated there are five other properties in the City where they don’t have access to 39
sewer or water, and the Code does grant an exception for that. 40
41
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Gunn. To move on Option No. 3. 42
43
Council Member Thomas stated she believed they need to offer some time for this simply to 44
welcome development, and she would hate to rule out the phone call that could happen this 45
Mounds View City Council April 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 9
week. She stated at some point they will have to be held to the same standard as the rest of 1
the citizens, but that being said, she couldn’t expect that of them tomorrow. She stated her 2
premise for bringing this up is if it isn’t taken care of within a year, it should be acted upon 3
to the level required of other citizens. 4
5
Acting Mayor Stigney stated that the motion on the floor is to give a one-year surety for this 6
property and at that time require hookup to the utilities. 7
8
Council Member Gunn stated that actually they are just directing Staff to create a resolution 9
for this. 10
11
Acting Mayor Stigney stated he would offer the vote to approve drafting a resolution to support 12
one year. 13
14
Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried. 15
16
C. Resolution 6492 Awarding a Land Appraisal Contract for the Spring Creek 17
Regional Water Quality Pond Project. 18
19
Public Works Director Lee stated the draft feasibility report is submitted to the City Council 20
at this time, and they are not seeking approval on it, and the report is incomplete at this point. 21
He stated one of the main components missing is the cost estimates for land acquisition and 22
easement acquisition for this project. He stated that Staff is recommending going forward with 23
the finishing of the report by getting the figures and by having a land appraiser appraise those 24
two properties that are affected by this proposed project. He stated that Staff has received three 25
quotes from several appraisal companies, and a limited appraisal will work. He stated that if 26
this project should proceed, Staff is recommending that a full appraisal be done to guarantee that 27
the dollar values that are established are correct dollar values, and also the property owners have 28
voiced an opinion that a limited appraisal would not be acceptable to them, and that they would 29
want the City to seek an appraisal of the property. He stated that Staff is recommending that the 30
City Council proceed with this by authorizing to do a full appraisal at a cost not to exceed 31
$2,400. He stated that he would submit a revised Resolution for this if that’s the direction the 32
Council wants to go. 33
34
Council Member Thomas stated she has concerns about going ahead with this at this time, and 35
this is a proposal that is tied very closely with the street construction program, and that question 36
hasn’t yet been settled. She stated she has grave concerns about spending any amount of money 37
on a project that may or may not go ahead based on another project. She stated that this pond 38
is not necessary should there be any dramatic change to that street reconstruction program. She 39
stated that regardless of where that is, that decision will be made in the next couple of months, 40
and then this decision could be brought forward. Her personal opinion was that this needs to 41
wait, and she understood what that does to the bid process and appraisal process. She stated 42
they had heard from one of the property owners at the Street Reconstruction meeting who would 43
lose his entire back yard to this pond. She felt before they committed to even appraising 44
properties, they need to know what’s happening with the street project, so she wasn’t comfortable 45
Mounds View City Council April 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 10
moving forward on this. 1
2
Acting Mayor Stigney stated that it could certainly be postponed. 3
4
Public Works Director Lee stated that he agreed it could be delayed. He stated it’s a question of 5
whether they wanted the data at the May 9th meeting when the street project is brought back to 6
the Council, and that’s why staff was timing it this way. 7
8
Council Member Flaherty stated he agreed with Council Member Thomas, and that he thought 9
they were a step ahead of themselves. He stated the streets are a tremendous issue and hasn’t 10
been resolved, and he couldn’t see putting any money into it right now until they actually got 11
to that step and have an agreement that street reconstruction is going to go forward. He stated 12
he would like to table this at this time. 13
14
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Flaherty. To postpone this item until after a decision is made on 15
the street reconstruction project. 16
17
Council Member Gunn asked how long it would take to have the appraisals done. 18
19
Public Works Director Lee stated it would take three weeks. 20
21
Council Member Thomas stated she would like to be able to bring back this discussion if at some 22
point they decide to postpone the street reconstruction. She stated she didn’t want it based solely 23
on that decision and didn’t want to limit them from being able to talk about this after that point. 24
25
Acting Mayor Stigney stated he would support the postponement as well. 26
27
Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried. 28
29
D. Resolution 6493 Approving the Promotion of Officer Bob Nelson to the 30
Position of Sergeant. 31
32
Chief Sommer stated that the Mounds View Police Civil Service Commission maintains an 33
eligibility list for this position, and Officer Bob Nelson is the top candidate on that list. He stated 34
that he has been on the department for 20 years, has served as a patrol officer, a school resource 35
officer, and as an investigator, and he would recommend he be appointed to that position. 36
37
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Flaherty. To approve Resolution 6493 Approving the Promotion of 38
Officer Bob Nelson to the Position of Sergeant. 39
40
Chief Sommer read the resolution aloud. 41
42
Council Member Flaherty asked if the funds from the Irondale Safety Officer Fund is for 43
this position, and Chief Sommer stated that was correct. 44
45
Mounds View City Council April 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 11
Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried. 1
2
E. Resolution 6490 Step/Longevity Increases for Officer Tim Wolf and Officer 3
Kirk Leitch. 4
5
City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich read the Resolution aloud. 6
7
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Flaherty. To approve Resolution 6490 Step/Longevity Increases 8
for Officer Tim Wolf and Officer Kirk Leitch. 9
10
Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried. 11
12
F. Resolution 6498 Adopting City Vision and Mission Statement, Goals 13
Program, Values Statement and Rules of Conduct. 14
15
City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich suggested delaying action on this item until Mayor Marty could 16
be 17
in attendance. 18
19
Acting Mayor Stigney stated he also had wanted some input from the residents at the Town Hall 20
meeting before they do that, and they needed to look over the survey results at a work session 21
to see how that ties into their goals. 22
23
Council Member Thomas stated they could present this as their goals at the Town Hall meeting 24
on the 30th, and if they were to do it at a work session along with the survey, that would come 25
after. She stated there are a couple of options. They could present it at the Town Hall meeting 26
on a proposed list and see if there are any changes they could make to that, or they could go 27
ahead and adopt it at the next Council meeting. She stated it’s a matter of what they want to do 28
because there isn’t going to be another work session before the Town Hall meeting. 29
30
Acting Mayor Stigney stated they should provide the input to the residents at the Town Hall 31
meeting and subsequently have a work session to modify the goals somewhat depending on 32
survey results and any comments received. 33
34
City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich suggested presenting this as a draft and using the public input to 35
shape 36
them up, which would mean delaying it until after the input at the public meeting. He stated 37
one of the Council’s goals was to listen to the citizens. He stated this is a good opportunity to 38
weave that into the mission and the goals as they go along and make those adjustments, in 39
accordance with the survey, and delay this until the May 9th Council meeting. 40
41
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Gunn. To postpone action on this item until May 9th. 42
43
Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried. 44
45
Mounds View City Council April 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 12
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. 1
2
None. 3
4
11. REPORTS 5
6
A. Reports of Mayor and Council 7
8
Council Member Thomas announced that Colleen Wombach, the principal at Edgewood, was 9
named Principal of the Year, which is a significant accomplishment. She stated she does a 10
fabulous job over there, and it’s well deserved. 11
12
City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich asked if they would like a resolution prepared. 13
14
Council Member Gunn and Council Member Thomas stated that would be great. 15
16
Acting Mayor Stigney stated it could be prepared by consensus of the Council. 17
18
. B. Staff 19
20
Director Ericson gave an update on the naming of County Road 10. 21
22
Council Member Flaherty stated he thought they were bringing this up at the town meeting for 23
additional input from citizens. 24
25
Council Member Stigney stated that they should. 26
27
Director Ericson stated that last year there was an ordinance before the City Council to actually 28
name the roadway Mounds View Boulevard, and the Council had opted to table action on that, 29
directing the cities to get together for a name that meant sense for all three communities. He 30
stated that he would like to provide feedback to Blaine and Spring Lake Park as to what their 31
position was. 32
33
Council Member Stigney stated that they hadn’t voted. 34
35
Council Member Thomas asked if they could get a copy of what those were. 36
37
Director Ericson stated that the names were Coon Rapids Boulevard, Northpark Boulevard, 38
Northview Boulevard, and Northtown Parkway. 39
40
Council Member Thomas suggested leaving it open. 41
42
Acting Mayor Stigney stated they would see what the residents want, and they will put it on the 43
list. 44
45
Mounds View City Council April 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 13
1
1. Announce that the Mounds View Employee Appreciation Lunch will be 2
on Wednesday, June 8, 2005 from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. 3
4
City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich announced the Mounds View Employee Appreciation Lunch 5
will be 6
on Wednesday, June 8th, from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. He stated it was for the Council’s 7
attendance if they are available. 8
9
2. Long Range Financial Plan 10
11
Finance Director Hanson stated he had not been able to attend the April 4th work session, and he 12
would be answering some questions that came up. He stated that in the long-range plan dealing 13
with bond issuance, there was not a bond issue in the year 2009 related to this street project, and 14
the question was why. The tentative plan he used in terms of the street reconstruction had a high 15
percentage of municipal state aid for streets and roads being done that year, and so there was 16
only going to be about $200,000 worth of costs that would be bonded for that and would be 17
repaid at the property tax levy, and the financial advisor had advised him that is too small an 18
amount to be bonded for and the bond issuance costs would be too much, so the plan is simply to 19
hold that over to the year 2010 and then propose to issue a larger number of bonds in the year 20
2010. He stated the year 2009 was not missed, and it was just a small bond issue, so it was 21
carried over and lumped into the next year. 22
23
Finance Director Hanson stated the other question that came up is a request for a projection of 24
property tax bills that would occur in the future with the bond issues going on for the street 25
program. He stated that due to the complexity of the property tax system in the state, that’s 26
extremely difficult to do a projection on, especially going out into the future with the bond 27
issues. He stated he attempted to make a projection, with the caveat that it’s not something you 28
can rely on. He explained how he got to the figure of $141 or 7 percent on the home tax bill, but 29
that if they do proceed on the street program, he was sure in nine years they would be looking at 30
a tax levy that would be different than this. 31
32
Brian Amundson, 3048 Woodale Drive, thanked Mr. Hanson for attempting to make this 33
projection. He asked what the median home value was that he used. 34
35
Finance Director Hanson stated that the median home value for 2005 has an estimated market 36
value of $178,000, and a limited market value of $162,000, which is what the tax is based on. 37
38
Council Member Thomas cautioned that he was not able to build into this any county increases 39
for valuation changes to the market, which is the number one inflationary issue they’ve been 40
dealing with is the rising value in housing, and it’s just not possible for him to figure that into 41
those charts, so that’s just a number they can work with for the valuation that they have. 42
43
Mr. Amundson stated that his original question was to understand the dollar impact of ten years 44
worth of bonding, which is the point at which they have all of the projects actually into service. 45
Mounds View City Council April 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 14
He stated that earlier when he had spoke to Mr. Hanson, they were talking about dollars and the 1
number of taxable properties, and he had just done a simple division. He stated he was confused 2
and would have to talk to Mr. Hanson because he had come up with between $32 and $60 3
additional per year, so there was a significant difference. 4
5
Council Member Thomas stated the thing that can’t be reflected is whether or not there is going 6
to be a change in home valuations as far as the median, and obviously that will go up. She stated 7
that factor would also have to be included because it would change the percentages. She stated 8
it’s an exercise in guessing. 9
10
Acting Mayor Stigney asked if there are a list of roads that they are going to actually do M.S.A. 11
roads in 2009 that he doesn’t know about. 12
13
Finance Director Hanson stated that some time back he had received a projection from Public 14
Works Director Lee of what the roads for the next five years were going to be, and maybe he has 15
moved beyond that particular projection, but he had sued that back in February when he had done 16
a somewhat similar project like this. 17
18
Council Member Thomas asked if he remembered the five different areas they had discussed. 19
20
Finance Director Hanson stated that at that time there was one section that had more M.S.A. 21
streets in it, and it may no longer be in the current plan. 22
23
City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich pointed out that that is a separate funding source, and more 24
importantly, the street construction standards are dictated because of that funding source, so they 25
do have to have curbs and they do have to be so wide, and it’s easier to play out a schedule of 26
improvements. 27
28
B. Reports of City Attorney 29
30
None. 31
32
12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, May 2, 2005 at 7pm 33
Next Council Meeting: Monday, April 25, 2005 at 7pm 34
Town Hall Meeting April 30th at 9:00 a.m. at the Community Center 35
36
13. ADJOURNMENT 37
38
The meeting recessed to Executive Session for contract negotiations at 9:06 p.m. 39
40
Transcribed and recorded by: 41
42
43
Sheree Theobald 44
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 45
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Executive Session
Date: 04/11/05
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
Time: 9:08 pm
1. 9:08pm EXECUTIVE SESSION IS CALLED TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Council Members Gunn, Flaherty, Stigney and Thomas.
3. DISCUSS LABOR CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS
The City Council and City Staff discussed the Police and Police Supervisor
contracts and the consensus was to schedule these two contracts for consideration
by the Council at the April 25, 2005 regular meeting.
4. 9:22 pm MEETING ADJOURNED
Respectfully Submitted:
Kurt Ulrich
City Administrator