Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2005/05/09 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Monday, May 9, 2005 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, Thomas 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC INPUT: Citizens may speak to issues not on tonight’s agenda. Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the minutes. Also, please limit your comments to three minutes. 6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS A. Proclamation—Building Safety Week 2005 7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 8. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Final Payment to Abbey Carpet for Mounds View Community Center Project Staff seeks council approval for Final Payment to Abbey Carpet. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ B. Resolution 6515 Adopting a Calendar for the Preparation of the 2006 Budget. Staff recommends approval of Resolution 6515 adopting the 2006 Budget Calendar. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ C. Resolution 6516 Electing to Retain the Statutory Tort Limit on Liability for the 2005/2006 Insurance Policies. The attached resolution declares that the City of Mounds View does not waive the statutory limit on tort liability. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ D. Approve Resolution 6518 Golf Professional Services Staff recommends that the Council authorize a contract with Mr. Jim Manthis for professional services. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ E. Approve Resolution 6519 Golf Professional Services Staff recommends that the Council authorize a contract with Mr. Steve Manthis for professional services. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ F. Resolution 6514 a Resolution Authorizing Distribution of Service Appreciation Certificates to Employees having Achieved a Five Year Employment Milestone as of 2005 Staff recommends approval of purchasing gift certificates to recognize achievements of five employees. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ G. Street Project Survey Results THIS ITEM WAS MOVED TO STAFF REPORTS. H. Resolution Approving a One-Year Extension to Connect the Home at 2310 County Road 10 to Municipal Water and Sewer Staff recommends approval of a one year extension of the connection municipal services requirements to 2310 Cty Rd 10, subject to receipt of a cash surety in the amount of $15,000. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ I. Licenses for Approval Staff recommends approval of listed contract licenses. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ J. Set a Public Hearing for 7:05 pm, Monday, May 23, 2005 to Consider the Approval of a Comprehensive Land Use Amendment for the Bridges Redevelopment Site K. Set a Public Hearing for 7:10 pm, Monday, May 23, 2005 to Consider the Acceptance and Approval of the Final Draft of the Bridges Office Development Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Document L. Set a Public Hearing for 7:15 pm, Monday, May 23, 2005 to Consider a Variance to Reduce the Front Parking Setback to Zero at Ace Supply Company Located at 4749 Old Highway 8 City Council Meeting Agenda May 9, 2005 Page 2 9. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Resolution 6512 Approving Fire Vehicle Plans and Specifications and Resolution 6523 Authorizing Solicitation of Bids for two fire engines/pumpers Staff recommends approval of Resolution 6512 and 6523 for approving Fire Vehicle Plans and Specifications and authorizing solicitation of bids for two fire engines/pumpers. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ B. 7:05 Public Hearing to Consider a Conditional Use Permit to Add Two Additional Dwelling Units to a Multifamily Residential Building at 2071 Hillview Road Hold a public hearing and take testimony from staff, the applicant and affected neighbors. You can either approve the conditional use permit, deny the conditional use permit or table this item. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ C. 7:10 Public Hearing to Consider a Development Review for a Retail Development at 2525 County Road 10 A resolution is drafted to require that the stormwater management function be accommodated wholly on- site rather than on City property. Action on the resolution should be tabled if the Council opts to allow the proposed stormwater ponds on City Hall land to allow for additional discussion/negotiation. If the City Council does not support, the Council will need to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial. If the Council does not have enough information, the City Council could table this item. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ D. Resolution 6513, Approving a Minor Subdivision at 8060 Groveland Road Staff recommends approval of Resolution 6513, a resolution approving a minor subdivision of 8060 Groveland Road, with conditions. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ E. Resolution 6506 Adopting an Investment Policy. If the City Council finds the current draft of the investment policy to be acceptable, then Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution to adopt the investment policy. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ F. Resolution 6511 Approving Agreements for Financial Services with Ehlers & Associates and Springsted, Inc. for the Year 2005. Staff recommends approval of an agreement with Ehlers and Associates to prepare the 2004 TIF reports at an estimated cost of $1,200 and approve continuation of the existing contract with Springsted, Inc., for continuing disclosure services. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ G. Resolution 6517 Approving step increase for David Parker, Golf Course Grounds and Equipment Manager Staff recommends of step increase for David Parker.. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ H. Resolution 6520 Approving the Sufficiency of Petition of the opposition of the 2005 Street Improvement Project. Staff recommends approval of Resolution approving the sufficiency of petition in opposition to the 2005 Street Improvement Project, ending project consideration. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ I. Resolution 6498 Adopting the City Vision and Mission Statement, Goals Program, Values Statement and Rules of Conduct. As part of the retreat follow-up, it is recommended that the Council formally adopt the City Vision and Mission Statement, Goals Program, Values Statement, and Rules of Conduct. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Minutes April 25, 2005. B. Executive Session Minutes April 25, 2005. 11. REPORTS A. Reports of Mayor and Council B. Reports of Staff 1. Street Project Survey Results (Public Works) C. Reports of City Attorney 12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, June 6, 2005 @7pm Next Council Meeting: Monday, May 23, 2005 @7pm CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Monday, May 9, 2005 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, Thomas 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC INPUT: Citizens may speak to issues not on tonight’s agenda. Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the minutes. Also, please limit your comments to three minutes. 6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS A. Proclamation—Building Safety Week 2005 7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 8. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Final Payment to Abbey Carpet for Mounds View Community Center Project B. Resolution 6515 Adopting a Calendar for the Preparation of the 2006 Budget. C. Resolution 6516 Electing to Retain the Statutory Tort Limit on Liability for the 2005/2006 Insurance Policies. D. Approve Resolution 6518 Golf Professional Services E. Approve Resolution 6519 Golf Professional Services F. Resolution 6514 a Resolution Authorizing Distribution of Service Appreciation Certificates to Employees having Achieved a Five Year Employment Milestone as of 2005 G. Street Project Survey Results H. Resolution Approving a One-Year Extension to Connect the Home at 2310 County Road 10 to Municipal Water and Sewer I. Licenses for Approval J. Set a Public Hearing for 7:05 pm, Monday, May 23, 2005 to Consider the Approval of a Comprehensive Land Use Amendment for the Bridges Redevelopment Site K. Set a Public Hearing for 7:10 pm, Monday, May 23, 2005 to Consider the Acceptance and Approval of the Final Draft of the Bridges Office Development Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Document L. Set a Public Hearing for 7:15 pm, Monday, May 23, 2005 to Consider a Variance to Reduce the Front Parking Setback to Zero at Ace Supply Company Located at 4749 Old Highway 8 City Council Meeting Agenda May 9, 2005 Page 2 9. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Resolution 6512 Approving Fire Vehicle Plans and Specifications and Resolution 6523 Authorizing Solicitation of Bids for two fire engines/pumpers B. 7:05 Public Hearing to Consider a Conditional Use Permit to Add Two Additional Dwelling Units to a Multifamily Residential Building at 2071 Hillview Road C. 7:10 Public Hearing to Consider a Development Review for a Retail Development at 2525 County Road 10 D. Resolution 6513, Approving a Minor Subdivision at 8060 Groveland Road E. Resolution 6506 Adopting an Investment Policy. F. Resolution 6511 Approving Agreements for Financial Services with Ehlers & Associates and Springsted, Inc. for the Year 2005. G. Resolution 6517 Approving step increase for David Parker, Golf Course Grounds and Equipment Manager H. Resolution 6520 Approving the Sufficiency of Petition of the opposition of the 2005 Street Improvement Project. I. Resolution 6498 Adopting the City Vision and Mission Statement, Goals Program, Values Statement and Rules of Conduct. 10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Minutes April 25, 2005. B. Executive Session Minutes April 25, 2005. 11. REPORTS A. Reports of Mayor and Council B. Reports of Staff 1. Street Project Survey Results (Public Works) C. Reports of City Attorney 12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, June 6, 2005 @7pm Next Council Meeting: Monday, May 23, 2005 @7pm CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW OFFICE OF THE MAYOR PROCLAMATION BUILDING SAFETY WEEK 2005 May 8 – 14, 2005 WHEREAS, through our continuing attention to building safety, we enjoy the comfort and peace of mind of structures that are safe and sound; and WHEREAS, building safety and fire prevention officials are at work year round to guide the safe construction of buildings; and, WHEREAS, Building Safety Week, sponsored by the International Code Council Foundation, is an excellent opportunity to educate the public and raise awareness of the role building safety and fire prevention officials, local and state building departments, and federal agencies play in protecting lives and property; and, WHEREAS, this year’s theme, “Making Homes, Schools and Workplaces Safer Together,” encourages all Americans to raise our awareness of building safety and to take appropriate steps to ensure that the places where we live, work, play and learn are safe; and, WHEREAS, this year, as we observe Building Safety Week, we ask all Americans to consider projects to improve building safety at home and in the community, and to recognize the local building safety and fire prevention officials and the important role they play in public safety. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Rob Marty, Mayor of the City of Mounds View, do hereby proclaim the week of May 8 through May 14, 2005 as “BUILDING SAFETY WEEK” in The City of Mounds View, and I call upon all citizens to join their fellow Americans in participating in Building Safety Week by assisting efforts to improve building safety. Given under my hand and Seal of the City of Mounds View, this 9th day of May 2005. Rob Marty, Mayor (seal) Item 06A May 9, 2005 Item No. 8B Meeting Date: May 9, 2005 Type of Business: Consent Agenda Administrator Review: _____ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Charles Hansen, Finance Director Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6515 Adopting a Calendar for the Preparation of the 2005 Budget Attached is resolution 6515 that adopts a calendar for preparation of the 2006 Budget. There are several requirements in the City Charter and State Statutes that need to be met. The calendar listed many staff work start and due dates. Items in bold type are City Council meetings or actions. Resolution 6515 only lists City Council meeting dates or other dates of significance to the City Council. Many of these dates must be considered tentative since the State of Minnesota won’t notify us of their requirements until this summer. Respectfully Submitted, Charles Hansen RESOLUTION NO. 6515 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW County of Ramsey State of Minnesota ADOPTING A CALENDAR FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE 2006 BUDGET WHEREAS, the City’s Charter and Code as well as State Statutes set forth various requirements for considering and adopting the City’s budget; and WHEREAS, Section 7.04 of the City Charter requires the Clerk-Administrator to submit to the City Council a budget calendar to be established by resolution. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds View that the following budget and long tern financial plan calendar is hereby adopted: June 6, 2005 City Council discusses budget priorities at work session. July 28, 2005 Summary of General Fund operating budget requests delivered to City Council. August 1, 2005 City Council reviews General Fund budget at work session. Sept. 12, 2005 City Council adopts preliminary 2006 property tax levy and sets date for the Truth in Taxation Public Hearing. Sept. 19, 2005 City Council reviews operating budgets for other funds at work session. Oct. 3, 2005 City Council reviews utility rate study at work session. Nov. 11, 2005 City Council adopts utility rates for 2006. Dec. 5, 2005 Truth in Taxation Public Hearing. Dec. 12, 2005 Continuation Hearing and adoption of 2006 budget and tax levy. Adopted May 9, 2005. ATTEST: ___________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor (SEAL) ___________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator City of Mounds View 2006 Budget Calendar May 16, 2005 Finance Department begins preparing budget work papers. May 23, 2005 Departments begin preparing operating budget requests. June 6, 2005 City Council discusses budget priorities and strategies. June 20, 2005 Operating budget requests due from departments. June 30, 2005 Summary of operating budget requests due to City Administrator. July 1, 2005 Long-term capital projects needs list due. July 1-18, 2005 Administrator reviews operating budget requests and capital projects. July 28, 2005 Summary of operating budget requests due to City Council. August 1, 2005 City Council reviews General Fund budget at work session. City Council reviews Long-term capital projects at work session. Aug 15, 2005 Work on utility rate study begins. September 12, 2005 City Council adopts preliminary 2006 property tax levy and sets date for the Truth in Taxation Public Hearing. September 19, 2005 City Council reviews other funds budgets at work session. Sept. 29, 2005 Utility rate study due to City Council. October 3, 2005 City Council reviews utility rate study at work session. October 3, 2005 Articles due for Nov-Dec Mounds View Matters newsletter. Oct 17 - Nov 21 Additional City Council work sessions as needed. Oct. 28, 2005 City distributes newsletter with proposed budget. November 11, 2005 City Council adopts utility rates for 2006. December 5, 2005 Truth in Taxation Public Hearing December 12, 2005 Continuation hearing and adoption of 2006 Budget and tax levy. Item No. 8C Meeting Date: May 9, 2005 Type of Business: Consent Agenda Administrator Review: _____ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Charles Hansen, Finance Director Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6516 Electing to Retain the Statutory Tort Limit on Liability for the 2005/2006 Insurance Policies Minnesota Statutes 466.04 provides a limit on municipal tort liability claims of $300,000 per person and $1,000,000 per incident. Cities have the option of waving this limit if they purchase insurance policies with larger maximum coverage. There is no reason why the City of Mounds View should waive the statutory limit on tort liability. Cities obtaining liability coverage from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust must decide whether or not to waive the statutory tort limit. The decision must be made by the City Council before the effective date of the coverage. The attached resolution declares that the City of Mounds View does not waive the statutory limit on tort liability. Respectfully Submitted, Charles Hansen RESOLUTION NO. 6516 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA ELECTING TO RETAIN THE STATUTORY TORT LIMIT ON LIABILITY FOR THE 2005/2006 INSURANCE POLICIES WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View is currently making application for insurance policies to cover the period of July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 466.04 require that the City Council elect to not waive the monetary limits on municipal tort liability prior to the effective date of the coverage; and WHEREAS, Waiving the statutory tort limit on liability claims is not in the best interest of the City of Mounds View. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mounds View that the statutory tort limit on municipal tort liability is not waived. Adopted this 9th day of May 2005. ATTEST: Rob Marty, Mayor (SEAL) Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator Item No: 08F Meeting Date: May 9,, 2005 Type of Business: Council Business Administrator Review: _____ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Desaree M. Crane, Administrative Assistant Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Resolution 6514, a Resolution Authorizing Distribution of Service Appreciation Certificates to Employees having Achieved a Five-Year Employment Milestone as of 2005. Introduction: Staff has scheduled an Employee Appreciation BBQ Lunch for Wednesday, June 8, 2005, located at the Big Pavilion behind City Hall, from 11am to 100pm. Resolution 5617 (attached) indicates that the City will provide employee gift certificates. Discussion: One of the clauses in Resolution 5617 indicates that the City will provide to employees “gift certificates in the amount of $5 per year of service at five-year increments.” Currently there are 5 city employees that fall under this criteria. Both the Employee Lunch and Gift Certificates are currently budgeted for 2005 (Budget # 100-4100-1600). Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of purchasing these gift certificates to recognize the achievements of these five (5) employees. These five (5) employees will be asked where they want their gift certificates purchased, and Staff will pick them up. All gift certificates must be chosen in the Twin Cities area. Respectfully submitted, Desaree M. Crane RESOLUTION NO 6514 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION APPROVING DISTRIBUTION OF SERVICE APPRECIATION CERTIFICATES TO EMPLOYEES HAVING REACHED FIVE-YEAR EMPLOYMENT MILESTONES WHEREAS, Resolution 5617 was adopted by the City Council on October 8, 2001; and, WHEREAS, one of the clauses in Resolution 5617 indicates that the City will provide to employees certificates in the amount of $5 per year of service at five-year increments; and, WHEREAS, the following individuals have achieved an employment milestone with the City of Mounds View since the adoption of Resolution 5617; and, WHEREAS, together the five identified employees have a cumulative 115 years of experience with the City of Mounds View. Employee Name Date of Hire Department Years of Service Mary Tatarek 5/29/1980 Finance 25 years Larry Siluk 8/9/1976 Police Dept 30 years Robert Nelson 5/1/1985 Police Dept 20 years David Anderson 5/15/1985 Police Dept 20 years Tom Kinney 10/15/1985 Police Dept 20 years NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mounds View City Council does hereby appreciate and recognize the five employees listed above for their years of dedicated service and, pursuant to Resolution 5617, does hereby authorize the distribution of Service Appreciation Certificates to each herein identified employee in amounts equal to five times their years of service. Adopted this 9th day of May, 2005 ________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 8H Meeting Date: May 9, 2005 Type of Business: Council Business Administrator Review : ____ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Resolution 6522, a Resolution Approving a One-Year Extension to Connect the Property at 2310 County Road 10 to Municipal Sewer and Water Service Introduction: The City of Mounds View adopted Ordinance 501 in 1992 which required all properties be connected to municipal water and sanitary sewer if it is available at the property. Existing properties which did not have direct access to such services were exempt from the connection provisions until such time that the services became available. Only one occupied property in the city remains unconnected1 to the municipal water and sanitary sewer services—2310 County Road 10. Background: On May 31, 1968, upon completion of Water project 1967-5, the City sent the property owners of 2310 County Road 10 a letter informing them that they would need to connect the home to the new water supply. While no record exists to document any response or subsequent correspondence, connection was not made at that time. In 1992, another letter was sent to the property shortly after the adoption of Ordinance 501 again requesting connection. Again, no records exist to document a response. In 1994, current employee Jim Hess sent a letter to the current property owners regarding the need to connect. In response, Tim Nelson wrote on September 2, 1994 requesting estimates for the connection, which were provided by Mr. Hess in writing on September 8, 1994. One year later in September of 1995, Mr. Hess again wrote to Mr. Nelson requesting the connections be made before the end of the year. No connections were made and staff is not aware of any formal or informal arrangements that waived the requirement to connect. Discussion: In March of 2004, staff was notified of potential housing violations at 2310 County Road 10. Housing Inspector Jeremiah Anderson investigated the property and drafted a notice of violation to Everest Properties. After a series of letters between the City and Mr. Nelson and Mr. Knight representing the property owner, Mr. Nelson requested an extension to the previous waiver they assert had been granted for connecting to the municipal water and sanitary sewer. While staff remains unaware of any such waiver, on August 19, 2004, I 1 There are five other residential properties which are not connected to city water and/or sewer, because the main lines do not extend to those properties and thus are exempt from the requirement. 2310 County 10 Connection Report April 11, 2005 wrote to Mr. Nelson indicating that we would consider extending the requirement to connect if they were to submit a valid redevelopment application for the properties in question. If a valid application was not received or they did not intend to develop the property within a year, connection would be required. On February 25, 2005, Mr. Nelson submitted a redevelopment application for properties they own at 2310 and 2260 County Road 10 as well as the three parcels in between theirs, which they do NOT own. Because the property owners of the three non-Everest lots did not sign or consent to the application, the City could not accept the application and thus returned the application to Mr. Nelson on March 1, 2005. I reiterated the City’s position that connections would need to be made no later than May 1, 2005 or submit a written appeal to be considered by the City Council. Staff received the appeal from Mr. Nelson dated March 21, 2005. Staff responded that the City Council would hear his appeal on April 11, 2005. On April 11, 2005, staff presented the City Council with a report on the property recommending that either connection be required to municipal services or if a one-year extension was to be granted, that the extension be subject to the property owners submitting a cash surety to guarantee that the improvements would be made after the end of the extension period. The Council directed staff to bring forth a resolution approving the one- year extension subject to a $15,000 cash surety. Resolution 6522 is attached to this report which authorizes that direction. Recommendation: Approve Resolution 6522, a resolution prepared as directed by the City Council, approving a one-year extension of the connection municipal services requirements to 2310 County Road 10, subject to receipt of a cash surety in the amount of $15,000. Respectfully submitted, ________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director RESOLUTION NO. 6522 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF THE REQUIREMENT TO CONNECT 2310 COUNTY ROAD 10 TO MUNICIPAL WATER AND SANITARY SEWER SERVICES WHEREAS, the Mounds View Municipal Code requires that all properties having direct access to municipal water and sanitary sewer be connected to such utilities; and, WHEREAS, the property at 2310 County Road 10 has had access to said municipal utilities since 1968; and, WHEREAS, repeated attempts have been made to work with the property owner(s) to effectuate the utility connections from 1968 to the present without success; and, WHEREAS, 2310 County Road 10 remains the last occupied property in the City having direct access to the utilities that is not connected to said utilities; and, WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that the potential exists for a redevelopment in this area that would justify the extension of the connection requirement for a specified period of time. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Mounds View approves a one-year extension of the requirement to connect to the municipal water and sanitary sewer services subject to the following condition: 1. The property owner shall remit to the City a cash surety in the amount of $15,000 to cover the anticipated cost of the improvements. In the event the cost to connect to the utilities exceeds the surety deposited with the City, the property owner shall be liable for the difference. Any excess funds remaining after connection has been made shall be returned to the property owner less any accumulated administrative fees. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the one-year extension shall expire on May 1, 2006, after which time connection shall immediately be undertaken. Adopted this 9th day of May, 2005. _______________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 08I Meeting Date: May 9, 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. Drobnick’s Tree Service – Tree Trimming/Removal – Renewal Fendler Construction, Inc. – General (Commercial) – New Royalton Heating & Cooling – HVAC - Renewal Security Fence & Construction, Inc. – Fence – New Verne V. Olson II, Inc. – General (Commercial) - New Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested. Respectfully submitted, Barb Benesch Item No: 09A Meeting Date: May 9, 2005 Type of Business: CA City Administrator Review: ______ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6512 Approving Fire Vehicle Plans and Specifications for two fire engines/pumpers, and Resolution 6523 Authorization to Develop Final Specifications and Issuing Bids for One Command Vehicle for the SBM Fire Department Background On the May 2, 2005, Work Session meeting it was discussed that need there was need for a Command Vehicle (shared by the police and fire departments), and fire engines/pumpers. Attached is the Work Session Staff report for your reference, along with the production specifications for the Command Vehicle as requested by the City Council. At the City Council’s request, Staff added a line to Resolution 6523 to indicate if Spring Lake Park or Blaine decided to scale down the Command Vehicle Specifications, Mounds View City Council would approve. In order to move forward, the City Councils of Mounds View and Spring Lake Park will be asked to pass resolutions in support of the Blaine City Council authorizing final bid specification and issuance of bids. Mounds View action is scheduled for today (May 9, 2005) and Spring Lake Park is scheduled to take action on May 16, 2005. The Blaine City Council has scheduled a Work Session for May 12 and will take formal action in June. Attached are resolutions 6512 (Developing Final Fire Vehicle Specifications and Bids for Two Fire Engines/pumpers for the Spring Lake Park-Blaine-Mounds View Fire Department); and 6523 (Developing Final Specifications and Issuing Bids for One Command Vehicle for the Spring Lake Park-Blaine-Mounds View Fire Department). Both are presented for City Council approval. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Resolution 6512 (Authorization to Develop Final Fire Vehicle Specifications and Bids for Two Fire Engines/Pumpers for the Spring Lake Park Fire-Blaine- Mounds View Fire Department); and 6523 (Authorizing Final Specifications and Issuing Bids for One Command Vehicle for the Spring Lake Park-Blaine-Mounds View Fire Department). RESOLUTION 6512 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AUTHORIZATION TO DEVELOP FINAL FIRE VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS AND BIDS FOR TWO FIRE ENGINES/PUMPERS FOR THE SPRING LAKE PARK-BLAINE-MOUNDS VIEW FIRE DEPARTMENT WHEREAS, the cities of Spring Lake Park, Blaine and Mounds View have been served by the Spring Lake Park Fire Department since 1944; and WHEREAS, the department and the cities have been working together to develop a Capital Improvement Plan; and WHEREAS, a joint city council meeting held July 22, 2004, resulted in a consensus to move the plan forward; and WHEREAS, during the month of February all three cities held public hearings on adoption of the plan and all three councils passed a resolution indicating funding for the plan was to be in the form of Capital Improvement Bonds; and WHEREAS, state law requires a 30 day reverse referendum period which has now expired with no citizens of any of the three cities filing a petition for a referendum thus allowing the communities to fund the program with Capital Improvement Bonds; and WHEREAS, one of the three components of the project was the purchase of two engines to replace Engine 1 housed at Station One and Engine 2, housed at Station Two; and WHEREAS, a committee was formed and chaired by Deputy Chief Don Krueger and comprised of the Senior Captains at both stations; and WHEREAS, the committee hereby recommends the need for the replacement engines now. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Mounds View supports the City of Blaine Council in developing final specifications and issuing for bids for two fire engines/pumpers not to exceed $450,000 each in total price, including specified loose equipment. Adopted this 9th day of May, 2005. _______________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (seal) RESOLUTION 6523 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AUTHORIZATION TO DEVELOP FINAL SPECIFICATIONS AND ISSUING BIDS FOR ONE COMMAND VEHICLE FOR THE SPRING LAKE PARK-BLAINE-MOUNDS VIEW FIRE DEPARTMENT WHEREAS, the cities of Spring Lake Park, Blaine, and Mounds View have been served by the Spring Lake Fire Department since 1944; and WHEREAS, the department and the cities have been working together to develop a Capital Improvement Plan; and WHEREAS, a joint City Council meeting held on July 22, 2004, resulted in a consensus to move the plan forward; and WHEREAS, during the month of February all three cities held public hearing on adoption of the plan and all three councils passed a resolution indicating funding for the plan was to be in the form of Capital Improvement Bonds; and WHEREAS, state law requires a 30 day reverse referendum period which has not expired with no citizens of any of the three cities filing a petition for referendum thus allowing the communities to fund the program with Capital Improvement Bonds; and WHEREAS, one of the three components of the project was a combination of police and fire Command Vehicles; and WHEREAS, a committee was formed comprised of Spring Lake Park Police Chief Dave Toth, Mounds View Police Chief Mike Sommer, Blaine Police Captain Kerry Fenner and Fire Department Officers Jim Hansen and Chief Zikmund all who researched and investigated the need, cost and purpose of a Command Vehicle; and WHEREAS, the committee hereby recommends that a need for a command vehicle, jointly owned and operated to manage police and fire emergencies now; and WHEREAS, if the City of Spring Lake Park or Blaine decides to scale down the Command Vehicle specifications, the Mounds View City Council would approve such changes as long as they are under $350,000 in total price. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Mounds View supports the City of Blaine Council in developing final specifications issuing for bids for one Command vehicle not to exceed $350,000 in total price. Adopted this 9th day of May, 2005. _______________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (seal) Item No: 9B Meeting Date: May 9, 2005 Type of Business: PH and CB 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 to Allow for Two Additional Dwelling Units at a Multifamily Residential Building Located at 2071 Hillview Road; Planning Case No. CU2005-004 Introduction: The applicants, Roger and Rosemary Dickhausen, are requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for two additional dwelling units at their multifamily residential building located at 2071 Hillview Road. The applicants are proposing to add two dwelling units to the basement of their existing four-unit building. The building would then have a total of six units, which is the maximum number of units allowed for a property zoned R-3, Medium Density Residential. Discussion: Section 1108.04 of the Zoning Code conditionally allows multifamily dwelling structures containing six (6) or less dwelling units in Medium Density Residential districts. Although the multifamily building already exists, the proposed expansion of the number of units triggers the need for the conditional use permit. The additional dwelling units are proposed to be located in the basement of the existing building, which means that the footprint or size of the building will not be affected. Section 1104.02 of the Zoning Code requires that multiple family uses in an R-3, Medium Density Residential district have a minimum of 2,500 square feet of lot area per unit. If this property were permitted to expand to six (6) dwelling units as requested, the Code would require a minimum of 15,000 square feet. 2071 Hillview Road has an area of 16,553 square feet, which satisfies the Code requirements for lot size. Section 1121.13 of the Zoning Code requires one and a half uncovered parking stalls and one covered stall per dwelling unit. The applicants are planning to construct additional garages in order to satisfy the requirements for covered parking stalls. If the conditional use permit is granted and the building contains six (6) dwelling units, the Code would require 6 covered parking stalls and 9 uncovered parking stalls. The property already has two garage stalls and the applicants are proposing to construct four additional garage stalls in order to satisfy the Code requirements. The proposed garages would be located behind and to the west of the existing building. The garages would have a setback of five (5) feet from the west (side) lot line and approximately thirty-three (33) feet from the north (rear) property line. Section 1104.01 requires a five (5) foot setback, which the proposed garages satisfy. CUP Considerations: Subdivision 3b of Section 1125.01 of the Mounds View Zoning Code indicates that the City Council is to consider a general set of criteria when reviewing conditional use permits in addition to any specific conditions enumerated. These general conditions are listed as follows: 2071 Hillview Road CUP Report May 9, 2005 Page 2 (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. Although two additional units would generate a few more vehicle trips per day, Staff does not believe that adding two units to the existing multifamily building will create an excessive burden on the streets, utilities, parks, schools or public facilities. (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 use is compatible with the adjacent properties, as they are also residential, including many that have multifamily residential uses. Staff does not believe that the proposed expansion would cause depreciation in the value of the existing homes. (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. The proposed expansion would be constructed in the basement of the building and would not change the appearance of the building exterior. The garages associated with the expansion would have a positive impact on the adjacent properties, as the occupants will be able to store more vehicles indoors. (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. The proposed expansion and associated garages is reasonably related to the needs of the City and to the existing land use. (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 proposed expansion is consistent with the provisions and purposes of the Zoning Code. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. There will be a small amount of additional traffic generated by the expansion, however, Staff does not believe it would cause traffic hazards or congestion. (8) Adequate utilities, access, drainage and facilities have been or will be provided. All utilities and infrastructure are presently available and sufficient. 2071 Hillview Road CUP Report May 9, 2005 Page 3 Planning Commission Review: Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code requires that the Planning Commission review and address 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 addressed below. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The future land use designation for 2071 Hillview Road is multifamily. The proposed expansion to have a total of six dwelling units would not be inconsistent with the Comp Plan. The Geographical Area Involved. The applicants’ property is located on Hillview Road. This particular section of Hillview Road has several multiple family buildings and is adjacent to single-family residential on the south side and Colonial Village Manufactured Home Park on the north side. The proposed expansion would not be out of place for this area of the City and the size of the property would accommodate the proposal. Depreciation. The two additional dwelling units and four additional garage stalls would actually increase the value of the subject property. Staff does not feel that it would cause depreciation of the surrounding properties. The Character of the Surrounding Area. This area of the City is a mixture of residential uses, including several other multifamily buildings that have between four and six dwelling units. The proposed expansion would not be out of character in this area. The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use. The applicants have indicated that the need is to expand the use of their building. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 and considered the applicants’ conditional use permit request. There were no residents in attendance, however, on neighboring property owner did contact Staff prior to the meeting and stated that he was supportive of the expansion and was happy to see improvements being made in the neighborhood. After taking testimony from the applicant, the Planning Commission approved a resolution that recommends approval of the conditional use permit request. The Planning Commission’s resolution is attached for the Council’s reference. After the Planning Commission meeting, another resident contacted Staff to express some concerns that she has with the expansion. The resident stated that she was opposed to the expansion due to the additional traffic it would generate and felt that the housing attracts “the wrong kind of people”. She did suggest that the owner of the building could remodel the basement and construct bedrooms that would be used by one of the first floor units, thereby making the unit a three or four bedroom apartment. Recommendations: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and affected neighbors, the Council can take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Approve the conditional use permit. Resolution 6521 is attached if the Council selects this option. 2071 Hillview Road CUP Report May 9, 2005 Page 4 2. Deny the conditional use permit. If the Council selects this option, Staff would need to be directed to draft a resolution of denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the denial. If the Council chooses to act on this option, Staff will provide the resolution to the Council at the next meeting on May 23, 2005. 3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Council can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of 60-day requirements, the Council would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Respectfully submitted, Kristin Prososki Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Proposed Site Plan 5. Photographic Documentation 6. Planning Commission Resolution 794-05 7. Resolution 6521 2071 Hillview Road CUP Report May 9, 2005 Page 5 2071 Hillview Road CUP Report May 9, 2005 Page 6 2071 Hillview Road CUP Report May 9, 2005 Page 7 Zoning Map 2071 Hillview Road CUP Report May 9, 2005 Page 8 2071 Hillview Road CUP Report May 9, 2005 Page 9 Site Plan 2071 Hillview Road CUP Report May 9, 2005 Page 10 Photographic Documentation Front View of 2071 Hillview Road View of Rear Yard (Location of Proposed Garages) 2071 Hillview Road CUP Report May 9, 2005 Page 11 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 794-05 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR TWO ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS AT A MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 2071 HILLVIEW ROAD; PLANNING CASE NO. CU2005-004 WHEREAS, Roger and Rosemary Dickhausen have applied for a conditional use permit to allow for two additional dwelling units at their multifamily building; and, WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 2071 Hillview Road, is zoned R-3, Medium Density Residential, and is legally described as follows: The West 103 Feet of the East 311 Feet of the South 193 Feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (Subject to Road) in Section 5 Township 30 Range 23 Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows multifamily dwelling structures containing six or less dwelling units in Medium Density Residential districts; and, WHEREAS, the applicants are proposing to expand the existing building to six dwelling units, thus necessitating application for a conditional use permit; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Location Map d. Site Plan e. Photographic Documentation f. Staff Report WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing regarding the conditional use permit request on Wednesday, April 20, 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: 2071 Hillview Road CUP Report May 9, 2005 Page 12 1. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the Comprehensive Plan designates the future land use of this property as multifamily residential. 2. The proposed expansion would not be out of place given the character and geography of the surrounding area involved and the size of the subject property which is able to accommodate the additional dwelling units and the required garages. 3. The proposed expansion would not depreciate the surrounding area. 4. The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed expansion. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit for two additional dwelling units at the multifamily residential building located at 2071 Hillview Road, with conditions as follows: 1. The four garage stalls must be constructed prior to the City issuing a Certificate of Occupancy for the dwelling units. 2. The garages shall be constructed as shown on the site plan submitted on March 30, 2005 3. Should the use change for which the permit was granted; the conditional use permit shall be considered null and void. 4. The parking stalls shall be striped. 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 20th day of April, 2005. _____________________________________ Jean Miller, Acting Chairperson ATTEST: ____________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) 2071 Hillview Road CUP Report May 9, 2005 Page 13 RESOLUTION NO. 6521 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR TWO ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS AT A MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 2071 HILLVIEW ROAD; PLANNING CASE NO. CU2005-004 WHEREAS, property owners Roger and Rosemary Dickhausen have applied for a conditional use permit to allow for two additional dwelling units at their multifamily building; and, WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 2071 Hillview Road, is zoned R-3, Medium Density Residential, and is legally described as follows: The West 103 Feet of the East 311 Feet of the South 193 Feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (Subject to Road) in Section 5 Township 30 Range 23 Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows multifamily dwelling structures containing six or less dwelling units in Medium Density Residential districts; and, WHEREAS, the applicants are proposing to expand the existing building to six dwelling units, thus necessitating application for a conditional use permit; 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. Site Plan e. Photographic Documentation f. Staff Report g. Planning Commission Resolution 794-05 WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing regarding the conditional use permit request on Monday, May 9, 2005. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council makes the following findings of fact related to the conditional use permit request: 2071 Hillview Road CUP Report May 9, 2005 Page 14 1. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the Comprehensive Plan designates the future land use of this property as multifamily residential. 2. The proposed expansion would not be out of place given the character and geography of the surrounding area involved and the size of the subject property which is able to accommodate the additional dwelling units and the required garages. 3. The proposed expansion would not depreciate the surrounding area. 4. The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed expansion. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council approves the conditional use permit for two additional dwelling units at the multifamily building located at 2071 Hillview Road, with conditions as follows: 1. The four garage stalls must be constructed prior to the City issuing a Certificate of Occupancy for the dwelling units. 2. The garages shall be constructed as shown on the site plan submitted on March 30, 2005 3. The parking stalls shall be striped. 4. Should the use change for which the permit was granted; the conditional use permit shall be considered null and void. Adopted this 9th day of May, 2005. _____________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk / Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 9D Meeting Date: May 9, 2005 Type of Business: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View City Council From: Kristin Prososki, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Minor Subdivision of 8060 Groveland Road; Planning Case MI2005-003 Introduction: Integra Homes, represented by Ron Lillestrand, has applied for a minor subdivision of the property located at 8060 Groveland Road. The applicant is proposing to divide the back 271 feet from the existing lot. The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal on Wednesday, April 20, 2005. Planning Commission Resolution 795-05, which recommends approval of the minor subdivision request, is attached for Council review. Discussion: Minor subdivisions are those divisions of land less than two acres in size in which only one additional lot is created. Minor subdivisions do not require a public hearing and in contrast to a major subdivision, a Certificate of Survey rather than a plat is all that is needed to record the change with Ramsey County. The property at 8060 Groveland Road is presently 61,855 square feet, or 1.42 acres. The proposed subdivision would split off the back 271 feet from the existing lot. The existing home would remain on the east lot (Parcel A), which would then have a depth of 187 feet. The west lot (Parcel B) would eventually be joined with adjacent properties as part of a proposed redevelopment. The Planning Commission and Council will review the concept plans for the proposed redevelopment during May and June of this year. The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Survey for the proposed subdivision, which identifies the lot to be created as Parcel A and the remainder lot as Parcel B. Zoning Requirements The subject property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. The minimum lot size for an interior (a lot which is not on a corner), single-family lot is 11,000 square feet. As proposed, Parcel A would have an area of 25,244 square feet and Parcel B would have an area of 36,611 square feet. The existing lot has 135 feet of frontage on Groveland Road, which is 60 feet more than the minimum requirement of 75 feet for a single-family residential property. The subdivision, as proposed, would actually land lock Parcel B (it would not have street frontage), however, the applicant is proposing to use Parcel B as part of a larger redevelopment project. Parcel A will remain zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and Parcel B will also be zoned R-1, until such time that the parcel is redeveloped and rezoned to an appropriate classification. 8060 Groveland Road Minor Subdivision Report April 20, 2005 Page 2 Park Dedication Requirements Every subdivision of land is subject to park dedication requirements, however, because this minor subdivision, in and of itself, will not cause additional development and because the future redevelopment of the land, including Parcel B, will be subject to a park dedication fee, Staff is recommending that the fee be waived on this subdivision, but be imposed on the larger redevelopment project. The redevelopment project, if approved, will be creating a more intense development than what currently exists and therefore, it may be more appropriate to charge the fee at that time. Easements With every subdivision of land, the City requires that drainage and utility easements be dedicated around the perimeter of the lot. The Certificate of Survey provided by the applicants does indicate the presence of proposed perimeter easements on Parcel A. The easements for Parcel B will be dedicated if and when the redevelopment project occurs. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Council approve Resolution 6513, a resolution approving a minor subdivision of 8060 Groveland Road, with conditions. Respectfully submitted, Kristin Prososki Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Photographic Documentation 4. Certificate of Survey 5. Planning Commission Resolution 795-05 6. Resolution 6513 8060 Groveland Road Minor Subdivision Report April 20, 2005 Page 3 8060 Groveland Road Minor Subdivision Report April 20, 2005 Page 4 8060 Groveland Road Minor Subdivision Report April 20, 2005 Page 5 Zoning Map 8060 Groveland Road Minor Subdivision Report April 20, 2005 Page 6 Photographic Documentation 8060 Groveland Road Backyard of 8060 Groveland Road 8060 Groveland Road Minor Subdivision Report April 20, 2005 Page 7 8060 Groveland Road Minor Subdivision Report April 20, 2005 Page 8 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 795-05 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION OF 8060 GROVELAND ROAD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. MI05-003 WHEREAS, applicant Ron Lillestrand, representing Integra Homes, has requested approval of a minor subdivision of 8060 Groveland Road, property zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, legally-described as follows: South 135 Feet of Lot 47, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 89 Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to subdivide the back 271 feet from the existing lot; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a Certificate of Survey for the proposed minor subdivision indicating the new lot as Parcel A and the remainder lot as Parcel B; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the applicant’s request for a minor subdivision and has determined that it is in conformance with Chapters 1104, 1201, and 1202 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the applicant’s request for a minor subdivision is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the minor subdivision of 8060 Groveland Road, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicants shall arrange to have a Title Commitment drafted and submitted prior to the approval of the subdivision by the City Council. 2. The applicant shall arrange to record new property deeds with Ramsey County within 60 days of Council approval and provide the City with proof of recordation. Failure to do so shall cause the approval to become null and void. 8060 Groveland Road Minor Subdivision Report April 20, 2005 Page 9 BE IT FURTHER 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 20th day of April, 2005. __________________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: ______________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director (SEAL) 8060 Groveland Road Minor Subdivision Report April 20, 2005 Page 10 RESOLUTION NO. 6513 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR SUBDIVISION OF 8060 GROVELAND ROAD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. MI05-003 WHEREAS, applicant Ron Lillestrand, representing Integra Homes, has requested approval of a minor subdivision of 8060 Groveland Road, property zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, legally-described as follows: South 135 Feet of Lot 47, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 89 Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to subdivide the east 187.02 feet from the west 271.1 feet of the subject property; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a Certificate of Survey for the proposed minor subdivision indicating the new lot as Parcel A and the remainder lot as Parcel B; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the applicant’s request for a minor subdivision and has determined that it is in conformance with Chapters 1104, 1201, and 1202 of the Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the applicant’s request for a minor subdivision is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance 745 relating to Park Dedications, no park dedication fee shall be required for this minor subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council approves the minor subdivision of 8060 Groveland Road, subject to the following stipulations: 1. The applicant shall arrange to record new property deeds with Ramsey County within 60 days of Council approval and provide the City with proof of recordation. Failure to do shall cause the approval to become null and void. 8060 Groveland Road Minor Subdivision Report April 20, 2005 Page 11 2. Parcel B must be included in a City-approved major subdivision (relating to the proposed redevelopment) no later than May 9, 2006. If Parcel B is not platted as part of a major subdivision within one year, Parcel B must be added to the applicant’s adjacent property at 2925 County Road 10, in order to avoid creating a land-locked parcel. Adopted this 9th day of May, 2005. __________________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________________ Kurt Ulrich City Clerk/Administrator (SEAL) Item No. 9E Meeting Date: May 9, 2005 Type of Business: Council Business City Administrator Review: ______ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Charles Hansen, Finance Director Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6506 Adopting an Investment Policy Background: The City Council reviewed a draft investment policy at the March 1, 2005 work session. The draft policy was based on a sample policy from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) and a research memo from the League of Minnesota Cities. I also consulted with Ken Malloy of MMKR, the City’s auditors and with my contacts at each of the three brokerages where I purchase investments. The March 1st draft of the policy had language that I added in bold type and language that I want to remove in strike-out. Other language that was in parenthesis came that way from GFOA. For this draft, I removed the bold type and deleted the language that was in strike out and that was in parenthesis in the March draft. Any new additions in this draft are in bold type or new deletions are in strike-out type. Policy Changes in this Draft: A. Introduction: The March draft had the introduction that came from the GFOA sample policy. I removed that and wrote an introduction more appropriate to a final policy for the City of Mounds View. B. Treasurer: A new section II.2 has been added to clearly define the titles Treasurer and Finance Director. I have gone through the policy and made the use of the titles Finance Director and Treasurer consistent the definitions. C. Safekeeping and Custody: At the March meeting, we discussed the high cost and limited benefits of having the City’s securities held at an independent third party custodian. I recall that the consensus was to continue the current practice of having securities in safekeeping at the bank or broker they were purchased from. Section V of the policy on Authorized Financial Institutions, Depositories, and Broker/Dealers sets a variety of requirements to insure the safety of our investments. Section VI is reduced to Internal Controls. D. Investment Parameters: Section VIII on Investment Parameters was modified to include the City Council’s recommendations that no more than 20% of the portfolio should be invested in securities with maturities beyond five years and that at least 10% of the portfolio should be invested in readily available funds. Recommendation: If the City Council finds the current draft of the investment policy to be acceptable, then I recommend approval of the attached Resolution 6506 to adopt the investment policy. Respectfully Submitted, Charles Hansen, Finance Director City of Mounds View Investment Policy The purpose of this investment policy is guide the City Council and officials of the City in the conduct of the investment program so as to obtain a reasonable rate of return on the investments while minimizing risk and maintaining the public’s trust. The Finance Director shall seek to act responsibly as a custodian of the public trust and shall avoid any transaction that might impair public confidence in the City, the City Council, or the Administration. I. Governing Authority Legality The investment program shall be operated in conformance with federal, state, and other legal requirements, including Minnesota Statutes Chapter 118A. II. Scope This policy applies to the investment of all funds. 1. Pooling of Funds Except for cash in certain restricted and special funds, the City will consolidate cash and reserve balances from all funds to maximize investment earnings and to increase efficiencies with regard to investment pricing, safekeeping and administration. Investment income will be allocated to the various funds based on their respective participation and in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. 2. Personnel The personnel authorized to conduct banking and investment transactions on behalf of the City shall be named in the Annual Resolution Appointing Official Newspaper, Acting Mayor, Official Depository, and Treasurer. Within this policy, use of the title Finance Director shall mean the person appointed to that position by the City Council. The use of the title Treasurer shall mean any of the persons named in the Annual Resolution Appointing Official Newspaper, Acting Mayor, Official Depository, and Treasurer as being authorized to conduct banking and investment transactions on behalf of the City. Duties of the Treasurer will predominantly be carried out by the Finance Director, but may be carried out by any of the other named persons in the Finance Director’s absence. Treasurer shall mean any person carrying out the duties of the Treasurer. III. General Objectives The primary objectives, in priority order, of investment activities shall be safety, liquidity, and yield: 1. Safety Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the investment program. Investments shall be undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure the preservation of capital in the overall portfolio. The objective will be to mitigate credit risk and interest rate risk. a. Credit Risk The City will minimize credit risk, which is the risk of loss due to the failure of the security issuer or backer, by: • Limiting investments to the types of securities listed in Section VII of this Investment Policy • Pre-qualifying the financial institutions, broker/dealers, intermediaries, and advisers with which the City will do business in accordance with Section V • Diversifying the investment portfolio so that the impact of potential losses from any one type of security or from any one individual issuer will be minimized. b. Interest Rate Risk The City will minimize interest rate risk, which is the risk that the market value of securities in the portfolio will fall due to changes in market interest rates, by: • Structuring the investment portfolio so that securities mature to meet cash requirements for ongoing operations, thereby avoiding the need to sell securities on the open market prior to maturity • Investing operating funds primarily in shorter-term securities, money market mutual funds, or similar investment pools and limiting the average maturity of the portfolio in accordance with this policy (see section VIII). 2. Liquidity The investment portfolio shall remain sufficiently liquid to meet all operating requirements that may be reasonably anticipated. This is accomplished by structuring the portfolio so that securities mature concurrent with cash needs to meet anticipated demands (static liquidity). Furthermore, since all possible cash demands cannot be anticipated, the portfolio should consist largely of securities with active secondary or resale markets (dynamic liquidity). Alternatively, a portion of the portfolio may be placed in money market mutual funds or local government investment pools, which offer same-day liquidity for short-term funds. 3. Yield The investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of attaining a market rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, taking into account the investment risk constraints and liquidity needs. Return on investment is of secondary importance compared to the safety and liquidity objectives described above. The core of investments are limited to relatively low risk securities in anticipation of earning a fair return relative to the risk being assumed. Securities shall generally be held until maturity with the following exceptions: • A security with declining credit may be sold early to minimize loss of principal. • A security swap would improve the quality, yield, or target duration in the portfolio. • Liquidity needs of the portfolio require that the security be sold. IV. Standards of Care 1. Prudence The standard of prudence to be used by the Treasurer investment officials shall be the "prudent person" standard and shall be applied in the context of managing an overall portfolio. The Treasurer Investment officers acting in accordance with written procedures and this investment policy and exercising due diligence shall be relieved of personal responsibility for an individual security's credit risk or market price changes, provided deviations from expectations are reported in a timely fashion and the liquidity and the sale of securities are carried out in accordance with the terms of this policy. The "prudent person" standard states that, "Investments shall be made with judgment and care, under circumstances then prevailing, which persons of prudence, discretion and intelligence exercise in the management of their own affairs, not for speculation, but for investment, considering the probable safety of their capital as well as the probable income to be derived." 2. Ethics and Conflicts of Interest The Treasurer Officers and employees involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business activity that could conflict with the proper execution and management of the investment program, or that could impair their ability to make impartial decisions. The Treasurer Officers and employees shall disclose any material interests in financial institutions with which they conduct business. They shall further disclose any personal financial/investment positions that could be related to the performance of the investment portfolio. The Treasurer Officers and employees shall refrain from undertaking personal investment transactions with the same individual with whom business is conducted on behalf of the City. 3. Delegation of Authority Authority to manage the investment program is granted to the Finance Director hereinafter referred to as the Treasurer and derived from the following: Annual Resolution Appointing Official Newspaper, Acting Mayor, Official Depository, and Treasurer. Responsibility for the operation of the investment program is hereby delegated to the Treasurer, who shall act in accordance with established written procedures and internal controls for the operation of the investment program consistent with this investment policy. Procedures should include references to: safekeeping, delivery vs. payment, investment accounting, repurchase agreements, wire transfer agreements, and collateral/depository agreements. [Please refer to GFOA’s Investment Procedures Manual, 2003.] No person may engage in an investment transaction except as provided under the terms of this policy and the procedures established by the Treasurer. The Treasurer shall be responsible for all transactions undertaken and shall establish a system of controls to regulate the activities of subordinate officials. V. Authorized Financial Institutions, Depositories, and Broker/Dealers 1. Authorized Financial Institutions, Depositories, and Broker/Dealers A list will be maintained of financial institutions and depositories authorized to provide investment services. In addition, a list will be maintained of approved security broker/dealers selected by creditworthiness (e.g., a minimum capital requirement of $10,000,000 and at least five years of operation). These may include "primary" dealers or regional dealers that qualify under Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 15C3-1 (uniform net capital rule). All financial institutions and broker/dealers who desire to become qualified for investment transactions must supply the following as appropriate: • Audited financial statements demonstrating compliance with state and federal capital adequacy guidelines • Proof of National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) certification (not applicable to Certificate of Deposit counterparties) • Proof of state registration • Completed broker/dealer questionnaire (not applicable to Certificate of Deposit counterparties) • Certification of having read and understood and agreeing to comply with the [entity's] investment policy. • Evidence of adequate insurance coverage. An annual review of the financial condition and registration of all qualified financial institutions and broker/dealers will be conducted by the Treasurer. (See Appendix for the GFOA Recommended Practice on “Governmental Relationships with Securities Dealers.”) VI. Safekeeping and Custody Internal Controls 1. Delivery vs. Payment All trades of marketable securities will be executed by delivery vs. payment (DVP) to ensure that securities are deposited in an eligible financial institution prior to the release of funds. 2. Safekeeping Securities will be held by a [centralized] independent third-party custodian selected by the entity as evidenced by safekeeping receipts in the City’s name. The safekeeping institution shall annually provide a copy of their most recent report on internal controls (Statement of Auditing Standards No. 70, or SAS 70). 3. 1. Internal Controls The Finance Director is responsible for establishing and maintaining an internal control structure designed to ensure that the assets of the City are protected from loss, theft or misuse. Details of the internal controls system shall be documented in an investment procedures manual and shall be reviewed and updated annually. The internal control structure shall be designed to provide reasonable assurance that these objectives are met. The concept of reasonable assurance recognizes that (1) the cost of a control should not exceed the benefits likely to be derived and (2) the valuation of costs and benefits requires estimates and judgments by management. The internal controls structure shall address the following points: • Avoidance of physical delivery securities • Written confirmation of transactions for investments and wire transfers • Password protected authorizations of wire transfers • Development of a wire transfer agreement with the lead bank Accordingly, the investment officer shall establish a process for an annual independent review by an external auditor to assure compliance with policies and procedures or alternatively, compliance should be assured through the City’s annual independent audit. VII. Suitable and Authorized Investments 1. Investment Types Consistent with the GFOA Policy Statement on State and Local Laws Concerning Investment Practices, the following investments will be permitted by this policy and are those defined by state and local law where applicable: • U.S. Treasury obligations which carry the full faith and credit guarantee of the United States government and are considered to be the most secure instruments available; • U.S. government agency and instrumentality obligations that have a liquid market with a readily determinable market value; • Certificates of deposit and other evidences of deposit at financial institutions, • Bankers' acceptances; • Commercial paper, rated in the highest tier (e.g., A-1, P-1, F-1, or D-1 or higher) by a nationally recognized rating agency; • Money market mutual funds regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission and whose portfolios consist only of dollar-denominated securities; and • Local government investment pools either state-administered or developed through joint powers statutes and other intergovernmental agreement legislation. Investment in derivatives of the above instruments shall not be allowed. 2. Collateralization Where allowed by state law and in accordance with the GFOA Recommended Practices on the Collateralization of Public Deposits, full collateralization will be required on all demand deposit accounts, including checking accounts and non-negotiable certificates of deposit. (See GFOA Recommended Practices.) VIII. Investment Parameters 1. Diversification The investments shall be diversified by: • limiting investments to avoid overconcentration in securities from a specific issuer or business sector (excluding U.S. Treasury securities), • limiting investment in securities that have higher credit risks, • investing in securities with varying maturities, and • continuously investing a portion at least 10 percent of the portfolio in readily available funds such as local government investment pools (LGIPs), money market funds to ensure that appropriate liquidity is maintained in order to meet ongoing obligations. (See the GFOA Recommended Practice on "Diversification of Investments in a Portfolio".) • never investing more than 20 percent of the portfolio in securities with final maturities greater than five years 2. Maximum Maturities To the extent possible, the City shall attempt to match its investments with anticipated cash flow requirements. Unless matched to a specific cash flow, the City will not directly invest in securities maturing more than ten (10) years from the date of purchase or in accordance with state and local statutes and ordinances. The City shall adopt weighted average maturity limitations (which often range from 90 days to 3 years), consistent with the investment objectives. Because of inherent difficulties in accurately forecasting cash flow requirements, a portion of the portfolio should be continuously invested in readily available funds such as local government investment pools or money market funds to ensure that appropriate liquidity is maintained to meet ongoing obligations. 3. Competitive Bids The Treasurer investment officer shall obtain competitive bids from at least two brokers or financial institutions on all purchases of investment instruments purchased on the secondary market. IX. Reporting 1. Reporting The Finance Director shall submit quarterly an investment report that summarizes recent market conditions, economic developments and anticipated investment conditions. The report shall summarize the investment strategies employed in the most recent quarter, and describe the portfolio in terms of investment securities, maturities, risk characteristics and other features. The report shall explain the quarter’s total investment return and compare the return with budgetary expectations. The report shall include an appendix that discloses all transactions during the past quarter: The report shall be in compliance with state law and shall be distributed to the investment committee and others as required by law. Each quarterly report shall indicate any areas of policy concern and suggested or planned revision of investment strategies. 2. Performance Standards The City’s cash management portfolio shall be designed with the objective of regularly meeting or exceeding a selected performance benchmark, which shall be the average return on three- month U.S. Treasury bills. 3. Marking to Market The market value of the portfolio shall be calculated at least quarterly and a statement of the market value of the portfolio shall be issued at least quarterly. This will ensure that review of the investment portfolio, in terms of value and price volatility, has been performed consistent with the GFOA Recommended Practice on "Mark-to-Market Practices for State and Local Government Investment Portfolios and Investment Pools." (See GFOA Recommended Practices.) In defining market value, considerations should be given to the GASB Statement 31 pronouncement. X. Policy Considerations 1. Exemption Any investment currently held that does not meet the guidelines of this policy shall be exempted from the requirements of this policy. At maturity or liquidation, such monies shall be reinvested only as provided by this policy. 2. Amendments This policy shall be reviewed on an annual basis. Any changes must be approved by the investment officer and any other appropriate authority, as well as the individuals charged with maintaining internal controls. XI. Approval of Investment Policy The investment policy shall be formally approved and adopted by the governing body of the City and reviewed annually. XII. List of Attachments The following documents, as applicable, are attached to this policy: • Listing of authorized personnel, see Annual Appointing Resolution 6423 • Relevant investment statutes and ordinances, see MN Statutes, Chapter 118A • Listing of authorized broker/dealers and financial institutions, see Annual Appointing Resolution 6423 • Internal Controls see Section VI of the draft investment policy • Glossary RESOLUTION NO. 6506 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA Adopting an Investment Policy WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed a draft investment policy; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds it to be in the best interest to adopt the attached investment policy to guide the conduct of the City’s investment program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mounds View adopts the attached investment policy. Adopted this 9th Day of May 2005. ______________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor (ATTEST) ______________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (SEAL) Item No. 9F Meeting Date: May 9, 2005 Type of Business: Council Business Administrator Review: _______ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Charles Hansen, Finance Director Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6511 Approving Agreements with Ehlers & Associates and Springsted, Inc. for Financial Services During the Year 2005 The City uses outside financial consultants for various services during the year. These include auditing, bond sales, assistance with proposed TIF developments, continuing disclosure for past bond sales, and TIF reporting. There are several justifications for these services. In the case of auditing, there is a legal requirement that an outside CPA audit the city’s financial records. In bond sales, the financial advisor provides access to and knowledge of the bond market that staff could not duplicate. For several of these services, a consultant’s personnel develop expertise due to their exclusive work in a particular field. City staff must generalize over a range of disciplines. Other times, the consultant helps meet a peak workload issue that the City doesn’t maintain sufficient staff to handle. Ehlers & Associates for TIF Reporting: Ehlers prepared the City’s TIF reports for the years 2000 and 2001. This corrected a problem that the report for 2000 had been filed with errors and helped to get the 2001 report filed on time. The City purchased specialized TIF reporting software from Ehlers and I filed the reports for 2002 and 2003. The cost of filing the 2001 report was $975 to Ehlers plus about ten hours of my time to provide data for the reports and to copy and mail the final reports. The cost for the 2003 report was $266.25 for the software and about thirty hours of my time to prepare and file the reports. The TIF reports are due on August 1st of each year, which is about the worst possible time for interfering with the city’s budget preparations. I had intended to ask the City Council to authorize having Ehlers prepare the TIF reports even before it was determined that I will leave the City. I feel that Ehlers services are well worth their incremental costs when compared to the value of freeing up twenty hours of my time to stay on task with the budget. Given that the Finance Director position will be vacant this summer, it is essential that Ehlers take over TIF reporting. Shelly Eldridge from Ehlers has given me an estimate of $1,200 to prepare the 2004 TIF reports. This estimate is on the high side and Shelly will only bill the actual hours. Shelly has a tract record with the City of Mounds View of billing less than her estimated hours whenever possible. Springsted, Inc. for Continuing Disclosure: Continuing disclosure is a requirement under SEC regulation 15©2-12 in which entities issuing of bonds since 1995 must annually file certain financial information with a national repository. Buyers of the bonds are then able to obtain information on their bonds from a convenient and reliable source. The City of Mounds View had initially filed these reports but then fell out of compliance in the late 1990s. The City engaged Springsted, Inc. to bring the City back into compliance by filing the continuing disclosure report for 2002 and they have filed the reports since then. The City Council approved the idea of having Springsted continue to provide the service in 2003 and beyond. The City Council qualified this by stating its desire to annually approve the contract. The need to get this approval in 2004 was overlooked. In years when the City issues a new general obligation bond, the service will cost $200 for each existing bond issue. If there is a year when no new bond is issued, or the City issues some type of bond other than general obligation, an additional $1,300 fee will be charged to cover the preparation of an annual report. Recommendation: I recommend that the City approve an agreement with Ehlers & Associates to prepare the 2004 TIF reports at an estimated cost of $1,200 and approve continuation of the existing contract with Springsted, Inc. for continuing disclosure services. Attached is Resolution 6511, which authorizes the services. Respectfully Submitted, Charles Hansen RESOLUTION NO. 6511 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENTS WITH EHLERS & ASSOCIATES AND SPRINGSTED, INC. FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES DURING THE YEAR 2005 WHEREAS, the City of Mounds must comply with a State of Minnesota requirement to annually submit financial reports on its tax increment financing (TIF) districts to the Office of the State Auditor; and WHEREAS, the Ehlers & Associates City of Mounds provides a service to its clients to prepare the TIF reports and has offered to prepare the 2004 reports at a cost of $1,200; and WHEREAS, the City of Mounds must comply with a SEC requirement to annually submit financial reports known as continuing disclosure; and WHEREAS, Springsted, Inc. is the City’s financial advisor and provides continuing disclosure services to many of its clients; and WHEREAS, Springsted, Inc. has filed continuing disclosure reports for the City of Mounds View for the years 2001 onward; and WHEREAS, Springsted, Inc. is willing to continue this contract to provide these services to the City. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council authorizes an agreement with Ehlers & Associates for the preparation of TIF reports at an estimated cost of $1,200. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council authorizes the existing contract with Springsted, Inc. for the preparation of continuing disclosure reports to remain in effect for the year 2005. Adopted this 9th day of May 2005. ATTEST: Rob Marty, Mayor (SEAL) Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator Item No: 09G Meeting Date: May 9, 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 6517 Approving a Step Increase for David Parker, Golf Course Grounds and Equipment Manager Background: David Parker is a current employee with the City of Mounds View. His supervisor has reviewed his performances as it relates to his responsibilities outlined in the job description. Discussion: It was determined that David Parker has more than satisfactorily performed in the capacity of his position, and therefore, a step increase wage adjustment is consistent with the Personnel Manual and Labor Agreements. Respectfully Submitted, Desaree Crane RESOLUTION 6517 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA APPROVING STEP/LONGEVITY ADJUSTMENTS WHEREAS, the following below is a regular full-time employees who is currently working for the City of Mounds View; and WHEREAS, his supervisor reviewed his performance as it relates to the responsibilities outlined in the job description; and WHEREAS, his supervisor determined that the following employee below has more than satisfactorily performed in the capacity of his position documented in his performance review on file. WHEREAS, a step increase wage adjustment is consistent with the Mounds View Personnel Manual 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 David Parker Golf Course Equipment Mgr 4/13/02 (Date of Hire) 5/20/02 (Date of Current Position) Step 4: $19.76/hr Step 5: $21.75/hr May 20, 2005 Adopted this 9th day of May, 2005. __________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (seal) Item No: 9H Meeting Date: 05/09/05 Type of Business: CB City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6520 Approving the Sufficiency of Petition in Opposition to the 2005 Street Improvement Project. Background: On Thursday, April 28, 2005, staff proceeded with determining the validity of the petition against the 2005 Street Improvement Project submitted by Valerie Amundsen. The petition contains the signatures of 70 households within the designated street improvement area. The project area contains a total of 103 units (properties) that were to be included in the project and assessed for the improvements. In order to validate the petition, staff printed the owner information for all of the parcels within the street improvement project area from the Ramsey County Online Maps and Data website, which is operated by the Ramsey County GIS Users Group. Based on this list, staff was able to verify that 65 of the 70 households that signed the petition were in fact the property owner. Of the five signatures that staff was unable to verify, four were due to owner discrepancy and one was due to an illegible signature. Of the four owner discrepancies, the sponsoring committee, Brian and Valerie Amundsen, had noted that three of the properties had new owners. The Ramsey County website from which the owner information was collected is not updated daily, and it is likely that the people who signed the petition are the property owners and the database has not been updated. At the May 2, 2005 Work Session meeting the City Administrator reported on the sufficiency of the petition, indicating that the City Council would consider a corresponding resolution at the May 9, 2005 regular meeting. Discussion: Staff could follow-up on verification of the four that have owner discrepancy by a manual search of County property records. However, being that the petition is sufficient as it stands, the additional verification was not conducted at this time. The 65 signatures verified represent 63% of the 103 households that are included in the project area. Based on this information, the petition is sufficient, as it contains more than 50% of the affected households within the 2005 Street Improvement Project area. Consequently, in accordance with the Charter: “ . . . the Council shall not make such improvement at the expense of the property benefited, unless, in the meantime, there be filed with the Council a petition asking that the improvement be made, signed by property owners proposed to be assessed for such improvement at least equal in number to those who signed the petition against the improvement; in which event the Council may disregard the petition against the improvement.” Also, per subdivision 4 of Section 8.04 of the City Charter, “When a proposed improvement is disallowed under the foregoing subdivisions, the Council shall not vote on the same improvement within a period of one year after the public hearing on said improvement. “ The petition also contains the statement that “we are also opposed to the “Spring Creek Pond” project proposed within these same boundary and which would disrupt the natural wetlands of Spring Creek.” In accordance with the Charter section 8.02, the “Spring Creek Pond” project is not considered a local improvement project due to the fact it is not being assessed. Section 8.02. Effective Charter Provisions. Local improvements (the term "local improvement" shall mean a public improvement financed partly or wholly from special assessments) shall be carried out exclusively under the provisions of this Charter. The petition statement regarding the proposed Spring Creek Regional Water Quality Pond may be considered advisory to the Council at this time. The project is not proposed to be assessed and therefore is not covered by the process outlined for petition in Chapter 8 of the Charter. A public hearing has not yet been held on the proposed Spring Creek pond project and the boundaries that the project serves are different than the 2005 street improvement project. Similarly, the Council has an option of moving forward with the street improvements if no assessments were involved. Staff is opposed to this option due broad opposition expressed by the petition, financial reasons and the fact that it would be in violation of the current policy that calls for the assessment of 25% of the cost of improvement projects to benefiting property owners. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution 6520 approving the sufficiency of petition in opposition to the 2005 Street Improvement Project, ending project consideration as proposed. Further, that the Council proceed in discussion and development of community standards and a process for a street improvement program prior developing any future projects. CHAPTER 8 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Section 8.01. Power to Make Improvements and Levy Assessments. The City may make any type of public improvement not forbidden by law and levy special assessments to pay all or any part of the cost of such improvements as are of a local character. The total assessments for any local improvement may not exceed the cost of the improvement, including all costs and expenses connected therewith, with interest. No assessment shall exceed the benefits to the property. Section 8.02. Effective Charter Provisions. Local improvements (the term "local improvement" shall mean a public improvement financed partly or wholly from special assessments) shall be carried out exclusively under the provisions of this Charter. Section 8.03. Local Improvement Ordinances and Regulations. Within 90 days after this Charter goes into effect, the Council shall enact suitable ordinance(s) governing local improvements and special assessments. The ordinance(s) shall provide a complete working code covering the determination of assessments and assessment Districts, public hearings, appeals from a collection of assessments, penalties for delinquency in making payments, financing of said assessments, and the certifying of unpaid assessments for collection by the proper county officer. Said ordinance(s) shall also provide for installment payments and notices to be given thereof, appellate procedure, re- assessment, if necessary, and all other matters appropriate to the subject of local improvements and assessments. After the adoption of such ordinance(s) providing for local improvements, all procedures in compliance therewith shall conform to the regulations as set forth in such ordinance(s) and as otherwise contained in this Charter. Section 8.04. Procedure. Subdivision 1. All improvements to be paid for by special assessments against the benefited property shall be instituted by either, (1) the petition of at least twenty-five percent in number of the benefited property owners together with a resolution adopted by an affirmative vote of the majority of all of the Council, or, (2) a resolution adopted by a four-fifths affirmative vote of all of the Council. The Council resolution shall state the nature and scope of the proposed improvement, and shall provide means to obtain a cost estimate which shall set forth the cost of the improvement both in unit price and in total thereof. Upon receipt of such estimate, the Council shall by resolution set a date for a public hearing on the proposed improvement, setting forth therein the time, place and purpose of such hearing. Such resolution shall be described in the City Newsletter and published twice at least one week apart in the official newspaper of the City no less than two weeks prior to the date of said hearing, and in addition thereto, a copy of such resolution including estimated unit prices and estimated total price thereof shall be mailed to each benefited property owner at owner's last known address at least two weeks prior to the date of said hearing. Failure to give mailed notice, or any defects in the notice, shall not invalidate the proceedings. At such hearing the City Council shall receive any written and oral statements, and hear any petitioners for or against the proposed improvement. A period of sixty days shall elapse after the public hearing before any further action shall be taken by the Council on the proposed improvement. If within such sixty day period, a petition against such improvement be filed with the Council, signed by a majority of the owners proposed to be assessed for the improvement, or, when the improvement has been petitioned for, signed by a number of the owners proposed to be assessed for such improvement at least equal to the number of those who petitioned for the improvement, the Council shall not make such improvement at the expense of the property benefited, unless, in the meantime, there be filed with the Council a petition asking that the improvement be made, signed by property owners proposed to be assessed for such improvement at least equal in number to those who signed the petition against the improvement; in which event the Council may disregard the petition against the improvement. Any person whose name appears on a petition to the Council for a local improvement, or on a petition to the Council against a local improvement, may withdraw their name by a statement in writing filed with the Council before such petition is presented to the Council. Subdivision 2. Regardless of the provisions in Subdivision 1, when less than 100 percent of the estimated cost of a proposed local improvement is to be paid for by special assessment, within the sixty day period after a public hearing has been held on the proposed improvement, a petition may be filed with the Council, signed by a majority of the number of electors who voted for Mayor in the last regular municipal election, protesting against either the improvement, or the assessment formula, or both. In this event, the Council shall not proceed with the improvement, as proposed. Subdivision 3. When a proposed improvement is allowed under the foregoing subdivisions the Council may proceed at anytime between sixty days and one year after the public hearing on the improvement. However, no contract shall be let in the event that the current proposed contract exceeds the estimated cost by more than ten percent. Subdivision 4. When a proposed improvement is disallowed under the foregoing subdivisions, the Council shall not vote on the same improvement within a period of one year after the public hearing on said improvement. Section 8.05. Assessments for Services. The Council may provide by ordinance that the cost of City services to streets, sidewalks, or other public or private property may be assessed against property benefited and may be collected in the same manner as special assessments. Such costs shall not be deemed to be "special assessments" for the purposes set forth in Section 8.03 of this chapter. RESOLUTION 6520 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA APPROVING THE SUFFICIENCY OF PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO THE 2005 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, Section 8 of the Mounds View City Charter provides that the City Council has held a public hearing in regard to the proposed 2005 Street Improvement Project; and, WHEREAS, at such hearing the City Council received written and oral statements, and heard petitioners for or against the proposed improvement; and, WHEREAS, a period of sixty days was commenced after the public hearing and before any further action shall be taken by the Council on the proposed improvement; and, WHEREAS, within such sixty day period, a petition against such improvement was filed with the Council, signed by a majority of the owners proposed to be assessed for the improvement; and, WHEREAS, said petition in opposition to the project has been examined and determined sufficient by the City Clerk/Administrator, being that the project area contains a total of 103 units that were to be included in the project and assessed for the improvements, and 65 verified properties have expressed opposition to the project via the petition now. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Mounds View hereby finds the petition in opposition to the 2005 Street Improvement project to be sufficient; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Council shall not make such improvement at the expense of the property benefited, and shall not take a vote on the same improvement within a period of one year after the public hearing on said improvement. Adopted this 9th day of May 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 April 25, 2005 6 Mounds View City Hall 7 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 8 8:30 P.M. 9 10 11 1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 12 13 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 14 15 3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Gunn, Flaherty, and Thomas 16 17 NOT PRESENT: Stigney 18 19 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 20 21 A. Monday, April 25, 2005 City Council Agenda. 22 23 MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Flaherty. To Approve the Monday, April 25, 2005 agenda as 24 presented. 25 26 Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 27 28 5. PUBLIC INPUT 29 30 Brian Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, referenced the proposed 2005 Street Projects stating that 31 the project plans were flawed and the communication regarding the projects was poor. He 32 expressed concerns that the broken processes and communications has now broken the 33 community’s trust because they did not comply with the City’s Charter. He referenced 34 Ordinance 723 stating that the ordinance is a result of policies adopted by City Council, which in 35 turn provided Staff with the approval to prepare the Ordinances 654 and 723 from the Street 36 Committee Policy. He stated that the intent of the ordinances was supposed to foster community 37 involvement and protect the wetlands throughout the City. He called for the streets to meet 38 current design standards stating that the 2003 and 2005 Street Projects did not follow the first 39 step of the ordinance by presenting the cost of design and current costs prior to being approved. 40 He stated that for the sake of both staff direction and fiduciary responsibility, the City Council 41 should have directed Staff to present costs of the design prior to approving the project. He stated 42 that the Council did not ask for any input from the Community nor was any direction given to 43 Staff. He stated that the feasibility report exceeded the costs noting that the maximum allocation 44 allowed is $14.50 per foot. He stated that the cost total should have been $869.00 not $3,000.00. 45 Mounds View City Council April 25, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 2 He stated that City Council asked Staff, in 2002, to prepare a preliminary study and asked where 1 the involvement was for the neighborhood. He stated that City Council should be directing Staff 2 on these projects based on their own Charter and asked Council to follow the processes and 3 procedures as the Community has asked them to do. 4 5 Valerie Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, stated that she would like speak for a moment on the 6 2005 proposed street project and the Spring Creek holding pond. She stated that she has walked 7 the neighborhood and discussed the issues with the neighbors. She expressed concerns stated 8 that she found a large number of concerns among the residents noting that many of the residents 9 are happy with the roll etch design versus curb design. She indicated that some of the residents 10 do feel that the replacement is not needed right now and many have environmental concerns, 11 specifically with respect to the possibilities of disturbing the wetland areas. She stated that many 12 are concerned about the expense of the project noting that more reasonable options were not 13 presented or considered. She stated that many of the residents are concerned that their 14 neighborhoods will lose much of their character by installing street curbs and gutters. She asked 15 why the neighborhood was not included in the process adding that the residents are also 16 concerned about the potential tax increases if curbs and gutters are installed throughout the City. 17 She stated that she is present this evening to officially present a Community petition to City 18 Council against the curb and gutter installation and Spring Creek holding pond. She stated that 19 she has secured 96 signatures from property owners, which represents 70 of the 103 properties or 20 68-percent, which is what the Residents need to halt planned projects. She reviewed the petition 21 results with Council noting that only 21 of the 103 actually want the project, nine did not want to 22 commit and three were unreachable. She stated that it is her hope that the City Council would 23 take into consideration the concerns from the 96 property owners as they move forward. 24 25 Jim ___, 70025 Pleasant, stated that he put together information on a better, less costly design 26 and provided Council with copies for their review. 27 28 Dan Mueller, 8343 Groveland Road, stated that he is very concerned about the amount of 29 speeding that is happening on their street noting that he discussed his concerns with the Chief 30 earlier this evening. He expressed concerns stating that the City should have more people on the 31 streets enforcing the speed limits and noted that the new signage is not being respected. He 32 stated that he is very concerned about safety due to the level of speed through their neighborhood 33 noting that the Church of the Rock area has really gotten out of hand and enforcement is 34 becoming a big issue. He stated that his wife has worked to collect several signatures from 35 Ardan to 85th and all of these residents feel basically the same way. He presented the petition to 36 Council and asked that they consider stronger enforcement of the speed limits in their area, 37 especially in the early morning and late afternoon. 38 39 Mayor Marty stated that they have two topics to include on an agenda for the City Council Work 40 Sessions. He stated that Council should review the street ordinances and discuss the residents 41 concerns about speeding in residential area. He indicated that he has also received several calls 42 from different parts of the City expressing the same concerns and they should be reviewed by 43 Council to determine what action can be taken to better enforce the speed limits. 44 45 Mounds View City Council April 25, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 3 Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated that in 1976 there was a Citizen’s group that was 1 concerned about a specific project and took their concerns to the Mayor and City Council. He 2 noted that the City had several experts involved in the project and after reviewing it was 3 determined that the only thing necessary was to dry up the wetlands in the area. He stated that 4 the Citizen’s group was involved but the City prevailed and won. He explained that one of 5 things that developed from this incident was the City Charter. He further explained that 6 residents, Bob Barkus and John Curry, put together a petition for a Charter Commission and 7 wrote the City Charter, putting in place citizen’s rights. He stated that it is very important for the 8 Council to be familiar with and understand Chapter 1 through Chapter 12 and they, as citizens, 9 must be able to see a solid knowledge of the City Charter from City Council and City Staff. He 10 urged Council and Staff to review the document and have a clear working knowledge of the 11 document. 12 13 Mayor Marty agreed that it would be a good idea for the Council to review the City Charter and 14 suggested a work session for May 3, 2005. 15 16 6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS 17 18 A. Proclamation declaring the week of May 15 through 21, 2005 as 19 “NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK.” 20 21 Mayor Marty read the Proclamation declaring the week of May 15 through 21, 2005 as “National 22 Public Works Week.” He called upon all citizens and public organizations to recognize the 23 Public Works Department and the contributions they make on a daily basis to make this City a 24 safe and pleasant place to live. He thanked the Public Works Department for taking such good 25 care of the City. He stated that during this time period the Public Works Department is 26 sponsoring a City cleanup day on May 14, 2005. He stated that flyers would be sent to the 27 residents outlining the kind of rubbish, trash and appliances that could be brought to the Public 28 Works Facility and reviewed with Council. He urged the residents to participate and help to keep 29 the City of Mounds View clean and safe. 30 31 7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS. 32 33 Council Member Flaherty referenced pages 3-4 and asked how many beverage companies do 34 they have supplying the clubhouse. 35 36 Mary Burg explained that they have an exclusive contract with Pepsi for the soft drinks and a 37 contract with East Side Beverage for clubhouse food. She further explained that they do utilize 38 Capital Beverage on occasion because they have not been able to get all of the products they 39 want from one company. 40 41 Council Member Flaherty referenced page 6, Jim Patch Sales Company, shows a purchase for 42 replacement brushes for the street sweeper. He expressed concerns stating that $711.00 is a bit 43 expensive for a brush and asked how old is the sweeper. 44 45 Mounds View City Council April 25, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 4 Public Works Director Lee stated that the sweeper was purchased in 1989 noting that they do use 1 several brushes through the course of a year. He stated that they try to purchase a portion each 2 year and indicated that they are planning to come back in the fall to present Council with a 3 proposal to replace the sweeper. 4 5 Council Member Flaherty referenced page 7, Kennedy and Graven invoices and asked if the 6 invoice for the Skyline Motel, in the amount of $966.38 was for the meth lab cleanup. 7 8 Director Ericson clarified that the expense was to review the possibilities for an acquisition 9 noting that after reviewing it was decided not to acquire the property. 10 11 MOTION/SECOND. Flaherty/Gunn. To approve the Just and Correct Claims as Presented. 12 13 Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried. 14 15 8. CONSENT AGENDA 16 17 Council Member Gunn requested Item C to be pulled. 18 19 Mayor Marty read, in full, the proclamation declaring April 29, 2005 as Arbor Day in the City of 20 Mounds View. He stated that citizens are called upon to assist in the planting of trees to be 21 enjoyed by current and future residents at Sunnyside Elementary. 22 23 A. Set a Public Hearing for 7:05 pm on May 9, 2005 to Consider a Conditional 24 Use Permit to add two additional units to a multi-family residential building 25 at 2071 Hillview Road 26 B. Set a Public Hearing for 7:10 pm on May 9, 2005 to Consider a Development 27 Review for a Retail Development at 2525 County Road 10 28 C. Resolution 6501 Proclaiming April 29, 2005 as “Arbor Day” 29 D. Schedule a Special Work Session for Tuesday, May 3, 2005, to discuss street 30 rehabilitation issues. 31 E. Schedule an Executive Session immediately following this City Council 32 meeting to discuss Golf Course property purchase and Billboard Contract 33 negotiations. 34 F. Licenses for Approval 35 36 MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Flaherty. To Approve the Consent Agenda as presented. 37 38 Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried. 39 40 9. COUNCIL BUSINESS. 41 42 A. 7:05 p.m. Public Hearing to Consider a Conditional Use Permit for a 43 Residential Kennel at 8370 Pleasant View Drive 44 45 Mounds View City Council April 25, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 5 Ms. Prososki stated that Elizabeth Stoltz is requesting a conditional use permit for a residential 1 kennel to be located at 8370 Pleasant View Drive. She noted that the CUP up to four signatures 2 noting that the requirement has been met and submitted. She stated that the applicant is 3 proposing to keep three dogs as pet noting that the dogs are only outside when the owners are 4 home. She stated that staff ran a check with the Police Department and found that a complaint 5 was made on March 5, 2005. She stated that staff also ran a check with the St. Paul Police and 6 found no complaints had been filed during the time they lived in St. Paul. She noted that it 7 appears the request is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Staff has received a lot of 8 public comments regarding the kennel. She stated that most were concerned about the barking 9 and added noise to the neighborhood. She stated that staff is reluctant to make the owner get rid 10 of one of pets noting that the Planning Commission held a hearing on April 6, 2005 and 11 recommended approval with the intent to review the application in six months. She stated that 12 placing a time review would not be an option because Staff found, during the review of the 13 application, that a time limit could not be placed on a conditional use permit. She further 14 explained that the Applicant has the right to waive their rights for 90-days and did so. She noted 15 that one of the residents originally against the kennel is now ok with dogs. She stated that the 16 resident has been able to spend some time getting to know the dogs and no longer has a concern. 17 18 Council Member Thomas noted that it was mentioned that a review of the CUP would be an 19 issue and asked what a review of the CUP application would entail and would Council’s action 20 be to approve the permit. 21 22 Ms. Prososki stated that the Planning Commission asked for the review. She noted that the 23 applicant is new to the neighborhood and both the Planning Commission and the neighbors 24 believe that the dogs will eventually settle into the neighborhood. 25 26 Council Member Thomas asked if the City has the option to revoke the permit and are there time 27 limits applied to the permit. 28 29 Director Ericson explained that City Council has the authority to revisit the conditional use 30 permit. He further explained that by resolution and a public hearing, the City Council could 31 revoke the permit noting that there would have to be reasonable issues and concerns to warrant 32 the review. 33 34 Ms. Prososki stated that Barb and Steven Fisher, Pleasant View Drive, were unable to attend due 35 to a previous commitment and provided their concerns in writing. She read the letter to Council 36 noting that the Fishers are distressed that so little credence is given to the immediate neighbors 37 concerns. She indicated that all of the neighbors to the immediate north, south and east have also 38 expressed concerns about allowing three dogs. Mr. and Mrs. Fisher, in the letter read by Ms. 39 Prososki, indicated that the dogs are kept inside most of the time but she can still hear them 40 barking. Mr. and Mrs. Fisher expressed concerns that Council is making a decision based on 41 their personal views versus the concerns of the current residents. They asked the Council not to 42 make an arbitrary decision but to make the decision based on specific criteria. The Fishers asked 43 what criteria is used and whether the Community, Council and City Staff have had the 44 opportunity to review and approve the criteria. The Fishers noted that it would save on time and 45 Mounds View City Council April 25, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 6 dollars for both the City and its constituents if they remain consistent and follow the criteria and 1 if a criterion has not been established, listen to the residents until one is established. 2 3 Mayor Marty opened the public hearing. 9:03 p.m. 4 5 Chuck Solfer, 8386 Pleasant View Drive, stated that he lives two houses away from the 6 applicant. He clarified that this is nothing personal stating that all of the neighbors closest to this 7 house oppose the permit. He asked why the ordinance is in place if it is not going to be adhered 8 to. He stated that any time someone new moves into the area it is their responsibility to become 9 familiar with the City ordinances before purchasing the home. He stated that all of this 10 information is available on the City Website, clearly stating that only two dogs are allowed. He 11 expressed frustration stating that he does not see a reason to issue the permit when all of the 12 neighbors closest to this house are in agreement and do not want the permit approved. He stated 13 that he can accept what he already knows about the neighborhood adding that they are the most 14 affected and it is their hope that the Council is representing them in this matter. 15 16 Ann Johnson, 8371 Pleasant View Drive, stated that she lives across the street from the 17 applicant. She indicated that the dogs are barking a lot less in the last few weeks noting that she 18 can hear the dogs barking inside the house. She expressed concerns that their barking would get 19 worse this summer. She stated that she spoke with a neighbor from a different area and when she 20 mentioned her street the resident was familiar with the street. She stated that the resident told her 21 they do not walk down Pleasant View Drive due to the number of dogs. She referenced the 22 criteria mentioned by the Fishers stating that if the City does not have any written criteria to grant 23 or remove a permit leaves them in a bad state. She urged Council to get criteria in place to deal 24 with these issues and asked if she should contact the police if she has a problem with the barking. 25 26 Mayor Marty explained that as the Mayor neither he nor the City Council receive calls or 27 complaints. He stated that the calls are made to City Hall and Staff notifies them if there is a 28 potential problem. 29 30 Council Member Thomas explained that the criteria used is outlined and set by the language in 31 the resolution itself. She further explained that if the criteria outlined in the resolution is not 32 adhered to that this is what they would be judged against if this issue comes up again. 33 34 Ms. Johnson clarified that the Planning Commission stated two dogs not three would be allowed. 35 She noted that she is willing to wait to see if the dogs acclimate and settle down. 36 37 Ms. Prososki clarified that the resolution stipulates that the applicant would be limited to three 38 dogs. 39 40 Council Member Flaherty clarified that he has heard that the neighbors are willing to give the 41 dogs a chance to acclimate. 42 43 Ms. Johnson confirmed that the neighbors have discussed this noting that the dogs have been 44 quieter. 45 Mounds View City Council April 25, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 7 1 Ms. Prososki indicated that the 60-day review period would expire on Friday, April 27, 2005. 2 She stated that if Council requires further information that Staff could issue a letter requesting 3 additional time to review the application. She explained that the City would then be given an 4 additional 60-days to review. She noted that if a decision is not made tonight that it would put 5 the application into a second 60-day review. 6 7 Council Member Gunn asked how Staff and Council would go about gathering the additional 8 information. She asked if they would rely on the neighbors or would Staff visit the area on a 9 daily basis. 10 11 Mayor Marty stated that it is his assumption that they would rely on the neighbors to monitor the 12 situation. He stated that the residents would be aware of the 60-day period and could contact 13 staff with an update. He reviewed the contents and conditions of the resolution with Council 14 stating that no more than three dogs are allowed on the property; the applicants are responsible 15 for the license fees; the applicant will maintain the yard and kennel area and if the need should 16 arise, City Council, at their discretion, can review the conditional use permit. 17 18 Patricia Robinson, 8360 Pleasant View Drive, stated that she has two small children noting that 19 those without dogs want a peaceful neighborhood. She explained that they had a kennel go in 20 behind them and they listen to the dogs bark for at least ten to fifteen minutes before anyone 21 comes out to quiet the dogs. She stated that giving the applicants the extra time also gives them 22 time to warm up to the idea of two to three dogs. She agreed that the 60-day period would give 23 them time to determine if the dogs would acclimate or continue to be a problem. 24 25 Debra Stoltz, Applicant, stated that the recently moved into the area because they purchased a 26 veterinary clinic in Blaine. She assured Council that they have no intention of causing problems. 27 She stated that they did go to City Hall to apply for the dog tags and that is when they found out 28 that Mounds View has an ordinance in place limiting the number of dogs. She explained that 29 they did ask their Real Estate Agent to research this issue but they failed to do so. She assured 30 Council that it is their intent to be responsible owners and apologized for the noise, the upset and 31 the inconvenience. She stated that if it comes down to having to get rid of one of her dogs that 32 she would rather move and keep her three dogs. She noted that the dogs are six years, two years 33 and nine months old. 34 35 Carl Stoltz stated that their Real Estate Agent did contact City Hall to ask about the pet 36 ordinances and was told that there would not be any restrictions except for an additional charge 37 to license the third dog. He stated that they had checked several areas before deciding on 38 Mounds View because they really like the area. He stated that they have met all of their 39 neighbors and assured Council that they would not be boarding any additional animals nor would 40 they be getting a kennel. He explained that the puppy has a heart condition and they are not sure 41 if the puppy will live to the end of the year. He stated that the puppy does not bark and he is 42 currently working to train the other two dogs. He acknowledged that in the beginning there was 43 a lot of barking noting that it was the dogs discomfort to the changes in their environment. He 44 assured Council that once the dogs acclimate the barking would stop. He stated that they also 45 Mounds View City Council April 25, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 8 spent approximately $9,000.00 to install a fence, which was for the safety of their animals, as 1 they do not want them in the streets. He stated that they dogs are not left unsupervised noting 2 that they are members of their family. He stated that their are never off their leash noting that if 3 the barking becomes excessive conditional behavior training is implemented. He stated that he 4 has already noticed many of the walkers in his area have their dogs off the leash, running ahead 5 and assured Council that this would not be the case with their dogs. He acknowledged the 6 neighbors’ frustrations and concerns noting that they have met the requirement for the number of 7 signatures needed for the permit. He stated that he also wrote notes to their neighbors asking 8 them to contact them with any problems at any time. He stated that he and his wife are new to 9 the area and are trying hard to work with their neighbors. He asked Council to give them the 10 chance to prove their honor. 11 12 Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 9:25 p.m. 13 14 Council Member Flaherty clarified that what he is hearing is that they want a trial period with the 15 option, after 60-days, to determine if three dogs is working or not. He asked the neighbors to 16 verify whose dog is barking before making any reports. He stated that he is in support of tabling 17 this issue for the duration. 18 19 Council Member Thomas stated that she would be against tabling this request. She stated that 20 she does not think that a 60-day period would change the decision and postponing would not 21 accomplish anything during this timeframe. She stated that there is a fairness issue to be 22 considered as they have a resident with more than two dogs and neighbors with concerns about 23 the noise. She stated that she is concerned about neighborhood relationships adding that the City 24 has a process in place and the Council should make a decision tonight. 25 26 Council Member Gunn agreed with Council Member Thomas. She stated that she does not think 27 that a 60-day period would make much difference. She agreed that if there are other dogs 28 barking in the area that this issue should also be addressed. She asked if the applicant would be 29 able to keep all three dogs or would one dog have to be boarded until the kennel license is 30 approved. 31 32 Mayor Marty stated that if this request is tabled everything would remain status quo while 33 reviewing the request. He stated that in his view, tabling the application might give the 34 neighbors some peace of mind while they work this situation through. He acknowledged that 35 tabling this would leave the application open and pending and if they approve this application the 36 Council, at their discretion, can review the application at a later date. He expressed concerns 37 stating that he does not want to send the message to the residents that Council is not listening to 38 their concerns. He stated that he does not have a problem with tabling the application for the 60-39 day period. He stated that it is his hope that by the end of the 60-day period the situation will 40 have improved. He stated that he sees this as a potentially positive step for everyone concerned. 41 42 Council Member Gunn clarified that the neighbors would still have the same recourse to come in 43 and express concerns about the noise whether the application is tabled or approved. She stated 44 that she could see where both options are positive noting that the Residents are all aware of their 45 Mounds View City Council April 25, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 9 options and what is available to them as recourse. She stated that now they know that the 1 Council has heard their concerns. 2 3 Council Member Thomas assured the residents that Council is listening to them. She explained 4 that by approving this household they would be dealing with a higher threshold and would have 5 some authority to enforce the permit requirements. She stated that the criteria would be outlined 6 in the approved resolution. 7 8 Council Member Flaherty agreed with Council member Thomas and clarified that neither party is 9 asking that the government step in to resolve. She noted that they are asking for the additional 10 60-days in order to allow the dogs to acclimate and prove that the dogs would be fine in their 11 new environment. 12 13 Mr. Stoltz stated that delays are foolish, as permits can be pulled any time. He stated that the 14 outlined standards would hold them to a higher standard. He stated that if there are any problems 15 they would surface quickly, as will the solutions. He suggested going for the higher standard, put 16 some teeth to the criteria and resolve it tonight. 17 18 City Attorney Riggs explained that the City Council and the Residents do have options under 19 Chapter 601 and Chapter 701 of the City Code. He confirmed that it is true that a conditional use 20 permit would hold the property owner to a higher standard. He stated that they could also insert 21 additional details that are law abiding. He stated that the resolution does specifically speak to the 22 conditions that would have to be satisfied. 23 24 MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Thomas. To Approve Resolution number 6507 with amendments 25 stating that any usage of the property, as it relates to dogs, will abide by all local, county and state 26 laws. 27 28 Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried. 29 30 B. 7:10 p.m. Public Hearing to Consider a Conditional Use Permit for an 31 Oversized Garage at 7965 Fairchild Avenue 32 33 Ms. Prososki stated that Rebecca and Brian are requesting a conditional use permit for an 34 oversized garage at 7965 Fairchild Avenue. She reviewed the setback requirements with Council 35 noting that they must be five feet from the property line and twelve feet from the rear. She stated 36 that the conditional use permit satisfies all code requirements. She stated that initially the 37 neighbors were concerned that the garage would be used as a place of business noting that the 38 intent is for additional storage. She stated that the Planning Commission has held the public 39 hearing and taken testimony from the residents and is recommending approval of the request. 40 41 Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 9:42 p.m. 42 43 Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 9:43 p.m. 44 45 Mounds View City Council April 25, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 10 Council Member Gunn noted that there were a lot of questions asked at the public hearing and 1 that all questions and concerns were addressed. She asked if the shed would stay. 2 3 Ms. Prososki stated that according to City Code the shed does not have to be removed. She 4 stated that the applicants plan to remove the shed due to space issues in the backyard. 5 6 Mayor Marty stated that the Staff report under-demonstrates their need and asked where the 7 trailer and boat are currently located. 8 9 Ms. Prososki stated that the trailer and boat are parked on the property in accordance to City 10 Code. 11 12 MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Flaherty. To Approve Resolution 6505 approving a Conditional 13 Use Permit for an Oversized Garage located at 7965 Fairchild Avenue. 14 15 Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried. 16 17 C. 7:15 p.m. Public Hearing to Consider the City Hall Rehabilitation Project 18 19 Nancy Schultz provided the Council with a presentation for the proposed City Hall Rehabilitation 20 Project. She reviewed the purpose of the presentation stating that they would like to obtain 21 feedback and direction from Council regarding the continuation of the rehabilitation of City Hall. 22 She provided Council with a brief background history of the changes and updates to the City Hall 23 building noting that there has been a lot of activity over the past 44-years. She stated that in 24 March 2003 the Council approved a Physical Needs Assessment and held a work session in 25 November of 2003. She stated that they toured the City Hall facility in May 2004 in the hopes 26 that the City would approve and proceed with the Design Development phase beginning in 27 October 2004. 28 29 Ms. Schultz stated that the Design Development had direction from Council to address as many 30 items as possible to give a better idea of the costs. She stated that this was finished in February 31 2005 and provided Council with a walkthrough of the needs including: poor environmental 32 conditions; regulatory safety and security problems; worn-out and obsolete items. She provided 33 Council with an overview of the environmental conditions found during the tour of the City Hall 34 building. She stated that they should meet the HIPAA regulations and the generator upgrades for 35 the EOC. She stated that there is a lack of building security; lack of storage space and the police 36 area is inadequate. 37 38 Ms. Schultz explained that the proposed solutions include insulating walls; replacing ducts and 39 windows; remove obsolete wiring; modernize the elevator and provide keyless security systems. 40 She stated that the functional improvements would include relocating the Community 41 Development Department and the Finance Department and utilize the basement for additional 42 storage. She reviewed the proposed layouts for the Police, Finance, Community Development, 43 Administrative Services and Public Works departments. She stated that the probable cost for 44 construction, if it were all done in one phase, would be $3.6 million to replace with a new facility 45 Mounds View City Council April 25, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 11 or $1.6 million to make all improvements in two phases. She stated that the dollar amounts 1 include the soft costs and reviewed with Council. She noted that the Police Department could 2 relocate with Ramsey County for $2000 a month during the construction process and the 3 Administration Services would relocate to the Community Center. She stated that construction 4 would begin in July 2005 and continue through January 2006. She stated that they kept the 5 process down to two phases to help keep the soft costs to a minimum. 6 7 Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 10:09 p.m. 8 9 Brian Amundson, 3048 Wooddale Drive, stated that he was curious to know if the basement has 10 ever had flooding issues. He wondered if the costs for changing the space would be better used 11 to microfiche or digitize the documents for storage noting that it would resolve storage and 12 flooding concerns. He acknowledged their concerns regarding the cramped work environment 13 and the ADA issues stating he does understand that working in a cramped workspace is not 14 pleasant but the reality is, the City has to work within their financial means. He stated that he is 15 unclear of the costs for some of the remodeling and asked if the resurfacing is necessary or could 16 it be put off. He noted that dollars were spent from the Street Fund for other expenses and 17 suggested putting the funds back to help pay for City Hall. He asked Council to be frugal with 18 the funds spent on this project. 19 20 Mayor Marty stated that record storage has been an issue for a long time. He explained that the 21 City did have an Intern scanning records for a period of time but the City ran out of funds and 22 was not able to complete the project. He stated that this has been an ongoing issue and agreed 23 that it should be addressed. He referred this issue to a future work session. 24 25 Public Works Director Lee explained that there were issues with ground water and two sump 26 pumps were installed to alleviate the water problem. He stated that an alarm is also in place in 27 the event that both pumps fail. He stated that in terms of record retention, some of the 28 documents have to be physically kept for a period of five years and historical documents can be 29 scanned for storage. 30 31 Mayor Marty acknowledged the concerns Council and residents have expressed with respect to 32 the office space and encouraging frugal spending. He stated that he spoke with SHE regarding 33 the rehabilitation and explained that they are not adding any more space, they are trying to 34 restructure to make the space they have work better. He explained that most of the ceiling is not 35 insulated and the loss of heat in the winter and cool air in the summer has been a very expensive 36 energy source. He reminded Council that different colors of mold, growing in the ducts, was 37 pointed out to Council during their tour of the facilities and this is a health and safety issue that 38 has to be addressed. 39 40 Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 10:18 p.m. 41 42 Council Member Thomas asked where they are at with the process and why they are working 43 with the outside façade at this time. She stated that it was her understanding that the water 44 filtration issues had been addressed. She asked if the front could be done at a later time and deal 45 Mounds View City Council April 25, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 12 with the signage issues right now. 1 2 Mayor Marty reviewed the needs for the front entry façade stating that the vestibule entry area 3 should be fixed. He agreed that they would have to make due with what they have and fix what 4 has to be fixed. He stated that he does not see the Police Department entry or the bathrooms, as 5 an option as they both have to be ADA Compliant. 6 7 Public Works Director Lee reviewed the generator connection stating that it is a connection that 8 runs cable from the generator and outfits the building to accept cable. The building is also being 9 outfitted to use as an emergency facility if necessary and the generator would provide backup 10 power to the building. 11 12 Council Member Thomas asked if there are any tuck-pointing or fascia issues to be addressed on 13 the front of the building. Ms. Schultz stated that there are no tuck-pointing or fascia issues to 14 address. 15 16 Mayor Marty asked if there is any way to fix the vestibule. Ms. Schultz stated no and explained 17 that it is not insulated properly and does not have a barrier to the outside. She stated that this 18 would be bid separately noting that one of the bigger concerns is the type of construction on the 19 wall to the west side. She stated that some tests were done and it appears to be dry but needs to 20 be watched over time. 21 22 Council Member Thomas referenced the roof and asked if there was any discussion regarding the 23 pitch of the roof. 24 25 Ms. Schultz stated that all roofs have pitches and flat roofs can work. She stated that there is a 26 proposal to change this in phases and it is proposed along with the new HVAC systems. She 27 explained that it would be a half-inch per foot noting that if they did a build up or membrane 28 style it would be better than what they currently have. 29 30 Council Member Thomas asked if it could go to two-inches per foot. 31 32 Ms. Schultz confirmed that it could. She assured Council that they would try to get as much as 33 possible without driving up the costs too much. 34 35 Mayor Marty noted that a letter from S.E.H., dated March 23, 2005, references lump sum fees in 36 the amount of $51,800 for the bidding document phase and asked if they have any idea or 37 estimate as to what the reimbursements might be. 38 39 Ms. Schultz stated that they could expect $6500.00 for this size project. 40 41 Council Member Flaherty expressed concerns that they are working with estimated costs. He 42 stated that he would prefer actual costs for the architecture or that it states ‘not to exceed’. He 43 referenced the reimbursable expenses related to project, mileage and meals, stating that typically 44 they do not receive reimbursement for meals and asked if this is common. He asked them to 45 Mounds View City Council April 25, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 13 come up with a solid dollar amount. 1 2 Ms. Schultz explained that the language is very standard. She indicated that normally they would 3 not see any meals as part of their expense. She explained that most of the costs are for the bid 4 process and printing costs for plans and specs. 5 6 Mayor Marty asked what NIC means. 7 8 Ms. Schultz stated that NIC means ‘Not Included in the Contract’. 9 10 D. Resolution 6504 Ordering the City Hall Rehabilitation Project and 11 Authorizing the Preparation of Detailed Plans and Specifications 12 13 MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Marty. To approve Resolution 6504 Ordering the City Hall 14 Rehabilitation Project and Authorizing the Preparation of Detailed Plans and Specifications 15 16 Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried. 17 18 Mayor Marty stated that he has a guest from Tiajong City, Taiwan, staying at his home. He 19 introduced his guest, Tiffany Lee, stating that she works in purchasing for the public 20 administration and they have discussed the possibilities of becoming a sister City. He welcomed 21 Ms. Lee and thanked her for coming to the Council meeting. 22 23 Ms. Lee thanked Mayor Marty for the opportunity to be present at the Council meeting. 24 25 E. Resolution 6503 Step/Longevity Increases for Officer Keith Demarest 26 (4/26/05), Officer Tom Baumgart (5/3/05), and PSO Robin Marion (5/4/05). 27 28 Chief Sommer stated that the Supervisors have reviewed the performance reviews for Officer 29 Keith Demarest, Officer Tom Baumgart and PSO Robin Marion, as outlined by their job 30 descriptions and found that all three have had more than a satisfactory performance. 31 32 MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Gunn. To approve Resolution 6503 Step/Longevity Increases for 33 Officer Keith Demarest (4/26/05), Officer Tom Baumgart (5/3/05), and PSO Robin Marion 34 (5/4/05). 35 36 Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried. 37 38 F. Resolution 6502 Ordering the Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) 39 Installation Project 40 41 Public Works Director Lee explained that one of the tasks associated with the County Road 10 42 corridor improvement is the ordering of the Emergency Vehicle Preemption Installation Project. 43 He provided Council with an overview stating that the work has been completed and the 44 estimated cost to provide is $65,750.00. He explained that the intent is to increase public safety 45 Mounds View City Council April 25, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 14 along the corridor. 1 2 Council Member Gunn stated that she is in favor of this for the safety reasons. 3 4 Council Member Flaherty stated that he is also in favor of the project and asked if there is any 5 opportunity available to get additional funds from the County to pay for this. 6 7 Public Works Director Lee stated that he did discuss the costs with the County and found that the 8 City funds the project. 9 10 Mayor Marty referenced page five of the Bonestroo memo noting that it states that their fee 11 would be reduced if Ramsey County were able to provide personnel to assist in the project. He 12 asked if Ramsey County could help with the inspection. He stated that in the funding section, 13 second paragraph, it states that County/State Highway 10 is a State aid highway, which is where 14 State aid funds could be used. He stated that the approval process could take up to four weeks 15 and that according to Bonestroo it would be cheaper and more efficient if the City does it. He 16 asked if this would cut into the MSA funds. 17 18 Public Works Director Lee stated that they would be using MSA funds and there is a cost 19 associated to it. He indicated that to go through their requirement process would require more 20 work from Bonestroo and it would be at an additional cost. 21 22 Mayor Marty asked if there would be any ramifications or conditions if they were to ask Ramsey 23 County to help with inspection. 24 25 Public Works Director Lee stated that he did discuss the possibilities with Ramsey County and 26 they have agreed to help with inspections. He stated that the agreements should be updated to 27 include maintenance of the EBP System. 28 29 MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Thomas. To approve Resolution 6502 Ordering the Emergency 30 Vehicle Preemption (EVP) Installation Project 31 32 Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried. 33 34 G. Resolution 6500 Authorizing Inter-fund Loans for the Year 2004 and Setting 35 an Interest Rate on Inter-fund Loans for the Year 2005. 36 37 Finance Director Hansen stated that this is the annual exercise for approving interfund loans and 38 continues through to the subsequent year. He stated that the City had four Inter-fund loans 39 adding that two of the loans were resolved in 2004. He stated that going forward the City has 40 two loans, the first is for $30,810.00 to support the TIF District and the second is for 41 $1,293,276.00 to support the golf course. He recommended that the City continue with the 42 interest rate at 3-percent. He explained that if there is a need for funds for any of the projects 43 identified for the TIF District that this would give prior authorization to give funds from the 44 Community Fund to the TIF Districts, if necessary. He stated that as far as the TIF Districts go 45 Mounds View City Council April 25, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 15 the City is looking at no loans by the end of 2005. 1 2 MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Flaherty. To approve Resolution 6500 Authorizing Inter-fund 3 Loans for the Year 2004 and Setting an Interest Rate on Inter-fund Loans for the Year 2005. 4 5 Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried. 6 7 H. Resolution 6506 Adopting an Investment Policy. 8 9 Finance Director Hansen stated that the City Council reviewed the Investment Policy at their 10 March 1, 2005 work session. He stated that he worked to incorporate the improvements and 11 added a new paragraph to the introduction. He noted that Council wanted to place a couple of 12 limits, one for no more than 20-percent of the portfolio invested and the other for 10-percent 13 invested in readily available funds. He stated that both items were incorporated along with other 14 minor terminology changes that were necessary in order to be consistent in the terminology 15 throughout the document. He stated that the terms ‘Finance Director’ and ‘Treasurer’ are used 16 interchangeably and agreed that this should be more consistent. He noted that the annual 17 resolution authorizing personnel to perform banking transactions does not refer to the three 18 people actually authorized. He stated that he would work out the particulars for these two issues 19 and bring the policy back to Council for consideration in two weeks. 20 21 MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Thomas. To postpone a motion for two weeks on Resolution 6506 22 Adopting an Investment Policy. 23 24 Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried. 25 26 I. Police Supervisor Contract 27 28 City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich reviewed the Police Supervisor Contract with Council stating 29 that it is being recommended for adoption by City Council. 30 31 Mayor Marty stated that Staff has been working on the contracts for some time now. He stated 32 that these are the last two and cover 2004 and 2005. 33 34 MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Flaherty To waive the reading and approve resolution 6510. 35 36 Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried. 37 38 MOTION/SECOND. Flaherty/Gunn To ratify contract 6510 of Law enforcers 203. 39 40 Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried. 41 42 10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. 43 44 A. City Council Minutes, March 14, 2005 45 Mounds View City Council April 25, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 16 1 Councilmember Thomas had the following corrections: 2 The following names should be corrected throughout the entire document: 3 Tom Winiecki should be Tom Winicki; 4 Hanson should be Hansen; 5 Amundsen should be Amundson; 6 Berg should be Burg. 7 8 Mayor Marty had the following corrections: 9 Page 3, line 30, should read ‘from, for and in’ 10 Page 9, line 27, last word-change from ‘was’ to ‘were’ 11 Page 15, line 7, shows 5-Ayes, 1 -Nay. It should be ‘4-Ayes, 1 -Nay’. 12 13 Council Member Gunn had the following corrections: 14 Page 7, line 2, missing last name – should be ‘Ihnen’ 15 Page 8, line 9, should be Kimberly Christ 16 17 MOTION/SECOND. Marty/Flaherty. To approve the City Council Minutes of March 14, 2005 18 as amended. 19 20 Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried. 21 22 B. City Council Minutes, March 28, 2005 23 24 Council Member Thomas had the following correction throughout the document: 25 ‘Winiecki’ should be ‘Winicki’ 26 ‘Hanson’ should be ‘Hansen’ 27 ‘Amundsen’ should be ‘Amundson’ 28 Page 9, line 39, should be ‘Werner’ 29 Page 10, should be ‘Werner’; 30 31 Mayor Marty had the following corrections: 32 Page 1, line 16, reads Mayor Marty announced Troop 167; should read ‘Mayor Marty announced 33 Boy Scout Troop 167’ 34 Throughout the document: ‘Amundsen’ should be ‘Amundson’; ‘Hansen’ should be ‘Hanson’ 35 Page 2, line 38, reads ‘He stated’; should read ‘Council Member Stigney stated’ 36 Page 6, line 23, change from ‘bides’ to ‘bids’ 37 Page 7, line 14, change ‘this’ to ‘these’ 38 Page 8, line 34, states ‘Mayor Marty asked if they had looked into’; should state ‘Mayor Marty 39 asked if they had looked into them.’ 40 Page 9, line 2, sentence beginning ‘would be cheaper to use a company’ change ‘don’t’ to 41 ‘didn’t’ 42 Page 11, line 18, name should be spelled ‘Siercks’ 43 Page 13, line 32, name should be spelled ‘Siercks’ 44 Page 14, All of the references to ‘Gary’ should be ‘Gary Nordness’ 45 Mounds View City Council April 25, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 17 Page 15, All blanks for ‘Gary’ continued on from page 14, should be ‘Gary Nordness’ 1 Page 17, line 14, line 23 and line 43, reads ‘Nyles’; should read ‘Nyle Zikmund’ 2 Page 21, line 11, line 25 and line 30, reads ‘Mary Berg’; should read ‘Mary Burg’ 3 Page 21, Line 16, reads ‘some of they flyers’; should read ‘some of the flyers’ 4 5 Council Member Gunn had the following correction: 6 line 37, reads ‘City Attorney Scott’; should read ‘City Attorney Riggs’ 7 8 MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Flaherty. To approve the City Council Minutes of March 28, 2005 9 as amended. 10 11 Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried. 12 13 C. City Council Minutes, April 11, 2005 14 15 Mayor Marty had the following corrections to the minutes: 16 ‘Winiecki’ should be ‘Winicki’ 17 ‘Amundsen’ should be ‘Amundson’ 18 ‘Hansen’ should be ‘Hanson’ 19 ‘Berg’ should be ‘Burg’ 20 21 Council Member Thomas had the following corrections: 22 Page 7, line 41, should read ‘stated that she was not going to start planning a development for 23 someone’s home.’ 24 25 Council Member Gunn had the following corrections to the minutes: 26 Page 7, line 35, Sentence beginning ‘Council Member Gunn’ remove the words ‘to do’ 27 28 MOTION/SECOND. Flaherty/Gunn. To approve the City Council Minutes of April 11, 2005 as 29 amended. 30 31 Ayes-3 Nays-0 Abstain-1 Motion carried. 32 33 D. Executive Session Minutes, April 11, 2005. 34 35 MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Flaherty. To approve the Executive Session Minutes of April 11, 36 2005 as presented. 37 38 Ayes-3 Nays-0 Abstain-1 Motion carried. 39 40 11. REPORTS 41 42 A. Reports of Mayor and Council 43 44 Mounds View City Council April 25, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 18 Mayor Marty stated that he met with the City of Fridley and received a copy of the Feasibility 1 Study they did for Medtronic. He provided the Council with copies of the study for their review. 2 3 B. Staff 4 1. a. Finance Quarterly Report 5 6 Finance Director Hansen provided the Council with an overview of the Financial Report for 2005 7 noting that the 2005 budget has been amended and reviewed three times by Council. He stated 8 that the General Fund ended in a small surplus of approximately $24,000.00 at the end of 2004. 9 He stated that in the Special Projects Fund and EDA Fund the City has revenues from the sale of 10 land to ProCraft. He stated that the MSA Construction Fund has received $527,000.00 in 11 reimbursements from the State of Minnesota, which puts the MSA Fund back on solid footing. 12 He stated that the Bridges Golf Course received their first payment for the billboards and City 13 Council acted, at the end of 2004, to reimburse the golf course for legal costs. He stated that the 14 Finance department has been working on the 2004 audit and plans to be working on renewing the 15 insurance policies to begin July 1, 2005. He stated that the Finance Department received the 16 Certificate of Achievement for Financial Reporting for the 2003 finances. 17 18 Mayor Marty congratulated Finance Director Hansen for receiving the Certificate of 19 Achievement. He stated that this award is the highest form of recognition in government for 20 financial reporting. He thanked the Staff and Auditors for doing a good job in preparing the 21 financial reports. 22 23 b. Investment Quarterly Report 24 25 Finance Director Hansen stated this is the first Investment Quarterly Report noting that City 26 Council would begin receiving this report on a quarterly basis. He explained that he tried to 27 format the report to cover the topics that the Investment Policy states should be reported on 28 quarterly. He reviewed the format with Council and expressed concerns stating that there is talk 29 that the interest rates might be increasing. He discussed investment strategies with Council 30 stating that he tried to shift the focus of the investments to a shorter maturity investment. He 31 explained that this was done in response to the possibility of interest rates increasing. He 32 discussed fair market value and provided Council with a description and overview of the 33 portfolio and remaining term investments. 34 35 Finance Director Hansen stated that he is announcing his resignation. He explained that he has 36 accepted a position with the City of Crystal and assured Council that he would work with Staff 37 through the transition. He thanked everyone for their support and assistance stating that he has 38 enjoyed working with everyone on Staff and Council and his time with the City of Mounds 39 View. 40 41 Mayor Marty thanked Finance Director Hansen for the great work he has done for the City of 42 Mounds View. He explained that Finance Director Hansen has worked hard to institute a 43 number of plans for the City and has done a lot of great work for the City. He stated that the 44 Mounds View City Council April 25, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 19 Council, Staff and Community would miss him and his contributions a great deal. He wished 1 him luck in his new position with the City of Crystal. 2 3 City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich agreed with Mayor Marty adding that Finance Director Hansen 4 has been a great employee and has done an excellent job for the City of Mounds View. He stated 5 that Staff plans to move forward with the recruitment process. 6 7 City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich stated that Jeanette Steeves has resigned noting that she has 8 taken a promotion working with the YMCA in St. Paul. He noted that the Medtronic bill for 9 taxation is scheduled with Taxes tomorrow morning. 10 11 2. Announce the Town Hall Meeting - Saturday, April 30 from 9 a.m. to 12 noon at the Community Center. 13 14 City Administrator Ulrich announced a Town Hall Meeting would be held at the Community 15 Center on Saturday, April 30, 2005 from 9:00 a.m. to Noon. Theme is Mounds View, Past, 16 Present and Future with a history presentation. 17 18 Mayor Marty stated that he spoke with the Bulletin regarding the Town Hall meeting. He stated 19 that this Thursday’s edition of the Mounds View Matters newsletter would have information 20 regarding the Town Hall meeting scheduled for next Saturday, April 30, 2005, from 9:00 a.m. to 21 12:00 p.m. at the Mounds View Community Center. He stated that the meeting is open to the 22 Community and invited everyone to attend. 23 24 Director Erickson stated that the amendment incorporating documents would be published at the 25 EQB Monitor. He stated that the comment period would run from April 26, 2005 to May 17, 26 2005, with the final before Council on May 23, 2005. He stated that copies of the amendment 27 have been provided to Council for their review. 28 29 Director Ericson reviewed the proposed route cuts from the Metropolitan Transit Service stating 30 that Route 25 would be eliminated. He stated that a letter of concern was sent regarding Route 31 25 that explains the concerns of the residents and the City and that the cut would create a severe 32 hardship for the residents. He stated that there would also be a reduction in service from Metro 33 Mobility. He stated that the information has been posted to the City website. 34 35 Director Ericson provided Council with a Code Enforcement Update stating that the Judge did 36 charge a $250.00 fine, as well as 30 days in jail for Item 7098. He noted that the jail sentence 37 was stayed as long as corrections are made to the driveway. 38 39 Mayor Marty asked if City Council should show the City’s concerns regarding the bus service 40 cuts by sending a resolution to the Metropolitan Council. 41 42 Director Ericson stated that some Communities have sent resolutions to the Metropolitan 43 Council. He explained that the comment period is concluding on May 1, 2005 and they would 44 want to include all public comments in the resolution. He stated that he could draft a resolution 45 Mounds View City Council April 25, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 20 to be considered at the next meeting noting that it would not be done in time to meet the 1 deadline. He stated that if Council is comfortable, Staff could draft a resolution based on this 2 evening’s discussion and include the motion with the resolution. He stated that he would provide 3 the Council with a copy of the resolution for their review. 4 5 MOTION\SECOND Marty/Flaherty To approve the resolution regarding the Metropolitan 6 Transit Bus cuts in the City of Mounds View and forward said resolution to the Metropolitan 7 Council. 8 9 Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried. 10 11 B. Reports of City Attorney 12 13 None. 14 15 12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, May 2, 2005 at 7 p.m. 16 Next Council Meeting: Monday, May 9, 2005 at 7 p.m. 17 18 13. ADJOURNMENT 19 20 The meeting recessed to an Executive Session to discuss and consider the sale of real property 21 commonly known as The Bridges Golf Course, and a buyout offer of the billboard signs at 11:50 22 p.m. 23 24 Transcribed and recorded by: 25 26 27 Bonnie Sullivan 28 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 29 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Executive Session Date: 04/25/05 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 Time: 7:48 pm 1. 7:48 pm EXECUTIVE SESSION IS CALLED TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Marty, Flaherty, Thomas and Gunn (Stigney – Absent) 3. UNION NEGOTIATIONS The City Council and City Administrator Ulrich discussed current union negotiations. 4. 822 pm MEETING ADJOURNED Respectfully Submitted: Kurt Ulrich City Ad ministrator